Headline

NIGERIA: Teneo Presents Update on the Presidential Election Forecast

Published

7 years ago

February 9, 2019

Eric

As the February 16 Presidential Election draws closer, more forecast regarding how the people will vote and who will win continues to fill the media space.

Below is an update on the Presidential Election as forecast by Teneo

NIGERIA: Update on the presidential election forecast

● We continue to forecast a seemingly comfortable 16 percentage point lead for the main opposition candidate Atiku Abubakar over President Muhammadu Buhari.
● Yet the underlying assumption of a ‘reasonably free and fair vote’ might not hold, increasing the likelihood of a lengthy legal challenge of the result.
● Key strategies employed by the major parties to manipulate the results will include vote buying and disruption of the vote in opponents’ strongholds. Control of security institutions gives the ruling party an advantage regarding the latter.

Less than two weeks ahead of the 16 February presidential and legislative polls, our forecast concerning the outcome of the presidential election remains unchanged. We still project a first-round victory by the main opposition candidate, Atiku Abubakar, with up to 57% of votes, against an anticipated 42% to be cast for the incumbent, President Muhammadu Buhari (please click below on “View PDF” for a visual overview). That would give Atiku a seemingly comfortable 16 percentage point advantage over Buhari. As per our initial forecast, the underlying assumption is a ‘reasonably free and fair’ vote, i.e., levels of fraud, voter intimidation and manipulation that do not exceed those observed in the 2015 ballot. However, as previously explained, this assumption might not hold, and the election outcome is thus likely to be challenged in court.

The prospects of a legal challenge For starters, presidential election results being challenged in court is the rule rather than the exception. Since 1999, four out of five presidential elections ended up in court (see table below). Ironically, then-candidates Atiku and Buhari jointly appealed against the result of the 2007 presidential election, universally regarded as Nigeria’s most rigged electoral contest to date. While the courts have so far always decided in favor of the president-elect, Buhari might have alienated the judiciary
with the recent suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. However, everything would depend on the composition of the Supreme Court tribunal eventually reviewing the appeal.

As per the ‘time lag’ column in the table below, in the event of a legal challenge, Nigeria would be in for a prolonged period of suspense.

Under such a scenario, how paralyzed the political system will become would much depend on the majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, which will equally be elected on 16 February. If the president-elect has no majority in the National Assembly, any major policy decisions would likely be blocked, including appointments requiring Senate approval.

However, it should be noted that even in a ‘normal’ year, passing the annual budget can take more than six months.

Teneo Africa 2

Should Buhari win, it is virtually guaranteed that Atiku will go to court. In fact, his People’s Democratic Party (PDP) has legally challenged the results of the Ekiti and Osun gubernatorial polls conducted in July and September 2018, respectively.

Conversely, there would be a lesser chance of a legally contested outcome in the event of an Atiku victory. Indeed, this would imply that government institutions were unable to prevent or were even complicit in vote-rigging, which would be somewhat embarrassing for Buhari. In 2015, the only instance so far in which a sitting president was defeated, then president Goodluck Jonathan chose to vacate his seat without recourse to legal means.

How to rig the election: a primer

Both main parties will try to rig the election in their favor. However, their ability to do so depends on their respective control of the situation on the ground, which varies across the country. This puts the opposition in a better position in its traditional strongholds across the south-south and south-east geopolitical regions, while the ruling APC has a better ground game across the north. Note that this is already factored into our forecast. Ultimately, however, the greater – not necessarily
exclusive – sway over the security forces favors the party in power.

The strategies to be deployed are shaped by the rules of the game, i.e. the provisions of the 2015 electoral act as well as the rules and regulations issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Although their use is still not mandatory, the electronic authentication of voters by means of a Permanent Voters’ Card (PVC), containing the voter’s biometric details, is a key aspect of the electoral process. As in last year’s state-level elections, parties will therefore place much emphasis on vote buying, even though this strategy has its drawbacks: voters might take the money but still vote
independently. Yet the apparent scarcity of funds during the campaign so far suggests parties are hoarding cash to be disbursed on election day.

Given the pitfalls of vote buying, another strategy that will surely be deployed is to simply disrupt the vote in opponents’ strongholds. This can take place before the vote, for instance by destroying uncollected PVCs, as recently happened in Abia State (a PDP stronghold) where a local INEC office was set ablaze, destroying an alleged 15,000 voter cards. During
election day, the strategic deployment of army and police units will probably feature highly.

