By Douglas Baye-Osagie
The choice of words by the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike after the Osun election is disturbing. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the place of power in a democracy.
Wike in a press conference said that if President Tinubu had wanted to win Osun “at all costs”, he would have been involved and that Adeleke’s victory showed the Federal Government did not use its influence to manipulate the election.
He — and indeed, not even the President — has the power to determine the outcomes of elections. That power resides solely with the people.
To suggest otherwise is to reduce elections to a contest of influence rather than a contest of ideas, service, and public trust.
Free and credible elections are not a concession granted by the President. They are the constitutional baseline of any democracy.
Section 14(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria_ says:
“the participation by the people in their government shall be ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”_
What this means in three simple terms:
1. Sovereignty belongs to the people – Government derives its power and authority from the people.
2. Right to participate- Citizens must be given real avenues to take part in governance: voting, contesting, holding leaders accountable.
3. It’s not optional – It’s a constitutional duty for the state and its institutions to create conditions for free participation. Elections, representation, and access to government must not be blocked or manipulated.
By that standard, free and credible elections are not a “favor” from the President or government. They are a constitutional requirement.
For a democrat, suggesting that the non-interference of the Federal Government in the Osun election was a benevolent act misses the point entirely. Non-interference is not generosity. It is compliance. It is the law.
The role of the President, INEC, and all state institutions is not to decide election outcomes, but to ensure that the will of the people, freely expressed, prevails.
INEC itself affirmed its commitment to free, fair and credible elections ahead of the poll. That commitment must be matched by conduct at every level of government.
When institutions do what they are mandated to do, it should not be framed as a favor. It should be framed as duty performed.
We must commend systems where incumbency is not used to predetermine results. But commendation must not blur the standard.
The absence of manipulation is not a virtue to be celebrated — it is the minimum standard expected in a constitutional democracy.
Democracy is not sustained by favors. It is sustained by institutions that respect the sovereign right of citizens to choose their leaders._
A free election is therefore not a gift from government to the people. It is the fundamental obligation of the government to the people.
As Nelson Mandela said:
“To deny people their right to vote is to deny their right to have a say in the affairs of those who govern them.”_
And as _Kofi Annan_ said:
“No one is born a good citizen; no nation is born a democracy. Rather, both are processes that continue to evolve over a lifetime. Young people must be included from birth.”_
When we begin to applaud leaders for “allowing” the people to vote, we normalize the very interference we claim to reject.
That is why the conversation must shift from personalities to processes. From discretion to rules. From influence to institutions.
For this reason, the continuous call to minimize human interference and strengthen technology-driven collation is not a call for anarchy.
It is a call to protect the integrity of the ballot and deepen citizens’ democratic rights. Technology, when properly deployed, reduces unnecessary suspicion and increases transparency.
Our democracy will only grow when citizens trust that their vote will count. Kudos to the INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, and the Commission for their commitment to credible polls, and to all public officials who understand that their role is to serve the outcome, not to shape it. Though marred by pre election violence, the standard set in Osun should not be lowered.
The Osun election must therefore be remembered not for who “allowed” what, but for what it proved: that when institutions work, the will of the people will prevail.
Until we stop treating constitutional duty as magnanimity, we will keep having this debate after every election.
Douglas Baye-Osagie
dbayeosagie@yahoo.com
