In its recent national elections, Nigeria experienced one of its lowest voter turnouts since the end of military rule in 1999. With official results showing only approximately 27 percent of registered voters cast their ballot for a presidential candidate, this appallingly low turnout is not unexpected when looking at recent election cycles considering Nigeria’s history with rampant white collar crime integrated into its political climate. Corruption is by far the most common manifestation of white collar crime in many developing countries because it does not rely on methods that are clearly defined as “illegal,” therefore making it difficult for corrupt individuals and systems to be dismantled. Though corruption in Nigeria has slowly fallen over the years, they are still ranked 154 out of 180 countries on the Transparency International corruption perception index, indicating the prevalence of corruption throughout the country. The inability to address the prevalence of political corruption has had serious effects on voter turnout, as individuals lose faith that their vote matters in Nigerian democracy.

Since Nigeria officially claimed independence from Britain in 1960, the negative effects of colonialism, including political corruption, have established themselves as malignant presences on the backbone of Nigeria’s democratic process. The three front runners in this year’s election, Bola Tinubu, Atiku Abubakar, and Peter Obi, all faced separate accusations regarding crimes relating to illegal trade in narcotics, money laundering, and global tax evasion. Though none were officially convicted of those crimes and there are no official records regarding their personal finances, these men are considered to hold enough wealth to cover up any supposed wrongdoings.  

This is not to say, however, that some valid allegations have not been raised against these men. In fact, a 1993 U.S. Department of Justice document alleged that current Nigerian President Tinubu possessed accounts holding money from the distribution of white heroin along with evidence of money laundering. Though the court confirmed their reasoning behind the charges, Tinubu continued to deny his involvement and a final decision regarding the origins of the money in his account was never made, largely attributed to the other parties involved who denied all allegations of wrongdoing. Failure to bring Tinubu and other prominent politicians to justice for their crimes has created the sense that those with significant connections are able to absolve themselves of wrongdoing, which only furthers the illegitimacy of the vote. 

Another lesser known aspect of corruption lies in the incumbent candidate's network, or rather the network of the Nigerian Television Authority. Privileges held by the federal government provide unfair advantages to the party already in power because they control the supposedly impartial Nigerian Television Authority, meaning they decide the amount of airtime available to the representatives of other political parties. To this point, both former President Muhammadu Buhari and current President Tinubu are members of the All Progressives Congress, which indicates an inherent bias towards the continuation of that party's time in power. This impedes the validity of their democracy because one party has the ability to control what propaganda and information is publicly broadcasted to most of Nigeria. This disregard for the concept of a fair election process is not uncommon in situations like these, as the same ears hearing the complaints of the people are the very individuals perpetuating the problem.

Other claims regarding potential threats to democratic practice include accusations of electoral doctoring and rigging stemming from reported vote counts at polling units that do not match results released by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), ultimately favoring the current ruling All Progressive Congress party. INEC has also played an instrumental role in deterring individuals, specifically eligible youth voters, from believing in the democratic process by failing to abide by the agreed on election process and refusing to address unprofessional conduct from actors participating in the presidential election process. 

Though Tinubu technically won the presidential election with 37 percent of the total vote, his large economic and political sphere of influence stemming from white collar criminal activity allowed him to use his connections to secure his victory in most states in his home region. Tinubu’s reputation as a political godfather - a powerful figure who influences the outcomes of elections - precedes him and can be tied to his ability to ensure his own victory in the election. Despite this, there are still many, including former candidate Abubakar, who hold the opinion that his methods of obtaining power through his influence are undemocratic and prevent other, more well-suited candidates from winning the popular vote, an idea that will likely continue to haunt the people of Nigeria throughout Tinubu’s rule.

More From Our Writers