Similar to what happened during last year’s elections in Ekiti and Osun State, the security forces are more likely to intercept the vote-buying business of opposition parties or – a particularly crude tactic employed during the partial re-run in Osun – deny opposition voters access to polling stations altogether. However, the crucial difference to state-level polls is scale: the security forces are simply spread too thinly to control a nationwide election involving some 120,000 polling stations.

Malte Liewerscheidt
Vice President
+44 20 7186 8870
malte.liewerscheidt@teneo.com

© 2019 Teneo. All rights reserved. This material was produced by Teneo for use solely by the recipient. This communication is intended as general background research and is not intended to constitute advice on any particular commercial investment or trade matter or issue and should not be relied upon for such purposes. The views expressed here represent opinions as of this date and are subject to change without notice. The information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but no guarantees can be given as to its accuracy, completeness or reliability. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the prior consent of Teneo.

Teneo Africa 3

The multi-stage election results collation process offers another avenue for manipulation, especially since results are still not transmitted to INEC servers straight from the polling station. Besides, INEC has a habit of only publishing top-line, aggregated results, which makes it difficult to detect manipulation at lower levels. Finally, INEC’s ICT infrastructure.

The details (tables, graphs et al) are contained in the PDF document below:

7ab8ed4d-6402-4410-9cc1-139dbd153568

Headline

Opposition Parties Reject 2026 Electoral Act, Demand Fresh Amendment

Published

18 hours ago

February 26, 2026

Eric

Opposition political parties have rejected the 2026 Electoral Act recently passed by the National Assembly, which President Bola Tinubu swiftly signed into law.

The parties called on the National Assembly to immediately begin a fresh amendment process to remove what they described as “all obnoxious provisions” in the law.

Their position was made known at a press briefing themed “Urgent Call to Save Nigeria’s Democracy,” held at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel in Abuja on Thursday.

In a communiqué read by the Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) Ahmed Ajuji, the opposition leaders stated:

“We demand that the National Assembly immediately commence a fresh amendment to the Electoral Act 2026, to remove all obnoxious provisions and ensure that the Act reflects only the will and aspiration of Nigerians for free, fair, transparent and credible electoral process in our country. Nothing short of this will be acceptable to Nigerians.”

Some of the opposition leaders present in at the event include former Senate President David Mark; former Governor of Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola; former Vice President Atiku Abubakar; former Governor of Rivers State, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi; and former Governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, all from the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

The National Chairman of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Ahmed Ajuji, and other prominent members of the NNPP, notably Buba Galadima, were also in attendance.

The coalition said the amended law, signed by Bola Tinubu, contains “anti-democratic” clauses, which they argue may weaken electoral transparency and public confidence in the voting system.

At the centre of the opposition’s concerns is the amendment to Section 60(3), which allows presiding officers to rely on manual transmission of election results where there is communication failure.

According to the coalition, the provision weakens the mandatory electronic transmission of results and could create loopholes for manipulation.

They argued that Nigeria’s electoral technology infrastructure is sufficient to support nationwide electronic transmission, citing previous assurances by officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The parties also rejected the amendment to Section 84, which restricts political parties to direct primaries and consensus methods for candidate selection.

They described the change as an unconstitutional intrusion into the internal affairs of parties, insisting that indirect primaries remain a legitimate democratic option.

The opposition cited alleged irregularities in the recent Federal Capital Territory local government elections as evidence of what they described as a broader pattern of electoral compromise.

They characterised the polls as a “complete fraud” and said the outcome has deepened their lack of confidence in the ability of the electoral system to deliver credible elections in 2027.

The coalition also condemned reported attacks on leaders of the African Democratic Congress in Edo State, describing the incidents as a serious threat to democratic participation and political tolerance.

They warned that increasing violence against opposition figures could destabilise the political environment if not urgently addressed.

In their joint statement, the opposition parties pledged to pursue “every constitutional means” to challenge the Electoral Act 2026 and safeguard voters’ rights.

“We will not be intimidated,” the leaders said, urging civil society organisations and citizens to support efforts aimed at protecting Nigeria’s democratic system.

On February 18, 2026, President Bola Tinubu signed the Electoral Act (Amendment) 2026 into law following its passage by the National Assembly. The Act introduced several reforms, including statutory recognition of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System and revised election timelines.

However, opposition figures such as Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi have also called for further amendments, particularly over the manual transmission fallback clause, which critics say leaves room for manipulation.

