Vote buying and selling have become more sophisticated over time. Voters are now more selective, and sellers have adapted their tactics and demands. Voters no longer passively trust that sellers will act ethically. This shift is partly because some sellers secretly accept money and then vote according to their conscience. This has led to the phenomenon of ‘see, buy, and pay’: vote for a candidate, provide proof, and get paid. Ironically, some who previously encouraged voters to accept money and vote freely now condemn this practice as a threat to democracy. Many of these individuals belonged to parties that once supported vote buying and selling but now claim to have ‘seen the light”. Despite this, the issue of ‘see and buy’ remains complex and impacts all parties involved.
Electoral infractions and offences in our electoral process are real, and we cannot address them through hypocritical grandstanding or opportunistic claims to moral superiority. They pose a clear and immediate threat, constantly evolving at every stage. Practitioners have stayed ahead of the electoral management body; as reforms are introduced, they adapt their methods.
Encouraged by their tactics, some fraudulent schemes have become more sophisticated, adopting names that make them sound less objectionable and are now viewed as part of the electoral norm. To combat vote buying and selling—the so-called ‘see and buy’—we must face them directly and stop humanising them to make them seem less offensive. We also need to address other forms of electoral fraud and violence and hold those responsible accountable instead of glorifying them. It is vital to recognise that some individuals, driven by vulnerability or greed, actively seek out vote buyers to sell their votes. More importantly, these challenges may persist until Nigerians pressure the political elite to embrace the democratic spirit. Those operating in secrecy and involved in electoral misconduct must be identified and punished.
Electoral infractions of various kinds and complexities have existed since independence. This is not a recent development, and vote buying and selling cannot be singled out or portrayed as the most significant electoral theft. The country’s electoral issues have led to numerous inquiries and reforms: the Babalakin Commission (1986), the Uwais Panel (2007/2008), the Lemu Panel (2011), the 2014 National Conference, and the Nnamani Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee (2016).
The Babalakin Commission of Inquiry provides a clearer understanding of electoral offences in Nigeria. It identified 16 infractions that compromised the integrity of the 1983 general elections, including: compilation of fictitious names; illegal compilation of separate voters’ lists; abuse of the revision exercise; illegal printing of voters’ cards; illegal possession of ballot boxes; stuffing ballot boxes with ballot papers; falsification of results; thumb-printing of ballot papers; underage voting; printing of Forms EC8 and EC8A; deliberate refusal to supply election materials; announcing results where no elections took place; unauthorised declaration of results; harassment of candidates, agents, and voters; alteration of the list of electoral officials; box-switching; and inflation of figures.
Later, some politicians recognised the impact of so-called ‘electoral empowerment’ and entered communities, distributing foodstuffs, motorcycles, and other household items to potential voters. These items were sometimes used to buy voters’ cards in ‘enemy territory’.
The Electoral Reform Committee (2007–2008) also addressed electoral malpractices. It argued that moneybags and godfathers flourish where the state is absent and urged the government to prioritise comprehensive service delivery to prevent desperate politicians from exploiting public needs to intimidate and blackmail the people. It recommended strict sanctions for electoral misconduct and penalties for political parties that exhibit tendencies towards violence or intolerance—whether in ideology, policy, or candidate selection. As a long-term measure, it called for the political socialisation of the youth in schools and the political education of adults to help them understand the consequences of electoral fraud and violence.
The Main Report of the Federal Government Investigation Panel on the 2011 Election Violence and Civil Disturbances (September 2011) highlighted allegations of rigging as a core issue. It identified a widespread perception that the presidential election was manipulated in favour of the incumbent. According to the report, “government officials and politicians were alleged to have openly influenced voters and rigged the election directly.” There were claims that civil servants, including permanent secretaries, were financially mobilised and assigned to “deliver” their wards; accusations of openly buying voters’ cards; and complaints of underage voting. Conversely, some individuals claimed they were prevented from exercising their rights. Whether true or not, these allegations influenced public attitudes during the elections and impacted the subsequent results.
With each election, professional riggers sharpened their skills. Some parties and candidates allocated funds for vote buying and called it ‘logistics’. Before the era of ‘logistics’, middlemen, consultants, and entrepreneurs collected funds to distribute before elections; some embezzled or ‘altered’ them, and much never reached the voters—leading to punishments often reflected in election results. Some even ‘altered’ the rice, beans, Maggi, and other food items meant for voters. Wards and communities that did not receive the ‘logistics’ grew frustrated and cast ‘incorrect’ votes at the polls. This trust deficit contributed to the rising phenomenon of vote selling and buying.
As an election observer at a polling station, I encountered a woman who wanted to sell her vote. She approached the party offering ₦5,000; they declined. She then tried those offering ₦3,000 and ₦2,000; after checking her voter’s card, they refused. She then asked the election observers if there was something wrong with her card, as she was eager to vote. We checked and found that she was still using the old voter’s card, which was not machine-readable and held no electoral value.
At a primary school within one of the state’s housing estates, officials arrived and set up as voters gathered. However, by midday, not a single vote had been cast. Most voters stood by the roadside, gazing in one direction and waiting for “the person holding our money”. It cuts both ways. The political elite exploit poverty and vulnerability — as well as the greed of some individuals — to continue electoral heists.
The truth is that buying and selling votes, or ‘see and buy’, are not the only malpractices in our system. Technology has not solved the problem; riggers have devised, and continue to devise, ways to bypass technology and corrupt the process. Voters can only sell their votes if they can access polling units; a toxic electoral environment makes it impossible for them to do so. In our present circumstances, voter suppression is a powerful tool, and very few people can summon the courage to stand up to those involved in violence.
