The proposed allocation of ₦135.22 billion for post-election litigation ahead of the 2027 general elections has drawn widespread criticism, with ActionAid Nigeria warning that the move reflects deep concerns about electoral governance and national priorities.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, the civil society organisation described the provision as excessive and troubling, arguing that it suggests an expectation of widespread electoral disputes rather than a commitment to credible and transparent elections.
ActionAid Nigeria said the budgetary allocation amounts to an implicit acknowledgement that Nigeria’s electoral system may produce conflicts destined for judicial resolution, a trend it warned could undermine democratic integrity and public confidence.
“This is not just a budgetary concern; it is a governance crisis,” the group stated, noting that the scale of the proposed spending is unprecedented when compared to previous election cycles.
Data from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) shows that litigation and prosecution costs were about ₦2.104 billion in 2022 and ₦3.087 billion in 2023 following the last general elections. The sharp increase to ₦135 billion, the organisation argued, raises critical questions about transparency, planning, and accountability.
The group cautioned that institutionalising such high expenditure on post-election disputes could entrench a cycle of flawed elections followed by costly legal battles, placing additional strain on public finances and the judiciary, while also increasing the cost of political participation.
Country Director of ActionAid Nigeria, Andrew Mamedu, said the development reflects a shift toward managing electoral crises rather than preventing them. He pointed to persistent gaps in Nigeria’s electoral framework, particularly within the Electoral Act 2022, which became evident during the 2023 elections.
Among the key concerns, he highlighted the lack of clarity around the electronic transmission of results—an issue widely advocated for by civil society groups but yet to be comprehensively addressed.
According to Mamedu, mandating real-time electronic transmission would significantly reduce human interference, limit manipulation during collation, and help restore public trust in election outcomes.
“The failure to close these gaps has consequences,” he said. “What we are witnessing now is the cost of ignoring practical, evidence-based reforms that could have prevented disputes in the first place.”
Beyond electoral implications, ActionAid Nigeria described the allocation as a misalignment of national priorities, particularly in light of ongoing socio-economic challenges. The group noted that with millions of Nigerians facing inadequate healthcare, insecurity, and underfunded education systems, the decision raises concerns about the government’s responsiveness to citizens’ needs.
The organisation also warned that such spending could deepen public disillusionment and erode trust in democratic institutions if left unaddressed.
It called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to withhold assent to the budget in its current form and initiate a comprehensive review. While acknowledging the necessity of funding election-related litigation in any democracy, the group maintained that the proposed amount is disproportionately high.
ActionAid Nigeria urged the government to prioritise strengthening electoral systems before elections rather than preparing to manage disputes afterward, and to redirect excess funds to critical sectors such as health and education.
“The real test of electoral integrity is not how many cases are won in court,” the statement concluded, “but how few disputes arise in the first place.”
