The Yoruba saying, bi a ba fi owo ra ibo, a fi owo gba ijoba — he who buys a mandate with silver will recover his investment with gold — captures one of the most troubling realities of Nigerian politics.
As Osun State prepares for its August 15, 2026 governorship election, the concern is no longer simply who will win. It is whether voters will be allowed to make that choice freely, without intimidation, inducement or the manipulation of state institutions.
The political temperature has risen sharply in the final days of the campaign, with allegations of violence, vote-buying and political intimidation adding to concerns over the credibility of the poll.
The controversy surrounding the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s intervention in Osun’s finances has provided another flashpoint.
The EFCC reportedly directed First Bank to place a Post No Debit restriction on the state’s statutory allocation account as part of an investigation into alleged financial irregularities. Governor Ademola Adeleke’s administration condemned the move, arguing that freezing the account so close to an election could disrupt governance and amount to political interference.
The episode is particularly sensitive because Adeleke is seeking re-election while the state is already immersed in a fiercely contested political battle.
An anti-corruption investigation should not be judged by the political identity of the person being investigated. Equally, an anti-corruption agency must be especially careful about the timing, procedure and public communication of actions that can affect a state government during an election period.
The principle is simple: investigations should proceed, but institutions must not become instruments through which political battles are fought.
The same standard should apply to allegations made by security authorities against political actors.
Any claim that government facilities or officials are harbouring thugs should be investigated promptly and transparently. If established, there should be consequences. If disproved, the record should be corrected.
The deeper problem, however, predates the current controversy.
Vote-buying remains one of Nigeria’s most persistent electoral threats. During the 2023 Ogun governorship election, PDP candidate Ladi Adebutu and others were prosecuted over allegations involving prepaid cards allegedly intended to induce voters. Adebutu pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The case demonstrated how vote-buying has evolved beyond the traditional exchange of cash at polling centres.
Cash, food and gifts may be exchanged openly, while digital transfers, prepaid cards and other financial mechanisms can make inducement less visible. The technology may change, but the objective remains the same: turning citizens’ votes into commodities.
That evolution should concern Osun.
At the same time, allegations circulating during campaigns must not automatically become facts simply because they are politically convenient. Claims about money allegedly distributed to students, threats against voters or promises of contracts should be independently investigated before being treated as established incidents.
This is where electoral institutions matter.
INEC has already opened the process for accredited observers and media organisations ahead of the August 15 poll. The commission’s preparations must be matched by effective security arrangements and strict enforcement of electoral laws.
Observation alone, however, is not enough.
The credibility of the election will depend on whether voters can reach polling units safely, whether officials follow the rules, whether election technology performs as expected and whether electoral offences are investigated and prosecuted.
Osun has been here before.
The 2018 governorship election ended in controversy after INEC declared the initial contest inconclusive and conducted a rerun. The episode reinforced the perception that Nigerian elections can move from polling units to courtrooms when the process loses public confidence.
The lesson should not be that elections are inherently fraudulent. It should be that every institution involved must work harder to make fraud, intimidation and manipulation difficult and costly.
Osun’s election therefore represents more than a contest between political parties.
It is a test of whether institutions belong to the public rather than to whoever controls them.
If voters are intimidated, if money determines political choice, if allegations become substitutes for investigations, or if government agencies are perceived as partisan actors, then the ballot becomes little more than theatre.
The Yoruba proverb says, bi a ko ba gbe ododo s’oke, iro ni yio gba ipo re — if truth is not lifted high, falsehood will take its place.
That is the real warning for August 15.
Osun does not need an election whose winner is determined by fear, money or institutional pressure. It needs a contest in which the winner can credibly say that voters, rather than vices, delivered the mandate.
If Adeleke wins, he should win because Osun voters chose him. If he loses, the loss should be traceable to the ballot, not to intimidation, inducement or administrative strangulation.
The same standard must apply to every candidate and every party.
Democracy is not stolen only when ballot boxes disappear. It can also be weakened one inducement, one threat and one institutional overreach at a time.
On August 15, Osun voters will be choosing a governor. But Nigeria will also be watching to see whether its institutions can protect the most basic democratic transaction of all: a citizen’s right to choose freely.