The president said the law will strengthen democracy and prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Tinubu defended manual collation of results, questioned Nigeria’s readiness for full real-time electronic transmission, and warned against technical glitches and hacking.

The Electoral Act sparked intense debate in the National Assembly over how election results should be transmitted ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Civil society groups under the “Occupy NASS” campaign demanded real-time transmission to curb manipulation.

In the Senate, lawmakers clashed during consideration of Clause 60, which allows manual transmission of results if electronic transmission fails.

Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe (ADC, Abia South) demanded a formal vote to remove the proviso permitting manual transmission, arguing against weakening real-time electronic reporting.

The move led to a heated exchange on the floor, with Senate President Godswill Akpabio initially suggesting the demand had been withdrawn.

After procedural disputes and a brief confrontation among senators, a division was conducted. Fifteen opposition senators voted against retaining the manual transmission proviso, while 55 supported it, allowing the clause to stand.

Earlier proceedings had briefly stalled during clause-by-clause review, prompting consultations and a closed-door session.

In the House of Representatives, a similar disagreement came up over a motion to rescind an earlier decision that mandated compulsory real-time electronic transmission of results to IReV.

Although the “nays” were louder during a voice vote, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas ruled in favour of rescinding the decision, triggering protests and an executive session.

Headline

AFP: How Tinubu’s Govt Paid Boko Haram ‘Huge’ Ransom, Released Two Terrorists for Kidnapped Saint Mary’s Pupils

Published

3 days ago

February 24, 2026

Eric

The Nigerian government paid Boko Haram militants a “huge” ransom of millions of dollars to free up to 230 children and staff the jihadists abducted from a Catholic school in November, an AFP investigation revealed Monday.

Two Boko Haram commanders were also freed as part of the deal, which goes against the country’s own law banning payments to kidnappers. The money was delivered by helicopter to Boko Haram’s Gwoza stronghold in northeastern Borno state on the border with Cameroon, intelligence sources told AFP.

The decision to pay the militants is likely to irritate US President Donald Trump, who ordered air strikes on jihadists in northern Nigeria on Christmas Day and has been sent military trainers to help support Nigerian forces.

Nigerian government officials deny any ransom was paid to the armed gang that snatched close to 300 schoolchildren and staff from St. Mary’s boarding school in Papiri in central Niger state on November 21. At least 50 later managed to escape their captors.

Boko Haram has not been previously linked to the kidnapping, but sources told AFP one of its most feared commanders was behind the mass abduction: the notorious jihadist known as Sadiku.

He infamously held up a train from the capital in 2022 and netted hefty ransoms for the release of government officials and other well-off passengers.

Boko Haram, which has waged a bloody insurgency since 2009, is strongest in northeast Nigeria.

But a cell in central Niger state operates under Sadiku’s leadership. The St. Mary’s pupils and staff were freed after two weeks of negotiations led by Nuhu Ribadu, Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, with the government insisting no ransom was paid. Nigeria’s State Security Service flatly denied paying any money, saying “government agents don’t pay ransoms”.

However, four intelligence sources familiar with the talks told AFP the government paid a “huge” ransom to get the pupils back. One source put it at 40 million naira per head – around $7 million in total.

Another put the figure lower at two billion naira overall. The money was delivered by chopper to Ali Ngulde, a Boko Haram commander in the northeast, three sources told AFP.

Due to the lack of communications cover in the remote area, Ngulde had to cross into Cameroon to confirm delivery of the ransom before the first group of 100 children were released.

Nigeria has long been plagued by mass abductions, with criminals and jihadist groups sometimes working together to extort millions from hostages’ families, and authorities seemingly powerless to stop them.

Source: Africanews

Headline

Unlawful Invasion: El-Rufai Drags ICPC, IGP, Others to Court, Demands N1bn Damages

Published

4 days ago

February 23, 2026

Eric

Former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, has slammed a ₦1 billion fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for what he claimed was an unlawful invasion of his Abuja residence.

El-Rufai, in a suit filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, also listed the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT, Abuja Magisterial District; Inspector-General of Police, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as 2nd to 4th respondents respectively.

According to the suit filed through his lawyers, led by Oluwole Iyamu, El-Rufai prayed the court to declare that the search warrant issued on February 4 by the Chief Magistrate, Magistrate’s Court of the FCT (2nd respondent), authorising the search and seizure at his residence as invalid, null and void.

