Osun Election: The People Have Spoken, But Democracy Must Do Better

Adeleke’s victory is a reflection of the voters’ choice, but intimidation, vote trading, BVAS failures and other electoral shortcomings must not become the price Nigerians pay for democracy

The people of Osun State have spoken.

At the end of a fiercely contested governorship election, the Independent National Electoral Commission declared Governor Ademola Adeleke of the Accord Party the winner, giving him a second term in office. Adeleke secured 511,067 votes against 444,815 votes recorded by his closest challenger, the All Progressives Congress candidate, Bola Oyebamiji. The 66,252-vote margin is significant and, on the face of the declared figures, represents a clear victory.

DReportorial Media believes that the first responsibility of every democrat is to respect the ballot.

Where citizens have freely expressed their preference, that choice must not be overturned by political arrogance, intimidation, manipulation or violence.

But respecting the outcome does not mean ignoring the problems that surrounded the process.

The 2026 Osun governorship election has once again exposed the uncomfortable contradictions in Nigeria’s democratic journey: citizens are increasingly determined to participate in elections, yet political actors and electoral institutions continue to struggle with the temptation, weaknesses and practices that undermine the sanctity of the ballot.

The question after Osun should therefore not simply be who won?

The more important questions are:

How free was the voter?

How secure was the polling environment?

How reliable were the electoral technologies?

How much of the voting process was influenced by money?

And perhaps most importantly:

Can Nigerians trust that their votes—not fear, money, political connections or manipulation—determine who governs them?

A Victory That Must Be Accepted

Adeleke has won the election.

That fact should be acknowledged without political bitterness.

That spread matters.

It suggests that Adeleke succeeded in building a sufficiently broad electoral coalition across the state.

The result should therefore not be casually dismissed as an accident, nor should every voter who supported him be portrayed as manipulated, uninformed or bought.

Osun voters are capable of making political choices.

They have the right to reward an incumbent. They also have the right to reject an opposition candidate. They have the right to vote based on performance, personality, party affiliation, ethnic considerations, religious sentiments, economic interests, local political calculations—or simply personal conviction.

Democracy is not about forcing citizens to make the “correct” choice according to political commentators.

It is about allowing citizens to make their choice freely.

That is why the victory of Adeleke should be respected.

But equally, those who voted against him must also be respected.

The opposition is not an enemy of democracy. It is one of democracy’s essential pillars.

The Shadow of Intimidation

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Osun election was the emergence of allegations of intimidation and interference.

Reports from the election period documented allegations and incidents involving intimidation, thuggery and disruptions in some locations. Dataphyte, for example, reported concerns raised by residents before the election, including an allegation by a resident of Ilesa East that threats had been made to voters.

Other monitoring reports also recorded harassment and intimidation in parts of Osun, including Ikire, Irewole and Ejigbo.

These reports deserve serious attention.

An election cannot genuinely be called free merely because voters eventually reached polling units.

Freedom begins before the voter arrives.

If a citizen is threatened on the way to the polling station, that citizen is not free.

If a voter is told that voting for a particular candidate could attract consequences, that voter is not free.

If political thugs are allowed to dominate a polling environment, democracy is already compromised, even if ballot papers are eventually counted.

And if security personnel are perceived as partisan or intimidating, public confidence in the electoral process suffers.

The allegations against security personnel and political actors must, however, be investigated rather than converted into political propaganda.

It is not enough for one political camp to accuse the other.

Evidence must be established.

Where security personnel acted professionally, they deserve commendation.

Where any officer abused his authority, that officer should be investigated.

Where political thugs disrupted voting, they should face the law regardless of the political party that sponsored or supported them.

Nigeria cannot continue to operate an electoral system in which political violence is condemned during press conferences but rarely punished afterwards.

Vote Buying: The Other Enemy of the Voter

Perhaps the most troubling lesson from Osun is that electoral manipulation is no longer limited to ballot-box snatching.

