- Greed, corruption and political patronage threaten good governance as Nigeria heads towards the 2027 elections.
By Princely Onyenwe | Editorial Desk
Nigeria is approaching another major electoral cycle, and with it comes an uncomfortable question: has politics become more about acquiring power than serving the people? The question is neither abstract nor premature. As political activities intensify ahead of the 2027 elections, Nigerians should be asking not only who wants their votes, but what kind of leadership they intend to provide after those votes have been counted.
Politics is supposed to organise society, protect citizens, manage public resources and advance the common good. Yet too much of Nigeria’s political culture has become associated with money, patronage, distrust, personal ambition and the struggle for access to public power. When political victory becomes more important than public service, democracy begins to lose its moral meaning.
The danger is particularly serious in a country where millions of citizens are struggling with poverty and food insecurity. The International Monetary Fund estimated in 2026 that poverty had reached 63 percent at the national poverty line, while about 27 million Nigerians were estimated to have faced food insecurity in the autumn of 2025. These figures should make every politician pause. A hungry population is not a political opportunity. Poverty should never become a weapon through which citizens are manipulated at election time.
Yet vote buying remains a documented problem. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s survey of the 2023 general election, 22 percent of Nigerians reported that they were personally offered money in exchange for their votes, while nine percent were offered another favour. Among those personally offered money or another favour, 40 percent said the inducement influenced their vote.
This is why Nigerians must reject the mentality that a bag of rice, a few notes of naira, a transport fare or a temporary gift settles a politician’s obligation to the electorate. A political office can last years; an election-day inducement may last only hours. Citizens should not exchange their long-term interests for short-term relief.
There is, of course, a legitimate place for campaign spending. Elections require logistics, communication, personnel, transportation and voter outreach. The problem begins when money ceases to support democratic participation and becomes an instrument for purchasing loyalty, influencing choices or securing political advantage. The crisis also extends beyond candidates and elections to the people who work within political structures.
Across Nigeria, party organisers, political aides, grassroots mobilisers, media workers and other support personnel often invest considerable time and energy in building the political structures that eventually deliver electoral victories. Yet the welfare and remuneration of such workers can receive far less attention than political celebrations, publicity and personal displays of wealth.
This editorial does not suggest that every political aide is underpaid or that every political office lacks a welfare structure. Conditions differ from one office and institution to another. But wherever people are employed to perform legitimate duties, their terms of engagement, remuneration and welfare should be clear, lawful and respected.
A politician should not demand sacrifice from workers while demonstrating extravagance elsewhere. Leadership begins with responsibility to the people immediately within one’s sphere of influence.
The same principle applies to political appointments. Party loyalty may legitimately be considered in political organisation, but public appointments should also respect competence, integrity, relevant qualifications and the requirements of law. A person who has worked tirelessly for a political organisation deserves recognition and fair consideration, but political reward should never become a substitute for professional capacity.
The public interest must remain the ultimate test. This is particularly important at the state level, including Imo State. It would be unfair to describe Imo or the South-East as uniquely responsible for Nigeria’s political problems. Patronage, corruption, weak accountability and excessive political spending are national issues. What Imo deserves, like every other state, is evidence-based scrutiny of how public resources are collected, allocated and converted into services.
Citizens should be asking simple but powerful questions: How much revenue does government receive? How much is spent on salaries, infrastructure, healthcare, education and security? Which contracts are awarded? What do they cost? Are projects completed? Are they functional? Are budgets implemented? Are appointments transparent? What do audit reports say?
These questions matter more than the number of vehicles in a politician’s convoy or the scale of a public celebration. A government should not be measured by the volume of applause it receives at a ceremony, but by the quality of services it provides when the cameras are gone.
For Imo, accountability should include sustained examination of internally generated revenue, federal allocations, capital expenditure, recurrent costs, debt obligations and the implementation of approved budgets. Where credible evidence reveals irregularities, the responsible institutions should investigate. Where the evidence does not establish wrongdoing, accusations should not be presented as facts.
The people of Imo do not need politicians who merely know how to distribute gifts in public. They need leaders who can explain what public money has achieved, why projects cost what they cost and how citizens’ living conditions have improved.