Security operatives had stormed and searched the former Governor’s residence in the ongoing investigations against him.

However, he argued in the case marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/345/2026, that the search was in violation of Section 37 of the Constitution, and urged the court to declare that the search warrant was “null and void for lack of particularity, material drafting errors, ambiguity in execution parameters, overbreadth, and absence of probable cause thereby constituting an unlawful and unreasonable search.”

In the suit dated and filed February 20 by Iyamu, ex-governor, who is currently under detention, sought seven reliefs.

He prayed the court to declare that the invasion and search of his residence at House 12, Mambilla Street, Aso Drive, Abuja, on Feb. 19 at about 2pm and executed by agents of ICPC and I-G, “under the aforesaid invalid warrant, amounts to a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, and privacy under Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Constitution.”

He urged the court to declare that “any evidence obtained pursuant to the aforesaid invalid warrant and unlawful search is inadmissible in any proceedings against the applicant, as it was procured in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

El-Rufai, therefore, sought an order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from further relying on, using, or tendering any evidence or items seized during the unlawful search in any investigation, prosecution, or proceedings involving him.

“An order directing the Ist and 3rd respondents (ICPC and I-G) to forthwith return all items seized from the applicant’s premises during the unlawful search, together with a detailed inventory thereof.

“An order awarding the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) as general, exemplary, and aggravated damages against the respondents jointly and severally for the violations of the applicant’s fundamental rights, including trespass, unlawful seizure, and the resultant psychological trauma, humiliation, distress, infringement of privacy, and reputational harm.”

The breakdown of the ₦1 billion in damages includes “a N300 million as compensatory damages for psychological trauma, emotional distress, and loss of personal security;

“A ₦400 million as exemplary damages to deter future misconduct by law enforcement agencies and vindicate the applicant’s rights.

“A ₦300 million as aggravated damages for the malicious, high-handed and oppressive nature of the respondents’ actions, including the use of a patently defective warrant procured through misleading representations.”

He equally sought ₦100 million as the cost of filing the suit, including legal fees and associated expenses.

Iyamu argued that the search warrant was fundamentally defective, lacking specificity in the description of items to be seized, containing material typographical errors, ambiguous execution terms, overbroad directives, and no verifiable probable cause.

He added that the warrant violated Sections 143-148 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015; Section 36 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences (ICPC) Act, 2000, and constitutional protections against arbitrary intrusions and several other constitutional provisions.

“Section 146 stipulates that the warrant must be in the prescribed form, free from defects that could mislead, but the document is riddled with errors in the address, date, and district designation;

“Section 147 allows direction to specified persons, but the warrant’s indiscriminate addressing to “all officers is overbroad and unaccountable.

“Section 148 permits execution at reasonable times, but the contradictory language creates ambiguity, undermining procedural clarity,” he submitted.

Iyamu stated that the execution of the invalid warrant on Feb. 19 resulted in an unlawful invasion of his client’s premises, constituting violations of the rights to dignity (Section 34), personal liberty (Section 35), fair hearing (Section 36), and privacy (Section 37) of the Constitution.

He further argued that the search was conducted without legal justification and in a manner that inflicted humiliation and distress.

“Evidence obtained without a valid warrant is unlawful and inadmissible, as established in judicial precedents such as C.O.P. v. Omoh (1969) NCLR 137, where the court ruled that evidence procured through improper means contravenes fundamental rights and must be excluded,” he said.

In the affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed Shaba, a Principal Secretary to the former governor, averred that on Feb. 19 at about 2p.m., officers from the ICPC and Nigeria Police Force invaded the residence under a purported search warrant issued on or about Feb. 4.

According to him, the said warrant is invalid due to its lack of specificity, errors, and other defects as outlined in the grounds of this application.

He said the “search warrant did not specify the properties or items being searched for.”

Shaba stated that the officers failed to submit themselves for search as provided by the law before proceeding with the search.

“That the Magistrate did not specify the magisterial district wherein he sits.

“That during the invasion, the officers searched the applicant’s premises without lawful authority, seized personal items including documents and electronic devices, and caused the applicant undue humiliation, psychological trauma, and distress.

“Now shown to me and marked as ‘EXHIBIT B’ Is the list of the items carted away.

“That no items seized have been returned, and the respondents continue to rely on the unlawful evidence.

“That the applicant suffered violations of his constitutional rights as a result, and this application is brought in good faith to enforce same,” Shaba said.

Source: Naijanews.com