There must be a thorough evaluation of the electoral process and a genuine commitment from the political elite to follow the rules. Focusing on one type of fraud while ignoring others in deceptive disguises will not cleanse our elections. We need the courage to punish those who do not believe in democracy and its principles.
Electoral infractions and offences in our electoral process are real, and we cannot address them through hypocritical grandstanding or opportunistic claims to moral superiority. They pose a clear and immediate threat, constantly evolving at every stage. Practitioners have stayed ahead of the electoral management body; as reforms are introduced, they adapt their methods.
Encouraged by their tactics, some fraudulent schemes have become more sophisticated, adopting names that make them sound less objectionable and are now viewed as part of the electoral norm. To combat vote buying and selling—the so-called ‘see and buy’—we must face them directly and stop humanising them to make them seem less offensive. We also need to address other forms of electoral fraud and violence and hold those responsible accountable instead of glorifying them. It is vital to recognise that some individuals, driven by vulnerability or greed, actively seek out vote buyers to sell their votes. More importantly, these challenges may persist until Nigerians pressure the political elite to embrace the democratic spirit. Those operating in secrecy and involved in electoral misconduct must be identified and punished.
Electoral infractions of various kinds and complexities have existed since independence. This is not a recent development, and vote buying and selling cannot be singled out or portrayed as the most significant electoral theft. The country’s electoral issues have led to numerous inquiries and reforms: the Babalakin Commission (1986), the Uwais Panel (2007/2008), the Lemu Panel (2011), the 2014 National Conference, and the Nnamani Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee (2016).
The Babalakin Commission of Inquiry provides a clearer understanding of electoral offences in Nigeria. It identified 16 infractions that compromised the integrity of the 1983 general elections, including: compilation of fictitious names; illegal compilation of separate voters’ lists; abuse of the revision exercise; illegal printing of voters’ cards; illegal possession of ballot boxes; stuffing ballot boxes with ballot papers; falsification of results; thumb-printing of ballot papers; underage voting; printing of Forms EC8 and EC8A; deliberate refusal to supply election materials; announcing results where no elections took place; unauthorised declaration of results; harassment of candidates, agents, and voters; alteration of the list of electoral officials; box-switching; and inflation of figures.
Later, some politicians recognised the impact of so-called ‘electoral empowerment’ and entered communities, distributing foodstuffs, motorcycles, and other household items to potential voters. These items were sometimes used to buy voters’ cards in ‘enemy territory’.
The Electoral Reform Committee (2007–2008) also addressed electoral malpractices. It argued that moneybags and godfathers flourish where the state is absent and urged the government to prioritise comprehensive service delivery to prevent desperate politicians from exploiting public needs to intimidate and blackmail the people. It recommended strict sanctions for electoral misconduct and penalties for political parties that exhibit tendencies towards violence or intolerance—whether in ideology, policy, or candidate selection. As a long-term measure, it called for the political socialisation of the youth in schools and the political education of adults to help them understand the consequences of electoral fraud and violence.
The Main Report of the Federal Government Investigation Panel on the 2011 Election Violence and Civil Disturbances (September 2011) highlighted allegations of rigging as a core issue. It identified a widespread perception that the presidential election was manipulated in favour of the incumbent. According to the report, “government officials and politicians were alleged to have openly influenced voters and rigged the election directly.” There were claims that civil servants, including permanent secretaries, were financially mobilised and assigned to “deliver” their wards; accusations of openly buying voters’ cards; and complaints of underage voting. Conversely, some individuals claimed they were prevented from exercising their rights. Whether true or not, these allegations influenced public attitudes during the elections and impacted the subsequent results.
With each election, professional riggers sharpened their skills. Some parties and candidates allocated funds for vote buying and called it ‘logistics’. Before the era of ‘logistics’, middlemen, consultants, and entrepreneurs collected funds to distribute before elections; some embezzled or ‘altered’ them, and much never reached the voters—leading to punishments often reflected in election results. Some even ‘altered’ the rice, beans, Maggi, and other food items meant for voters. Wards and communities that did not receive the ‘logistics’ grew frustrated and cast ‘incorrect’ votes at the polls. This trust deficit contributed to the rising phenomenon of vote selling and buying.
As an election observer at a polling station, I encountered a woman who wanted to sell her vote. She approached the party offering ₦5,000; they declined. She then tried those offering ₦3,000 and ₦2,000; after checking her voter’s card, they refused. She then asked the election observers if there was something wrong with her card, as she was eager to vote. We checked and found that she was still using the old voter’s card, which was not machine-readable and held no electoral value.
At a primary school within one of the state’s housing estates, officials arrived and set up as voters gathered. However, by midday, not a single vote had been cast. Most voters stood by the roadside, gazing in one direction and waiting for “the person holding our money”. It cuts both ways. The political elite exploit poverty and vulnerability — as well as the greed of some individuals — to continue electoral heists.
The truth is that buying and selling votes, or ‘see and buy’, are not the only malpractices in our system. Technology has not solved the problem; riggers have devised, and continue to devise, ways to bypass technology and corrupt the process. Voters can only sell their votes if they can access polling units; a toxic electoral environment makes it impossible for them to do so. In our present circumstances, voter suppression is a powerful tool, and very few people can summon the courage to stand up to those involved in violence.
There must be a thorough evaluation of the electoral process and a genuine commitment from the political elite to follow the rules. Focusing on one type of fraud while ignoring others in deceptive disguises will not cleanse our elections. We need the courage to punish those who do not believe in democracy and its principles.
