Cash for VotesWhen When politicians promise cash for winning elections, where does political mobilisation end and electoral bribery begin? That question has returned with the pledge by Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister Nyesom Wike to pay ₦10 million to each councillor who delivers his ward for President Bola Tinubu in 2027. Similar promises by Tinubu in 2019 and Anambra State Governor Charles Soludo in 2025 suggest a recurring practice that Nigeria’s electoral authorities can no longer afford to leave unexplained.Speaking at a Rainbow Coalition stakeholders’ meeting in Kwali Area Council, Abuja, on November 9, 2026, Wike urged councillors to mobilise voters and secure victory for Tinubu. He promised ₦10 million to each councillor who delivered his ward.Wike later defended the pledge as a performance reward, comparing it to bonuses paid to successful footballers. The National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Nentawe Yilwatda, also defended the arrangement, arguing that payment would come after the election.But the timing of payment does not settle the question of electoral inducement. More troubling is that Wike’s promise is not an isolated incident.In February 2019, Tinubu, then National Leader of the APC, reportedly promised financial rewards to party members who delivered their polling units for President Muhammadu Buhari. Speaking at the Police College in Ikeja, Lagos, Tinubu explained that he preferred rewarding successful mobilisation rather than distributing money before elections without any assurance of results.Although the amount was not specified, the principle was clear: deliver victory and receive a financial reward.In October 2025, Anambra State Governor Charles Soludo promised ₦1 million for every ward won by the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) in the November 8 governorship election. He also announced additional rewards for the best-performing wards.Soludo defended the promise as an incentive for political participation. However, opposition politicians and civil society organisations questioned whether such rewards amounted to electoral inducement.Interestingly, some APC officials criticised Soludo’s promise, yet the party’s national chairman has defended Wike’s similar proposal. This inconsistency raises questions about whether political parties judge electoral conduct by the law or by whose political interests are served.Taken together, the promises by Tinubu, Soludo and Wike reveal a recurring approach to political mobilisation: electoral victory is made the condition for financial reward. The practice risks turning grassroots politics into a contest in which local organisers have personal financial stakes in the outcome.That is the central concern. Political parties are entitled to pay campaign workers and finance legitimate mobilisation. But when substantial rewards depend specifically on winning polling units or wards, the incentives deserve closer examination. They could encourage aggressive competition and, without proper safeguards, improper attempts to influence voters.Wike’s position as FCT Minister adds another dimension. Where will the money come from? Will the payments be made from personal resources, party contributions or other funds? Will councillors receive the rewards personally, and how will the expenditure be declared?There is no established evidence that public funds would finance the promise. Nevertheless, transparency is essential, particularly when public officials are involved.The Electoral Act 2026, signed into law by President Tinubu on February 18, provides a legal basis for examining the controversy.Section 125 prohibits corrupt gifts, offers or promises intended to induce another person to procure, or attempt to procure, the election of a candidate or the vote of an elector. Importantly, the law covers promises themselves, meaning that payment after an election does not automatically place an arrangement beyond legal scrutiny.However, the Act also permits genuine campaign expenses. The decisive question is whether the proposed payment is legitimate compensation for lawful political work or a corrupt inducement to secure an electoral outcome. Wike’s announcement alone does not establish criminal guilt; evidence of the prohibited purpose would be necessary.Section 131, dealing with undue influence, could also become relevant if evidence emerged that the rewards were connected to improper efforts to influence individual voters.The responsibility for clarifying these issues should not be left to politicians defending their own conduct. The Independent National Electoral Commission and relevant law-enforcement agencies should explain the applicable rules and investigate where sufficient grounds exist.Previous promises deserve similar examination. Were Tinubu’s 2019 rewards paid? Did Soludo fulfil his 2025 pledges? Were such payments properly recorded and disclosed? Without answers, the public cannot assess whether these arrangements complied with electoral financing requirements.The larger issue is the gradual acceptance of financial rewards tied to electoral victories. In a political environment already troubled by allegations of vote-buying and misuse of public resources, normalising such incentives without transparent rules could weaken confidence in elections.The fact that similar promises have come from politicians associated with different parties makes consistent enforcement especially important. Conduct should not be condemned when practised by opponents and defended when adopted by political allies.Nigeria’s electoral authorities must therefore clarify where lawful campaign incentives end and corrupt inducement begins. Political parties need clear guidance, while the public deserves transparency about the financing and conditions of electoral rewards.The issue is not whether politicians should reward hard work. It is whether electoral victories can become the basis for personal cash bonuses without undermining the safeguards against bribery. If the law permits such arrangements, the authorities should explain why. If it prohibits them, enforcement must be consistent. What Nigeria cannot afford is an electoral system in which the legality of financial inducements depends on the political influence of those making the promises.
