MONEY is debasing politics in Nigeria. With a presidential nomination form going for N100 million in the ruling party and N51 million in a PDP faction, the middle class is automatically filtered out. This leaves only the moneybags to decide the fate of over 237 million people. This systematic assault on democracy is dangerous. Therefore, Nigeria must de-monetise politics.
Ahead of the 2027 general elections, Nigeria is making the most uncomfortable headlines. A governorship form costs N50 million in a country where the minimum wage is N70,000.
A senatorial aspirant must find N30 million in cash, paid upfront, before a single vote is cast. This is not democracy; it is a bazaar, where the highest bidder captures power and the keys to the public treasury.
This mercantilist system strips people of their right to participate in running the country. The door is slammed against a university professor earning about N600,000 monthly.
It would take him decades—without spending a kobo—before he can afford a presidential nomination form.
The message is blunt: intellect, competence, and vision are irrelevant; only liquidity counts. The same exclusion applies to doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, and civil society leaders who lack access to vast personal fortunes, often accumulated through crime.
This monetised gateway has captured the political process for the super-rich. It entrenches a system of “godfathers” who bankroll forms and campaigns, installing stooges in office.
Governance becomes a debt to be serviced, not a duty to be performed. Public office is treated as an investment to be recouped, handsomely, through patronage, inflated contracts, and outright corruption.
Consequently, elections are marred by vote-buying and ballot manipulation, with post-election litigation often determining outcomes.
The judiciary, expected to be the last defence, has too frequently been drawn into this cycle, undermining public confidence.
Nigeria’s trajectory contrasts sharply with practices elsewhere. In many African countries, nomination fees exist but are far more modest.
In Ghana, presidential form fees have been in the tens of thousands of cedis, not millions. Parliamentary fees are significantly lower.
In Kenya, parties charge nomination fees that are nowhere near Nigeria’s astronomical levels.
In South Africa, the president is chosen by the parliament, at no cost to the candidate.
In the United Kingdom, the barrier is minimal: a parliamentary candidate pays a £500 deposit, refundable if they secure at least 5.0 per cent of the vote.
In the United States, many candidates largely qualify through grassroots support—rather than large fees. The lesson is clear: credible democracies prioritise evidence of public support over proof of private wealth.
Nigeria must learn. Democracy is not strengthened by pricing out citizens.
Countries with the most respected electoral systems, from the Nordics to Canada and New Zealand, emphasise transparency, low barriers to entry, independent oversight, and strict campaign finance rules.
Within Africa, Botswana, Ghana, Cabo Verde, Namibia, and Mauritius have earned a reputation for credible elections due to consistent administration, stronger institutions, and clearer rules that limit the influence of money.
Global democracy assessments classify Nigeria as a “hybrid regime,” reflecting persistent flaws in electoral integrity, rule of law, and political participation.
Electoral integrity indices have repeatedly scored Nigeria below global averages, citing irregularities, vote buying, and weak enforcement. Transparency measures continue to flag political finance as a high-risk area.
In terms of the cost of party nomination forms, Nigeria ranks among the highest globally. Nowhere else are prospective candidates required to pay N100 million merely to enter the race. That distinction is damning enough.
The political class must be told, in unmistakable terms, that this mercantilist order is illegitimate.
Democracy belongs to the people, not to a cartel of financiers. The National Assembly must enact clear statutory caps on nomination fees across all parties and offices.
The electoral umpire must be empowered and willing to enforce those caps as a condition for party participation in elections.
Parties that flout the rules should face sanctions, including the disqualification of their candidates.
Nigeria should adopt mechanisms that prioritise public support over private wealth: mandatory signature thresholds, transparent small-donor fundraising, and spending limits with real-time disclosure.
Critically, independent candidacy should be introduced, giving credible Nigerians a path to office outside party oligarchies.
The electoral offences commission must be empowered. The judiciary must deliver timely, consistent judgements that deter impunity rather than reward it.
In Nigeria, party members once funded their organisations through modest dues and collective effort. That model fostered accountability.
Today, moneybags have replaced members. In doing so, they have elevated themselves to demigods. Prospective voters are also complicit, always ready to trade votes for cash, food or drinks. This inversion must end.
If Nigeria persists with pay-to-play politics, it will continue to recycle mediocrity and entrench corruption. If it dismantles the cash barriers, a new generation of leaders—grounded in ideas, competence, and service—will emerge.
