Political parties, civil society groups, and election observers have raised concerns over the Federal Government’s proposed N135.22 billion allocation in the 2026 budget for “Electoral Adjudication and Post-Election Provision,” warning that the funding signals a troubling expectation of electoral disputes ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The provision, captured in the House of Representatives Order Paper for March 31, 2026, falls under Service-Wide Votes, a centrally managed fund used to cover obligations not tied to a specific ministry, department, or agency.
Business Hallmark reports that while Service-Wide Votes are generally intended to accommodate unforeseen national expenditures, critics argue that earmarking such a significant sum for post-election litigation raises questions about transparency, accountability, and electoral preparedness.
The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) were quick to express concerns. PDP National Publicity Secretary Ini Ememobong told Punch Newspaper that the allocation suggests a lack of confidence in the electoral process.
“It means that INEC itself is anticipating that it will not do well and that people will not accept the outcome of the results,” he said. Ememobong argued that if the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) conducts elections with transparency, post-election litigation would be substantially reduced.
Bolaji Abdullahi, ADC National Publicity Secretary, acknowledged that preparations for post-election legal disputes are normal but questioned the scale of the N135 billion allocation. “If elections are free and transparent, litigation should be minimal,” he told Punch adding that such a large sum raises accountability concerns and suggests an expectation of extensive court battles.
The criticisms have also drawn support from election observers and political analysts.
Prof. Pat Utomi, a renowned political economist, questioned why the Federal Government should be budgeting for elections at all, noting that elections are the responsibility of individual candidates, not the government. “It is not the Federal Government that goes to elections; it is the individual candidates. So why should the Federal Government have a budget for it?” he asked, insisting that any such provision should be managed within INEC’s budget framework.
Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) described the allocation as “excessive and unjustifiable.” He noted that INEC maintains legal departments across all 36 states, which handle the majority of election-related cases.
Citing the 2023 elections, he said the commission was joined in fewer than 3,500 pre-election cases, election petitions, and appeals. With the recent ouster of court jurisdiction over internal party matters, he argued, the volume of litigation should be further reduced. Falana estimated that total legal spending for elections should not exceed N20 billion, far below the N135 billion proposed.
The N135.22 billion provision is part of the broader Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) charges, which total N3.70 trillion, making the post-election allocation roughly 3.65 percent of this segment. It sits alongside a N1.01 trillion statutory transfer to INEC—the largest single statutory transfer in the 2026 budget—underscoring the commission’s financial autonomy to carry out constitutionally mandated functions.
INEC has requested N873.78 billion to conduct the 2027 general elections, a sharp increase from the N313.4 billion released for the 2023 polls. The commission also demanded N171 billion for its 2026 operations, highlighting anticipated fiscal pressures as Nigeria prepares for its next national polls.
Stakeholders argue that the focus should be on improving the integrity and credibility of elections rather than preparing for anticipated disputes.
Ememobong urged authorities to prioritise governance and electoral transparency, warning that historical weaknesses in institutions and electoral conduct have consistently undermined democracy.
He said “My advice is that the APC-led Federal Government, INEC, and everyone involved in the 2027 elections should take a step back to ensure we protect the country and democracy before talking about elections and partisanship,” .
