Stakeholders have expressed grave concern over whopping N135.22 billion budgeted for post 2027 election lawsuits.
They say apart from being outrageous, it portends serious danger, of possible election rigging where the will and choice of electorate may not be respected.
“At a time Nigerians are craving for true democracy where the choices of electorate would be respected, rather than the judiciary making the pronouncement and declaring winners, possibly, based on technicalities, budgeting such a humongous amount for adjudication resulting from disputes over election results, portend dangers for our fledging democracy,says political analyst, who preferred anonymity.
The analysts say, with the full compliments of justice ministry under the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, who are paid with taxpayers money and over one trillion naira allocation to the Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), the proposal amounts to misallocation of resources and exposes the staff to corruption and corrupt practices.
Beside, they further argue that, in most cases, it’s the individuals who sue INEC, for alleged malpractice that foot the bills, and also, the Commission and government usually as joined defenders, for which the civil servants should be able to represent appropriately.
Specifically the Federal Government of Nigeria, (FGN) has proposed N135.22 billion in the 2026 budget for electoral adjudication and post-election matters, highlighting anticipated costs tied to election-related legal processes.
The provision, contained in the House of Representatives Order Paper of March 31, 2026, forms part of the 2026 Appropriation Bill. It falls under the Service-Wide Votes, a centrally managed fund used to cover obligations not assigned to specific ministries, departments, or agencies.
The allocation relates to expected legal disputes, settlements, and administrative processes linked to elections.
Analysis of the budget document, according to Arise Television news shows yhat the provision is included within the Consolidated Revenue Fund charges, which total N3.70 trillion, with the electoral adjudication component accounting for about 3.65 per cent of that segment.
The allocation comes alongside a proposed N1.01 trillion statutory transfer to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which represents 21 per cent of total statutory transfers.
Earlier projections by INEC indicated a requirement of N873.78 billion to conduct the 2027 general elections, alongside N171 billion for its 2026 operations, reflecting a significant increase compared to funding for the 2023 elections.
However, the proposed allocation has drawn reactions from opposition parties and civil society organisations, who questioned its size and implications.
The Peoples Democratic Party National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, said:
“It means that INEC itself is anticipating that it will not do well and that people will not accept the outcome of the results. Because if INEC becomes very transparent, post-election litigation will be reduced drastically. It is the lack of transparency and the obvious opacity of INEC during elections that result in post-election litigation.
“However, INEC, in every election, is meant to be neutral. So I am wondering what they are funding.”
Also reacting, the African Democratic Congress Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, acknowledged the need for preparation but questioned the scale of the allocation, noting concerns about accountability and expected litigation levels.
Political economist, Prof Pat Utomi, said:
“It is not the Federal Government that goes to elections, it is the individual candidates, so why should the Federal Government have a budget for it? They should not.”
He added:
“If the budget is for INEC, then it should be in the INEC budget, not the FG’s budget. Although the budget process in Nigeria is broken and has been a pure mess,”
Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), also criticised the provision, stating:
“It is on the very high side. Apart from the fact that INEC has its legal department that services all its offices in the 36 states of the Federation, INEC does not pay more than N3m per brief, even to a senior advocate. This is due to the fact that INEC maintains a neutral position in the majority of pre-election cases.”
He added:
“In 2023, INEC was joined as a party in less than 3,500 pre-election cases, election petitions, and appeals arising from them,”
“With the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts in the internal affairs of political parties, the number of pre-election cases will be substantially reduced, and if INEC conducts credible elections, there may be few election petitions and appeals,”
“Altogether, INEC may not spend up to N20 billion on election legal battles,”
Civil society groups also raised concerns over the implication of the allocation. The Executive Director of #FixPolitics Africa, Anthony Ubani, said:
“The N135.22bn allocation for post-election legal battles is a troubling signal about the state of our democracy”.
He added:
“Yes, electoral disputes are normal, and the judiciary must be funded. But when a country begins to budget this heavily for post-election litigation, it suggests that elections are no longer expected to be trusted; they are expected to be contested.
“A credible electoral system should settle outcomes at the ballot box, not in the courtroom. But in Nigeria, elections are increasingly fought in three stages: primaries, voting day, and then the tribunal. This weakens public confidence and shifts the real battleground away from the people,”
“When politicians believe the final outcome will be decided in court, compliance drops, manipulation increases, and the system begins to reward strategy over integrity. Instead of fixing the root causes, weak electoral laws, poor transparency, weak enforcement, and flawed processes, we are budgeting to manage the consequences. That is backward.”
Other stakeholders, including Debo Adeniran of the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership, and Auwal Rafsanjani of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, also questioned the rationale behind the allocation, stressing the need for electoral transparency and efficient use of public funds.
They maintained that credible elections would significantly reduce post-election litigation and associated costs, while urging authorities to prioritise reforms that strengthen trust in the electoral process.