Money has become one of the most dangerous weapons in Nigerian elections.

Election observers reported incidents of vote trading during the Osun election. The EU-SDGN Election Observation Hub reported cases of vote trading alongside other electoral offences and security incidents, while also identifying BVAS-related problems.

This should worry every Nigerian.

A vote bought is not simply an individual transaction.

It is an investment in bad governance.

When a politician pays a voter to surrender his or her democratic choice, the politician is effectively buying the right to make decisions about public resources for years.

The voter may receive ₦5,000, ₦10,000 or whatever amount is offered.

But the society may lose billions through corruption, poor infrastructure, weak healthcare, unemployment and bad governance.

This is why citizens must begin to understand that selling a vote is not economic empowerment; it is selling a portion of one’s political future.

At the same time, Nigerians should not pretend that poverty does not influence electoral behaviour.

A hungry citizen is vulnerable to political inducement.

That is why fighting vote buying requires more than arresting voters.

It requires building a society where citizens are economically empowered enough to reject political handouts.

BVAS: Technology Must Not Become Another Electoral Weakness

Nigeria introduced technological tools such as the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System to strengthen electoral credibility.

But technology is only useful when it works reliably.

Reports from the Osun election identified BVAS malfunctions, slow accreditation and difficulties in recognising some voters’ Permanent Voter Cards in several locations. Dataphyte observers recorded BVAS problems in areas including Ede South, Ola-Oluwa, Ilesha East, Ejigbo and Ife North.

This is unacceptable if Nigeria is serious about building public confidence in elections.

A voter who wakes up early, travels to a polling unit and waits for hours should not be punished because a technological device fails.

INEC must therefore publish a detailed post-election assessment of the technical problems encountered.

How many machines failed?

Where did they fail?

How long did voters wait?

How many voters were unable to complete accreditation because of technical difficulties?

Were alternative procedures properly followed?

These questions deserve answers.

Technology should make elections more transparent—not more confusing.

The Election Was Not Perfect—But That Does Not Erase the People’s Choice

There is a temptation in Nigerian politics to adopt an all-or-nothing approach.

If one’s candidate wins, the election is described as credible.

If one’s candidate loses, the same election suddenly becomes fraudulent.

That mentality is dangerous.

The Osun election should be evaluated with greater maturity.

There were reported shortcomings.

There were allegations of intimidation.

There were reports of vote trading.

There were BVAS failures.

There were reports of thuggery and electoral offences.

Yet observers also reported that voting was largely peaceful and orderly in many areas, with significant voter participation.

Both realities can exist at the same time.

An election can have serious weaknesses without automatically meaning that every vote cast was fraudulent.

Similarly, an election can produce a legitimate winner while still requiring institutional reforms.

That distinction is extremely important.

What Does Adeleke’s Victory Really Say About Osun?

Beyond party colours and political celebrations, the result provides a fascinating reflection of the mood of Osun voters.

Adeleke’s re-election suggests that a substantial section of the electorate was willing to give him another opportunity.

That is a political verdict.

The governor must therefore understand that victory is not the end of the conversation.

It is the beginning of a new contract with the people.

The voters who supported him expect results.

Those who opposed him also deserve good governance.

A governor governs the entire state—not merely those who voted for him.

The real test of Adeleke’s second term will therefore not be the number of votes he received.

It will be what he does with the mandate.

Will his administration improve the state’s economy?

Will young people find meaningful opportunities?

Will education receive greater attention?

Will healthcare improve?

Will rural communities benefit from development?

Will workers receive better treatment?

Will infrastructure extend beyond political strongholds?

Will public funds be managed transparently?

Will the government tolerate criticism?

These are the questions that will ultimately determine whether the confidence placed in him by voters was justified.

APC Must Also Read the Message

For the APC, the defeat should not be reduced to complaints about electoral malpractice.

Where genuine irregularities occurred, the party should document them and seek legal remedies.

