INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2557

Electoral Militarization and the Challenges of Free and Fair

Elections in Nigeria: A Focus on the 2023 Presidential Election

Namo, Innocent Benjamin, Ph.D., Danbala, Ibrahim Naimu.,

Prof. Nse Etim Akpan

Department of Political Science, Federal University, Wukari, Taraba State, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800226

Received: 07 July 2025; Accepted: 18 July 2025; Published: 25 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Elections in Nigeria has not only become a “do or die affair” as aptly captured by former President Olusegun

Obasanjo but a reflection of the character of Nigeria’s political class who are only interested in extracting all

they could from the country. Additionally, a major issue of debate and comments from scholars after every

election in the country is the use of the military in the conduct of such elections. This study examines electoral

militarization and the challenges of free and fair elections in the country with a focus on the 2023 presidential

election. Qualitatively driven with reliance on the secondary sources of data, it argues that although the 2023

election scored some level of pass mark in the area of security deployment and the exhibition of some decorum

in the conduct of security personnel in some states of the federation during the election, the heavy presence of

the military negatively affected the outcome of the contest. Similarly, it adduced the low voter turnout in the

election and traced most of the recorded incidences of violence and malpractice to the intimidating presence of

military personnel during the process. The study recommends constitutional and political reforms aimed at

making politics less attractive particularly at the centre, reduction in the jumbo salaries and allowances paid to

political office holders, introduction of electronic voting among others if the attainment of a free, fair and

credible elections is to be achieved in Nigeria.

Key words: Election, Electoral Militarization, Presidential, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

Election is a formal process where people choose their representatives or decide on a particular issue. It is a

fundamental aspect of democracy, allowing citizens to participate in the decision making process and hold

their leaders accountable. As a matter of fact, there cannot be democracy in the right sense of the word without

election, a development which makes the process a key determinant of any democratic experiment. Election is

a serious contestation by candidates for votes often through political parties. The candidate or a party with the

most votes in such contest is deemed to have emerged as the winner and gets to represent the people or make

decisions on their behalf. Elections can be held for various positions, such as president, parliament or even

local government and it can also be held to decide on specific issues, like constitutional amendments or

policies of government (Yohana & Maichbi, 2022:13).

However, election as a contest between candidates and political parties is not really an issue but the process of

the conduct of the election remains key to the success or failure of democratic experiments. What this means is

that for an election to fit into the prism of democracy, it must meet certain basic criteria or conditions. But

basically, the election must be seen to be and as well adjudged to be free and fair and for it to attain that status,

all citizens must be able to vote without fear or intimidation. This of course becomes the key focus of this

study.

The history of post-colonial electoral engineering in Nigeria is replete with instances of militarism and

violence during election times. Fair documentation of such a culture of electoral violence has been attained

through a number of scholarly literatures. Campbell (2010), for example wrote on the possible implications of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2558

the jettisoning of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP)’s “unwritten” zoning formula for Nigeria’s peace,

stability and democratic consolidation. For Osumah & Aghedo (2010); and Ekweremadu (2011), Nigeria’s

recurring pattern of electoral violence should be seen as a manifestation of the growing disappointments and

apprehension of the electorates and the inability of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to

conduct widely accepted, free, fair, and open elections. Others have placed Nigeria’s history of electoral

violence within the door step of vote rigging, dodgy politics, ballot snatching at gun points, violence and

acrimony, “thuggery”, brazen falsification of election results, the use of security agencies against political

opponents and the intimidation of voters over the years, (Oni et al. 2013, Bekoe, 2011, Omotola, 2010,

Adigbuo, 2008).

Aside from INEC’s failure to deliver on its avowed mandate in virtually all the elections in the country since

the return to democratic governance in 1999, the militarization of the process has continued to threaten

Nigeria’s attempt at achieving a free, fair and credible election. In fact, this much has been argued by Olaniyan

and Amao (2015) with their submission that the seeming inability of INEC to discharge its responsibility

effectively coupled with the political partisanship of the security agencies in the discharge of their duties

during and after elections has continued to threaten Nigeria’s attempt towards democratic consolidation.

Additionally, the intimidating presence of the military during elections has already violated a key condition of

a free, fair and credible election where all citizens and by that registered voters must be able to vote for a

candidate of their choice without fear of intimidation. As Gueye & Hounkpe, (2010) argues, the mode of

involving security forces and how they carry out their duties while participating in the electoral process in

Nigeria can also be adduced as part of the fundamental causes of violence and insecurity during elections.

