Special to USAfrica magazine (Houston) and USAfricaonline.com, the first African-owned, US-based newspaper published on the Internet.
•Dr. Eke, a contributing analyst to USAfricaonline.com, has been a general Medical practitioner, Medical missionary, Medical Director and senior Medical officer. He specialises in child, adolescent and adult psychiatry. He is also interested in religion, philosophy and politics.
The central question is no longer whether Nigeria faces a democratic crisis, but whether corrective action—domestic and international—will come before institutional decay becomes irreversible. How long can a system endure when power is insulated from accountability and citizens are increasingly excluded from meaningful political choice?
The current February 2026 controversy surrounding Nigeria’s Senate and its proposed changes to how electoral results are transmitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has revealed a deeply troubling reality. Rather than strengthening democratic safeguards, the proposed legal framework still appears designed to make election results vulnerable to alteration or substitution before they reach the electoral authority.
This development raises serious concerns about the sincerity of Nigeria’s commitment to democratic governance. It suggests a political environment in which citizens may be permitted to vote, but where the final outcomes are increasingly detached from the will expressed at the ballot box.
In functioning democracies, electoral laws are crafted to close loopholes, enhance transparency, and prevent manipulation. They are informed by past abuses and aim to protect the integrity of the vote. Nigeria’s current legislative trajectory, however, appears to move in the opposite direction—weakening safeguards in a country where electoral malpractice has long been documented.
The implications are profound. By institutionalising vulnerabilities in result transmission, the Senate risks normalising electoral fraud under the cover of legality. This is not merely a technical flaw; it is a political choice with far-reaching consequences for democratic legitimacy.
This episode is emblematic of a broader pattern: the steady erosion of Nigeria’s institutions and the rule of law. Legislative, security, and law-enforcement bodies increasingly appear unable—or unwilling—to perform their constitutional roles independently. Instead, they function in ways that protect entrenched political power rather than the public interest.
Simultaneously, Nigeria faces escalating insecurity marked by mass violence, displacement, and the destruction of rural communities, particularly in parts of the Middle Belt and the North. Armed groups often described as “terrorists” operate with alarming impunity, while victims receive little justice and perpetrators are rarely held accountable.
The failure is not one of capacity alone. Nigeria’s security agencies are widely believed to possess intelligence on militant networks and their sponsors, yet decisive action remains elusive. Instead, military resources are frequently redirected toward internal civilian enforcement, blurring constitutional boundaries and further undermining public trust.
Corruption compounds the crisis. Large-scale public-sector fraud—budget padding, inflated contracts, abandoned infrastructure projects, and misuse of constituency funds—is widely acknowledged within Nigeria. Yet prosecutions of high-level political figures are rare, reinforcing perceptions of selective justice and impunity.
Over the past decade, power has become increasingly centralised, transparency weakened, and accountability institutions compromised. Strategic sectors, particularly oil and gas, have been brought under tighter political control, while regulatory oversight has diminished. The result is a state where authority is concentrated, but responsibility is diffused.
What emerges is the portrait of a fragile democracy sliding toward authoritarian governance cloaked in dubious constitutional formalism. Elections continue to be held, institutions remain in place, and democratic language persists—but their substance is steadily hollowed out.
For the international community, Nigeria’s trajectory matters. As Africa’s most populous country and a regional anchor, its democratic decline has implications far beyond its borders—affecting regional stability, migration, security cooperation, and the credibility of democratic norms on the continent.
At stake is not only Nigeria’s future, but the principle that democracy, once hollowed out, cannot sustain peace, unity, or legitimacy.