But beyond the courtroom, the party must conduct an honest political autopsy.

Why did it lose?

Why did Adeleke win 19 LGAs?

What did the APC candidate fail to communicate?

Were internal divisions responsible?

Did the party sufficiently connect with young voters?

Did national political issues influence voters?

Did the electorate perceive the opposition’s candidate as a better alternative?

These questions cannot be answered by blaming INEC alone.

A political party that wants to win an election must first understand the people it wants to govern.

INEC Must Not Become Defensive

The Independent National Electoral Commission also has important homework to do.

INEC must understand that public trust is more valuable than institutional pride.

When observers identify BVAS failures, vote trading, intimidation or other electoral offences, the appropriate response should not be defensiveness.

The commission should investigate.

Where mistakes occurred, INEC should admit them.

Where officials failed, they should be sanctioned.

Where political actors interfered with the process, the appropriate law-enforcement agencies should act.

Most importantly, INEC should make its post-election review public.

Democracy becomes stronger when institutions are willing to learn from their mistakes.

Security Agencies Must Protect Voters, Not Political Interests

The role of security agencies during elections is straightforward: protect voters, election officials, candidates, observers and electoral materials.

They are not supposed to determine winners.

They are not supposed to intimidate citizens.

They are not supposed to become instruments of political parties.

Where allegations are made against security personnel, independent investigations should establish the facts.

The presence of security personnel at polling units should make voters feel safer—not make them afraid.

The Courts Must Remain the Final Safety Valve

If any candidate or political party believes that the election was substantially compromised, the law provides a pathway.

That pathway is the courts.

Not violence.

Not threats.

Not attacks on INEC officials.

Not attacks on journalists.

Not destruction of public property.

The EU-SDGN Election Observation Hub has urged parties and candidates to channel grievances through lawful and judicial means.

That is the correct position.

Democracy does not end when INEC announces a winner.

But neither does the rule of law end because a candidate is unhappy with the result.

The Bigger Lesson for Nigeria

Perhaps the greatest lesson from Osun is that Nigerian democracy has progressed, but it remains fragile.

Citizens are increasingly interested in elections.

Technology is becoming more important.

Observers are paying closer attention.

Social media has made it more difficult to hide certain incidents.

But political desperation remains powerful.

Vote buying remains a problem.

Intimidation remains a problem.

Electoral violence remains a threat.

Technical failures remain capable of undermining confidence.

And the enormous cost of political competition continues to raise questions about who can realistically participate in Nigerian politics.

We cannot build a strong democracy on a foundation of fear and money.

Nor can we continue to celebrate elections simply because ballot papers were counted.

The real measure of democracy is whether citizens are able to make their choices freely and whether those choices are accurately reflected in the final result.

Our Position

DReportorial Media congratulates the people of Osun State for participating in the democratic process and congratulates Ademola Adeleke on his victory as declared by INEC.

But our congratulations must come with a warning.

Victory must not become permission to abuse power.

The opposition must not be treated as an enemy.

Critics must not be silenced.

Security agencies must remain professional.

INEC must investigate the weaknesses exposed by the election.

Vote buying must be confronted.

Political thuggery must be punished.

And allegations of intimidation must never be dismissed merely because the accused party eventually won or lost.

For the APC and other opposition parties, the message is equally clear: accept the people’s verdict, pursue legitimate legal remedies where necessary, and return to the people with better ideas.

For Adeleke, the message is perhaps the most important of all:

The people have given you another mandate. Now give them another reason to trust democracy.

The Osun electorate has spoken.

The responsibility now belongs to the winner, the opposition, INEC, security agencies and, ultimately, the citizens themselves.

Nigeria cannot afford an electoral culture in which winning matters more than how the people are allowed to choose.

The objective of democracy should not simply be to produce winners.

It must produce a government that genuinely reflects the free will of the people.

And that is the standard by which the 2026 Osun election—and every election that follows—must be judged.