Onapajo (2014), drawing references from a number of elections conducted in Nigeria between 2007 and 2011

argues that, in terms of influencing election outcomes, the incumbent has been more associated with violence

during elections than the opposition. In all of these scholarly assessments however, there has always been a

particular constant, the role of Nigeria’s security forces in the ensuing violence that has greeted most of these

elections (Olaniyan and Amao, 2015).

On the other hand, militarization which is the process by which a society, institution or individual becomes

increasingly influenced by or subject to military values, structures, and personnel as well as the expansion of

military power, influence, and culture into areas previously considered civilian or non-military has become the

bane of electoral process in Nigeria (Animashuan & Borisade, 2021:241). The above definition captures

vividly what has befallen Nigeria in its bid to surmount the challenges of free, fair and credible election as the

electoral process meant to be purely a civil obligation of citizens have been distorted by the heavy presence of

the military in what would have been a straight civil issue which election portends. It has been argued by

scholars that election is solely a police affair as the presence of security operatives around the polling booths

are for the protection of the citizens and not to intimidate them. Thus, it has been argued further that soldiers or

the military has no place in elections. As a matter of fact, if Nigerian policemen are found effective in

international peacekeeping which entails engagements with parties in conflict and oftentimes electoral duties,

then it is quite surprising that they are found not suitable to handle electoral duties in Nigeria. This position is

equally strengthened and validated by the fact that both the police and the civil defence combine are not

reckoned with and trusted to deliver on their civil duties during elections in the country.

It is therefore not surprising that since the return to democracy in the country, one issue which has drawn

criticism and public fury from Nigerians is the deployment of the military during elections in Nigeria. Most

notable among these elections, were the governorship elections in Edo and Ondo States in 2012, in Anambra

(2013), and in the Ekiti and Osun governorship elections in 2014. Rather than relying on the police to provide

the security needed during the gubernatorial elections in the five states mentioned above, the Nigerian federal

government deployed large detachment of soldiers and other security operatives in these states to assist and

ensure peaceful conduct during the elections (Olaniyan and Amao, 2015) In the Ekiti elections in particular,

the protests reached high heavens, when prominent members of Nigeria’s main opposition party, the All

Progressives Congress, were denied entry into the state capital by soldiers and other security agencies in a

commando-styled operation, to participate in their party’s grand rally a few days before the election (Thisday,

20 June, 2014). If the election in Ekiti State was “heavily militarized”, the military and security presence in the

gubernatorial elections in Osun State was massive, with a deployment of a 73,000-strong security contingent to

oversee security concerns during the election (Ajayi, 2014).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2559

The 2023 presidential election in Nigeria was marred by various issues although there is no clear evidence of

outright militarization except for the fact that a large number of soldiers were mobilized for the process.

However, there were reports of voter intimidation, ballot snatching and attacks in certain parts of the country.

It must be stated that the 2023 Presidential Election is one of the most keenly and closely contested elections in

the history of Nigerian Presidential Elections since the colonial and post-independence period. The election

was heralded with tensions, accusations and counter-accusations, intense campaign, trade of blames by the

ruling and major opposition parties and other related issues (Idowu and Iyabode, 2024). The election was also

criticized for the failure of INEC to upload polling units to the INEC result viewing portal as promised by the

electoral umpire. This lack of transparency fueled accusations of fraud and electoral manipulation, a

development which raised series of questions on the credibility of that electoral contest to date. It is therefore

against this backdrop that this study attempts an examination of the extent to which the militarization of the

2023 presidential election affected its credibility with a view to suggesting some measures that could mitigate

such in subsequent elections in Nigeria. In doing this, it recognizes the need to fill the existing lacuna in

literature on this subject as none of the several studies on the militarization of elections in the country is

focused on the 2023 presidential election.

Conceptualizing Electoral Militarization in Nigeria

The concept of electoral militarization typically implies a more direct and pervasive role of the military in the

electoral process different from other forms of electoral malpractices. It is associated with military rule and

military factor in societal affair such as resort to force and unconstitutional exercise of political powers. This is

antithetical to democratic practice of institutional and constitutional approach to governance that incorporates

popular participation and freedom of choice in political recruitment and governance (Animashuan and

Borisade, 2021). Thus, studies on elections reveals that the issue of militarization of the electoral process is not

an entirely recent phenomenon or restricted to Nigeria (Mapuva, 2010; Olaniyan & Amao, 2015).

