OSUN 2026: Beyond Adeleke’s 19 LGAs, Nigeria Must Demand a Better Election Culture

 

The outcome of the 2026 Osun State governorship election offers Nigeria another opportunity to examine not just who wins an election, but how that victory is achieved. Results collated from the 30 local government areas show Governor Ademola Adeleke of the Accord Party ahead with victories in 19 LGAs, while his closest challenger, Bola Oyebamiji of the All Progressives Congress, won 11. The figures represent a significant political contest, but the more important question is whether Nigeria is steadily moving towards elections in which citizens can vote without fear, inducement or manipulation.

For Advocacy Media Hub, the Osun election should therefore be viewed beyond the familiar language of winners and losers. Elections are the foundation upon which democratic legitimacy is built. When citizens walk to polling units, they are not merely choosing an individual; they are exercising constitutional authority over who governs them. Every political actor, electoral official, security officer and voter therefore has a responsibility to protect the credibility of that process. A result may settle the immediate political contest, but the manner in which that result is produced determines whether public confidence in democracy grows or declines.

The Osun contest also demonstrates the continuing competitiveness of Nigerian elections. Adeleke’s 19-LGA performance against Oyebamiji’s 11 shows that the electorate cannot simply be treated as a predictable political bloc. Voters across different parts of the state expressed competing preferences, with both major contenders securing substantial territorial support. Available collated figures reported by The Sun put Adeleke ahead by 66,252 votes, although the credibility of the process should ultimately rest on the official records and declaration by the electoral authorities.

But beneath the numbers lies a troubling reality that Nigeria cannot afford to ignore: allegations of vote buying and electoral malpractice continue to accompany major elections. Civil society groups and political stakeholders raised concerns about vote trading, violence and other irregularities around the Osun poll. These practices are not harmless political tactics. Vote buying turns citizens' economic vulnerability into a political weapon, while intimidation and violence undermine the fundamental freedom that makes an election democratic in the first place.

Technology was also expected to provide another layer of protection for the Osun election. The use of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and electronic result transmission has been presented as an important mechanism for reducing human interference and improving transparency. Yet reports of BVAS-related challenges remind us that technology is only as reliable as the institutions, personnel and procedures surrounding it. A malfunctioning device, delayed result transmission or poor communication can quickly create suspicion where confidence should exist. Technology must therefore complement—not replace—sound electoral administration.

The conduct of security agencies deserves equally serious attention. Election security should never become an instrument for intimidating voters or influencing political outcomes. The responsibility of the police and other security agencies is to create an environment where citizens can cast their ballots freely and where political actors are restrained from violence. Any allegation of selective enforcement, intimidation or political interference should be investigated transparently. Democracy cannot flourish where citizens fear the men and women deployed to protect the democratic process.

INEC, too, must recognise that credibility is earned through transparency. The commission's responsibility does not end with deploying electoral materials or announcing results. It must communicate clearly, respond promptly to legitimate concerns and ensure that the figures announced at each stage can be independently reconciled with the records generated at polling units. The public should not have to rely on rumours, partisan claims or social media speculation to understand what happened at an election. The electoral process must speak for itself through accessible evidence.

Political parties must also look inward. Nigerian politics has too often become an expensive contest in which enormous resources are deployed to secure power, sometimes at the expense of policy, ideology and public interest. Parties should be judged not only by their ability to win elections but by the quality of democracy they practise internally. Transparent primaries, credible candidate selection, issue-based campaigns and respect for internal dissent are essential if political parties are genuinely interested in democratic governance.

The responsibility, however, does not belong exclusively to politicians and institutions. Osun voters have once again demonstrated that citizens remain central to democracy. But Nigerian voters must also recognise the long-term consequences of selling their votes. The money offered on election day may provide temporary relief, but the government produced by that transaction will make decisions affecting education, healthcare, employment, infrastructure and security for years. The vote is therefore too valuable to be exchanged for a short-term benefit.

As Osun moves beyond the election, the real test will be what happens after the results. Winners must resist the temptation to treat victory as a licence for arrogance or exclusion. Losers must pursue legitimate grievances through lawful channels rather than through violence or destabilisation. Electoral disputes should be settled through evidence and the courts where necessary. Most importantly, citizens must be allowed to demand accountability from whoever eventually governs them. Democracy does not end when the ballot boxes are packed away.

The Osun election should serve as a warning and a lesson ahead of Nigeria's next major electoral cycle. The country cannot continue to celebrate the mere conduct of elections while tolerating practices that weaken their credibility. Nigeria needs elections where votes are not commodities, political competition does not become warfare, security agencies remain impartial, electoral technology works effectively, and institutions are strong enough to resist political pressure.

The central lesson from Osun is simple: winning an election is important, but protecting the integrity of the vote is more important. Nigeria does not merely need elections that produce winners; it needs elections that citizens can trust. The ultimate victory should not belong to Accord, APC or any other political party. It should belong to the Nigerian voter whose ballot is counted, whose choice is respected and whose democracy is protected.