Osun Exercise Simply Shows Elections Are No Longer Won by Loaves of Bread or Cursed Stipends In Society of Sensible People

By BASHIR ADEFAKA

Why should any politician believe that voters require permission to exercise a constitutional right? The polling unit belongs to the people. The ballot belongs to the voter. And the power to choose a governor belongs constitutionally to the electorate—not to a senator, governor, political godfather or party leader.

Following the Saturday, August 15, 2026 governorship election in Osun State, South-West Nigeria, I have come away with one simple but profound lesson: there is a limit to the extent to which rascality, coercion, vote-buying and the abuse of political power can determine the outcome of an election in a society where citizens are sufficiently conscious of their democratic rights.

The Osun election has demonstrated, once again, that the Nigerian voter may be poor, but poverty does not necessarily mean political foolishness. A person may accept a bag of rice, a loaf of bread, a small cash gift or any other inducement offered by a desperate politician, yet still retain the freedom to vote according to his or her conscience.

That distinction is important.

The limits of political intimidation

During the electioneering period, Nigerians watched with concern as various videos and reports circulated concerning alleged attempts to intimidate voters and political opponents.

One of the widely circulated recordings involved a senator whose alleged directive was interpreted by many as an instruction to his political associates to employ violence. The senator subsequently denied the interpretation and told the police that his remarks had been taken out of context.

But another video that circulated on election day appeared to show the same senator addressing supporters at a polling unit, urging them to monitor what voters were doing and making remarks that were interpreted as suggesting that people should not vote at a particular location except for his party.

Whether such statements were intended precisely as they were interpreted or not, they raise a fundamental question: Why should any politician believe that voters require permission to exercise a constitutional right?

The polling unit belongs to the people. The ballot belongs to the voter. And the power to choose a governor belongs constitutionally to the electorate—not to a senator, governor, political godfather or party leader.

When political inducement becomes an insult to the people

Another episode that attracted considerable attention was the widely circulated video involving a woman distributing food items while apparently appealing to beneficiaries to vote for her preferred political party.

What was particularly disturbing was not merely the distribution of food, but the manner in which the appeal was reportedly accompanied by curses and emotional pressure.

This is where our politics becomes dangerously patronising.

If a politician gives a hungry citizen a measure of rice, does that politician thereby acquire ownership of the citizen’s conscience?

If someone receives a loaf of bread during an election, must he surrender his permanent political loyalty in exchange for temporary relief?

Absolutely not.

A bag of rice cannot repair a broken road. A loaf of bread cannot provide a functioning hospital. A small cash gift cannot guarantee employment for a young graduate. And a temporary handout cannot substitute for competent governance.

Indeed, when politics reduces citizens to recipients of crumbs, it is not the people who should be ashamed; it is the political system that has failed them.

The dangerous marriage of money and federal power

The election also raised broader questions about the deployment of political resources and state power during elections.

There were reports of the arrest of suspected political thugs, including one who allegedly confessed that an AK-47 rifle had been brought to him and his associates from Lagos. Such allegations must be properly investigated, because elections are contests of ideas and choices, not theatres for armed intimidation.

There were also reports surrounding the freezing of the Osun State Government account by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), while prominent members of the governing All Progressives Congress (APC) openly projected confidence that the election was a “must-win” contest.

The scale of political attention deployed to the election was itself remarkable, with senior political figures and numerous security officials reportedly involved in the process.

But this is where Nigeria must ask itself a difficult question:

If the party controlling the Federal Government uses its enormous political machinery to pursue electoral victory, what message does that send to the opposition and to ordinary citizens about the fairness of the contest?

It is easy to condemn vote-buying when it is carried out by the weaker side. It is much more difficult—and much more important—to condemn the same practice when it is allegedly backed by powerful political actors.

That inconsistency has damaged Nigeria’s electoral development for decades.

Do not blame only the desperate voter

There is a tendency among commentators to blame poor Nigerians whenever politicians distribute money, food or other inducements during elections.

I find that approach deeply inadequate.

The ordinary voter who accepts ₦5,000, a bag of rice or some other temporary benefit should not automatically be portrayed as the principal enemy of democracy.

Ask instead: Who has the resources? Who has access to government machinery? Who created the economic conditions under which a hungry citizen may feel compelled to accept a handout? Who has the power to deploy enormous resources during elections?

The Nigerian poor person did not invent vote-buying.

Politicians did.

And if vote-buying has become a business model in our elections, the responsibility for ending it must begin with those who finance and organise it—not merely with those who are desperate enough to collect the proceeds.

This does not mean that voters should sell their votes. They should not.

It means, however, that our analysis must be honest enough to distinguish between the architect of electoral corruption and the citizen attempting to survive within a corrupt electoral marketplace.

Osun voters have sent a message

Perhaps the most significant lesson from the Osun election is that political inducement does not automatically translate into electoral victory.

The people voted.

And, more importantly, voters and citizens across the electoral chain demonstrated an awareness that the ballot must be protected.

From polling units to collation centres, citizens, party agents, observers and other stakeholders had a responsibility to ensure that votes were properly accounted for.

That is democracy in its most practical form.

Democracy does not end when a voter drops a ballot into a box. Democracy continues when citizens insist that the ballot must be counted correctly, recorded accurately and protected from manipulation.

This is why the Osun experience should interest every Nigerian.

It suggests that the Nigerian voter is gradually becoming more difficult to intimidate, manipulate or purchase outright.

Good governance remains the strongest campaign

There is an even bigger lesson here.

In the final analysis, political parties should not depend on loaves of bread, bags of rice, cash inducements, threats, propaganda or the intimidating presence of powerful political figures.

They should campaign on performance.

If a government has built roads, created jobs, improved schools, strengthened healthcare, attracted investment and made life meaningfully better for citizens, it should be able to point to those achievements and ask for another mandate.

If it has failed, the electorate should have the freedom to replace it.

That is the essence of representative democracy.

Federal might may create fear. Money may create temporary excitement. Food may create momentary gratitude. Political thuggery may create confusion. But none of these is a substitute for good governance.

A competent government does not need to curse citizens into voting for it.

A confident political party does not need to threaten voters.

A government that has performed well does not need to purchase the conscience of the electorate.

And a politician who genuinely respects the people should understand that a voter is not a commodity.

The real winner should be democracy

Whatever political party emerges victorious in Osun, the ultimate question should not simply be who won the election.

The bigger question is whether the people were allowed to freely exercise their constitutional right to choose.

That is why the people of Osun deserve commendation for participating in the electoral process and, where necessary, insisting that their votes be protected.

The election has offered Nigeria an important lesson: political power is not omnipotent.

There is a limit to what money can buy.

There is a limit to what intimidation can achieve.

There is a limit to what federal influence can deliver.

And there is a limit to how far a politician can go in treating citizens as political merchandise.

In a society of sensible people, elections are not ultimately won by loaves of bread or cursed stipends. They are won by trust, credibility, performance, organisation and the willingness of citizens to defend their choices.

The greatest protection against electoral malpractice, therefore, is not merely the deployment of more security personnel or the enactment of more laws. It is the emergence of a politically conscious citizenry that understands one simple truth:

The vote belongs to the people.

No senator owns it.

No governor owns it.

No political party owns it.

No federal government owns it.

And no amount of money should be powerful enough to purchase it permanently.

*Adefaka is the media proprietor and publisher of The DEFENDER Newspaper, Nigeria. He can be reached via email at thedefenderwebsite@gmail.com.