Militarization is defined here as the heightened deployment of military in the electoral process which results in

the weakening or domination of other law enforcement and civilian institutions in ways that affect the conduct,

outcome or credibility of the elections. In a broader sense, it involves the growing influence of the military in

areas such as politics, economy, education, and culture, while others refer to electoral militarization as the use

of military force, intimidation, or coercion to influence the outcome of an election. Militarization has been an

integral element of electoral politics in Nigeria, even before the return to democracy in May 1999. Although

latent during military interregnum due to constriction of the space for political competition, militarization of

the electoral process is inherently tied to the character of the Nigerian state and the premium politicians place

on state power (Onuoha, Okafor, Ojewale and Okoro, 2020).

According to Onuoha et al (2020), political competition in general and electoral contest in particular in post-

colonial states are dialectically linked to the process of primitive accumulation, with detrimental consequences

for genuine democratic rule. As Ake (2003, p. 3) has rightly noted, this approach hardly encourages

moderation and compromise because it is deeply driven by the calculus of power. For everyone in the political

arena, security lies in the power accumulation. Given the premium placed on state power and the intensity of

political competition, winning an election at all costs becomes the primary consideration of politicians given

the concentration of wealth at the centre of the post-colonial state (Onuoha et al, 2020). In the post-colonial

Nigerian state, the government at the centre is structured to wield a disproportionate amount of power and

resources in ways that make politics in general and elections in the words of former Nigeria’s president

Olusegun Obasanjo a do-or-die affair. It is this mindset that also propels candidates and parties to design all

manners of uncouth tactics before, during and after elections without recourse to the antidemocratic effects

afterwards.

Accordingly, the political culture that emerged out of colonial politics has been one of the general causes of

frequent military interventions in Africa (Salihu, 2016). In relation to Nigeria, prolonged years of military rule

foisted on civil society a militarized political culture in the democratic space. As a result, the political

behaviour of politicians in a supposedly democratic setting has assumed combative postures rather than

dialogue, negotiation and consensus as demanded by democratic tenets (Frank & Ukpere, 2012). Hence,

desperate politicians not in control of political power often adopt a combative posture that involves the

mobilization of violence (thuggery) for electoral advantage, while those in control of political power,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2560

especially the ruling party, mobilize state institutions (the military) for electoral advantage. Thus, militarization

of the electoral process becomes a logical manifestation of a disproportionate amount of power and resources

exercised by those in possession of state power to advance their political and electoral interests (Onuoha et al,

2020).

Generally, during the elections, the military will; serve as members of the electoral management body; render

administrative assistance and support, or provide protection for election materials and security against election

related violence and misdemeanor. The level of involvement is what causes the contention about militarization

of elections and there are two perspectives in this regard. On one end, it is argued that because of the level of

violence characterised in Nigerian elections, combined with ineffective policing, it is necessary to deploy the

military. Furthermore, the logistics required to transport election materials to difficult-to-reach areas provide

justification for deploying military personnel. The other side of the argument states that military involvement

is illegal and politicians use this to intimidate the opposition. It is also argued that force deployment also

creates an air of fear and adds to voter apathy (Eguegu and Iwara, 2023).

Arguments for and Against Electoral Militarization in Nigeria

There is serious resentment by Nigerians over the presence of the military in elections in the country. Most

political analyst and members of civil society organizations related to the electoral process have not hidden

their reservations on the involvement of the military in elections. They have argued severally that electoral

militarization undermines democracy by subverting the democratic process, undermining the principles of free

and fair elections as the use of military force to influence the outcome of an election can lead to a loss of

public trust in the electoral process. They have also observed that electoral militarization violates human rights

as the use of the military to intimidate or coerce voters is a violation of the fundamental human rights of

Nigerians, including the right to free speech, assembly and association.

There is equally the argument that the use of the military for election duties fosters unstable governance as it

can create resentment and opposition among the citizens. This is mostly focused on the opposition candidates

and parties which often are the targets of intimidation by the military. This also has been the source of several

litigations after elections as most candidates lay claims to the harassment of their supporters at polling units as

part of the reasons for their failure and that of their parties. The numerous litigations also manifest in the

distraction of governance as most winners of such elections are faced with several cases with frequent visits to

tribunals and courts post-election, a development which distracts them from governance.