Another source of frustration within Nigeria’s political system is the treatment of party members and grassroots organisers after elections. Many people work for years to build political structures, mobilise support and defend party interests. They attend meetings, organise rallies, resolve local disputes and maintain networks that become essential during campaigns.
Yet political appointments are often perceived as rewards distributed through personal connections. This perception becomes especially damaging when experienced, competent and committed party members are overlooked without explanation, while individuals with strong relationships to powerful figures receive influential positions.
It is important not to assume that every appointment made through a political relationship is unlawful or that every overlooked aspirant is qualified for a particular office. Appointments may legitimately involve political judgment, constitutional requirements, professional qualifications and considerations of representation. The problem arises when decisions are opaque, discriminatory, corrupt or disconnected from the public interest.
A credible appointment process should publish the requirements for offices, identify the legal authority for appointments, explain relevant qualifications and make conflicts of interest subject to scrutiny. Political loyalty may be part of a person’s history, but it should not automatically replace competence, integrity and the capacity to perform public duties.
The people who work in the background deserve recognition, but recognition should not be reduced to a demand for patronage. The ultimate goal should be a political system where public institutions function professionally, appointments are defensible and no citizen needs to purchase access to government.
The disparity between the medical options available to wealthy public officials and those available to ordinary Nigerians also raises difficult ethical questions. Some Nigerians with financial means travel abroad for medical treatment, while millions of citizens depend on health facilities that may struggle with staffing, equipment, medicine supplies and reliable funding.
Seeking treatment abroad is not, by itself, evidence of corruption. Medical decisions can be personal and complex. The public-interest question is different: what are leaders doing to ensure that Nigerians can obtain safe, timely and affordable healthcare at home?
A country cannot build a durable healthcare system by celebrating individual access to overseas treatment while neglecting the institutions that serve the majority. Political leaders should be judged by their commitment to improving hospitals, supporting healthcare workers, expanding primary healthcare, strengthening emergency services and making essential medicines accessible.
The same principle applies to education, water, roads, electricity and security. Public office should be a mechanism for expanding citizens’ opportunities, not a route through which a small circle escapes the consequences of national underdevelopment.
The most troubling feature of Nigeria’s political culture is therefore not simply that some politicians possess wealth. It is the possibility that political power can become a mechanism for reproducing privilege while the majority remain trapped in economic vulnerability. That cycle must end.
Political parties must improve internal democracy. Campaign finance must be transparent. Electoral offences must be investigated. Public expenditure must be traceable. Government budgets must be accessible. Procurement must be subjected to scrutiny. Public appointments must be defensible. Political aides and other legitimate workers must receive fair treatment. Citizens must stop treating political leaders as patrons whose personal generosity excuses poor governance.
The media also has a critical responsibility. Journalism must move beyond publishing speeches and political promises. Reporters must follow budgets, contracts, campaign financing, project implementation and public records. Politicians should be confronted with facts, not merely given platforms to make unchallenged claims.
Citizens, too, must take responsibility. A political party should not be defended simply because it is one’s party. A politician should not be excused simply because he or she comes from one’s community. Misconduct does not become acceptable because the perpetrator speaks our language, attends our meetings or belongs to our political camp.
Accountability must be universal. Nigeria does not lack intelligent people, hardworking citizens or capable professionals. What the country urgently needs is a political culture that rewards service, competence and integrity rather than merely wealth, influence and access. The 2027 elections should therefore become more than another contest for political offices. They should become a test of whether Nigerians are prepared to demand something better from those seeking their mandate.
Politicians should remember that public office is not private property. A government is not a personal estate, a political party is not a family inheritance and citizens are not electoral commodities. The people are not asking for perfection. They are asking for honesty, security, functional public services, economic opportunity and leaders who understand that every public position carries a duty to serve.
Nigeria cannot build a prosperous future by continually rewarding the politics of greed, inducement and patronage. The country needs a politics in which power is treated as a trust, public money as a responsibility and the citizen as the reason government exists. The 2027 election should not merely determine who occupies political offices. It should challenge every politician to answer the fundamental question: after winning the people’s votes, what will you do for the people?