However, Ikeji (2015) identified five facets of military involvement in elections, namely: (i) serving as

members of the electoral management body; (ii) contesting elections as candidates; (iii) rendering

administrative assistance or quasi-administrative support for elections; (iv) voting in elections; and (v)

providing protection for sensitive election materials or providing security against violence or sundry electoral

malpractices before, during or after the elections. However, it is the fifth level of involvement that has

generated serious contention on the necessity or legality and otherwise of their deployment for election duties.

For Onuoha et al (2020: 408), two contending perspectives have emerged, namely proponents and opponents

of deployment of the military in election duties. The proponents argue that the high levels of violence that

characterize Nigeria’s elections and the inability of the police to ensure peaceful conduct of elections

necessitate the deployment of the military. In addition, the huge logistic effort required in transporting (by

land, sea and air) election materials in difficult terrains and the constitutional provision requiring the military

to provide assistance to civil authority provide strong justifications for deploying soldiers during polls.

However, opponents maintain that the deployment of the military is not only illegal but also used by

incumbents to rig elections and intimidate opposition elements. They also contend that the heavy deployment

of soldiers generates an atmosphere of fear that contributes to voter apathy. The result has been some

controversies over the constitutionality or otherwise of the involvement of the military in election duties.

They went further to capture some provisions in constitutional, legislative and consultative frameworks which

permit the involvement of the military in the electoral process. However, they lack safeguards to avoid misuse

of the institution in such critical national assignments. The role of the Nigerian military is aptly captured in the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2561

1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Section 217 tasked the military to defend

Nigeria’s territorial integrity as well as to aid civil authorities in restoring order when called upon to do so by

the president, but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by an act of the National Assembly (NASS).

Furthermore, Section 218 (1) stipulates that ‘the power of the President as the Commander-In-Chief of the

Armed Forces of the federation shall include power to determine the operational use of the armed forces of the

federation’ (Onuoha et al, 2020).

Thus, the ‘operational use of the Armed Forces’ has been interpreted to mean the operational use of the

military for the purpose of maintaining and securing public safety and order. Leveraging these constitutional

and statutory provisions, Nigerian presidents have exercised the power to decide how and when the operations

of the military are utilized, including deploying them for the purpose of maintaining and securing public

safety, law and order. However, the crux of the matter remains whether the use of the military in elections is an

extension of the day-to-day operational use of the armed forces (Onuoha et al, 2020).

Given that elections in Nigeria have often been violent (Herskovits, 2007; Onapajo, 2014; Orji, 2015), the use

of the military for election duties was contemplated in extant electoral law. Section 29(3) of the Electoral Act

2010 as amended empowers the INEC to request the deployment of relevant security personnel necessary for

securing elections or registration of voters, and for the employment of the Nigerian armed forces only for the

purposes of securing the distribution and delivery of election materials and protection of elections officials.

From all of the above, the discernable arguments of those in favor of the use of the military in elections are

based on the maintenance of law and order and as well prevent violence during elections particularly in areas

with a history of electoral violence. Others argue that electoral militarization can be necessary to protect

national, mostly, in cases where foreign actors may be seeking to influence the outcome of an election. These

arguments are highly controversial and can be used to justify authoritarianism. It must be noted that in several

other climes, the use of military force to influence the outcome of an election is widely considered to be a

violation of democratic principles and human rights.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research work relied heavily on both primary and secondary sources of data collection. It also used both

quantitative and qualitative method of data analysis (Mixed method). The primary sources are the direct

participant observation by the author being an active part-taker of the 2023 Presidential Election process in

Taraba North Senatorial District precisely Lau local government where he served as the returning officer for

the presidential election. In addition to this, the author participated in the process of live declaration of the

result via the Taraba State television where the author gathered primarily the raw results, compiled them,

analyzed them and interpret them for a robust discussion of the entire election results. The secondary sources

involve books, journals, newspapers, internet sources and existing relevant materials on the subject matter. The

secondary sources were used for a critical review of related literature, formation of theoretical framework to

strengthen the arguments in the discussions. The primary data was textually analyzed as it added real time

value to the study while the qualitative data were thematically analyzed and embedded in the study.

Theoretical Framework

This study adopted the Policy Theory of Conflict which examines the role of policy making in driving conflict

and militarization during electoral processes. It suggests that policies can create an environment conducive to

militarization and violence. Developed by Adenyi Theophilus Okechukwu in 2016 in his book titled: Elements

of Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution the main tenet of this theory is that bad policy whether public policy

or policy from private individuals trigger conflict which in turn leads to loss of lives and properties both at

inter-personal, national and international levels. The assumption of the theory is that bad, abhorrent, detested

and unfair policies can lead to a violent conflict. The theory seek to explain why some programme of action of

government instead of bringing peace and cordiality, and atmosphere of cohesion and tranquility may lead to

bitterness, animosity, resentment, malice and acrimony and thereby bring about conflict which often is

destructive and intractable due to the bias, preconceived notion, favoritism, partiality of the policy formulators

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2562

against a particular group or individuals especially in the distribution of limited resource, power sharing,

resolution approach to conflict among others (Adenyi, 2016).

Policy as noted by the theorist is a statement or programme of action of government, institutions or individuals

towards the realization and attainment of a goal or objective. In the process of formulation of a policy, policy

makers (government and individuals) in most cases formulate it to achieve a particular objective and in so

doing, when it favors a particular group in the society and dis-favour others especially public policy that

emanates from government. The group or person/persons that the policy favors may capitalize on it to suppress

and intimidate the disfavored group or persons and thus creating conflict. In most cases the policy formulators

formulate the policy to favour a particular person or group simple because they or he/she is at the corridor of

power or close to government without evaluating the consequences, just to achieve a particular objective

(Okechukwu,Chukwuka, and Chikwado, 2019). Such policy in most cases are influenced by the group or

individual(s) it favored to enable them achieve their parochial interest and thus create conflict which if not

resolved or prevented on time may become violent and destructive. Whenever such policy is formulated, the

group, individual or individuals that the policy discriminates against or disfavors will show disenchantment

and resistance against the implementation of the policy and may employ every means such as demonstration

and violence to express their rejection or grievances and which may degenerate into an intractable dimension.

Government being the formulators of the policy (public policy) will in turn resort to the use of conflict

suppression mechanism by mobilizing all its apparatus such as the police, army and bureaucrats to enforce

compliance with the policy against the agitating group or individual(s). In some case government often

infiltrate the disfavored group and use some of them to whittle down their opposition and resentment to the

policy after which the moles are rewarded with appointment or financial rewards (Okechukwu,et al, 2019).

Policy when formulated requires an extensive evaluation and appraisal so as to remove all the would be grey

areas for the benefit of all and sundry but when the reverse is the case, the consequences could be disastrous.

Adenyi (2016) further noted that bad policy can lead to both physical and structural violence as well as

negative peace. The theorist gave instances of where bad policies have led to conflicts including Nigeria,

where the bad policies of former President Olusegun Obasanjo in handling agitating groups that exacerbated

militancy in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria as well as the destruction of Odi and Zaki Biam communities

and the Aguleri/Umureli conflict which was triggered by the colonial flawed policies on land especially as it

affected Otuocha Land (Okechukwu,et al, 2019).

The theory is used in this work to explain the resentment shown towards the deployment of the military during

elections as a policy and why it has attracted condemnation, misgiving and ill-feelings among the political

class especially the opposition parties as such policy is meant to favour the ruling party against the opposition

parties. This scenario played out during 2015 election when the former government now the opposition party

(PDP) in the country use same military during the General Election of that year and also during the 2019

election where President Buhari was running for a second term in office. The same also happened during the

2023 elections which is the main focus of this study. It must be noted that as espoused by the supporters of

militarization that military deployment has been a policy to strengthen the security apparatus and provide

security for both voters and INEC personnel during elections but has turned out to be a disfavorable policy to

most Nigerians particularly members of the opposition parties in the country.

The above has gone further to collaborate the explanation offered by the theory that any group favored by a

particular policy could capitalize on it and use it to intimidate and suppress the disfavored group and thereby

generating conflict in the process. The opposition parties in Nigeria have not failed to point out that the use of

the military during elections is to enable the ruling party to have their way in perpetuating electoral

malpractices to their advantage. In the 2023 General Election just as the 2019, where there were violent clashes

were states and constituencies where the opposition held as their strong hold because they resisted

militarization policy. Another justification for the application of the theory in this study is that while the

opposition parties are crying foul of the militarization process, the ruling party and their friendly opposition

parties hailed the deployment of the military during the election because it favored them as the soldiers looked

the other way while they perpetuate all sort of electoral malpractices. In fact, there were some reported cases

that the military personnel were actually involved in ballot snatching.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2563

The Challenges of free and Fair Elections in Nigeria

The first challenge facing the conduct of a free and fair election in Nigeria is the problem of electoral violence.

Nigerian elections are plagued by persistent violence before and during elections. The 2023 general elections

in Nigeria continue a history of election violence, which is awful. This violence occurred in almost all 36

Nigerian states. Lagos was the epicenter (Ifedi¸et al., 2023). Political parties deployed thugs to disrupt votes in

Rivers, Lagos, Enugu, Abia, Adamawa, and others. In Enugu, a Labour Party House of Representatives

candidate was brutally killed two days before the House of Assembly election (Adekeye and Chima, 2022). A

Rivers State REC was warned not to call a local government's presidential results. Violence between Igbos and

Yorubas in Lagos State led to an ethnic crisis. A voter in Njikoka LGA was shot dead at the polls during the

election, while policemen in Ihiala LGA stopped hoodlums from stealing ballot boxes. This violence during

and after elections has harmed Nigerian elections. It also contributes to poor INEC election turnouts (Dii

2023).

The next challenge is that of non-compliance with the provisions of Electoral Laws. The signing of 2022

Electoral amended Bill into Law on 25th February, 2022 by President Muhammadu Buhari has raised the hope

of witnessing the smooth conduct of 2023 general elections. Therefore, any attempt by the electoral umpire

and security agencies not to effectively enforce the provisions of electoral laws during the 2023 general

elections may lead to a breakdown of law and order (Berebon, 2023).

There is also the issue of vote buying. Money influences leadership in Nigeria. Nigerian elections are now

centered on wealth, making them a “do or die affair”. Money politics are widespread in Africa. Due to skilled

and incorrupt leaders, Nigeria remains unfortunate (Alaye¸ 2023). Most Nigerian politicians still purchase

votes, which renders election outcomes unrepresentative of the people. Vote buying was revealed in the 2022

APC primaries. This helped most primary candidates win (Musa & Musa, 2023). We failed to abolish vote-

buying in the 2023 general elections. The more government tries to limit it; the more politicians find ways to

encourage it. The exorbitant cost of nomination forms is blamed for vote-buying. After spending so much on

nomination paperwork and campaigning, no one wants to lose an election. Vote-buying is another way

political elites stay in power because they would do everything to stay there (Berebon, 2023).

Partisanship by the Security Agencies remains another challenge. The purpose of deploying security personnel

for the management of elections is to forestall the breakdown of law and order. It is expected that both the

electoral umpire and security agency would discharge their responsibilities without discreetly without fear or

favour. However, there are cases whereby the security agencies take side with the ruling party or engage in

partisan politics in order to obtain certain benefits or the other (Adekeye and Chima, 2022). According to

(2020), there were high level partisanship of security operatives before June 21, 2015 Gubernatorial election in

Ekiti state; stalwarts of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) from Abuja, the capital territory and others from

outside the state were given easy access to Ekiti state; whereas former Governor Rotimi Amechi of Rivers

State, some other Governors and other stalwarts in the opposing party, All Peoples Congress (APC) were

barred by security operatives from entering Ekiti to attend a rally organized by their party (Ademowo, & Ojo,

2015). According to Yoroms (2019, the arrogance and compromising attitude of the security agencies in

elections is worrisome as the debate, as to whether to deploy security agencies for election activities is worth it

or not; continue to rage on until the experience with the Edo, Ekiti and Osun elections. Any attempt by security

agency to be partisan in their conduct during the 2023 general election would lead to none observance of the

rules of engagement or unprofessional conducts.

There is equally the challenge of high cost of running elections in the country. Nigerian elections have become

more expensive without any effort to reduce them (Berebon, 2023). This enormous cost offers unfit politicians

the motivation to rise to top positions and stay in power (Cheeseman & Klaas, 2018). This implies that when

these individuals take power, they will first hunt for methods to pilfer public money to replace election

spending, and at the end of their term, they will have done nothing other than emptying the public treasury to

line their pockets.

Political Apathy or low turnout of voters during elections is another glaring challenge. There is no doubt that

heavy deployment of security personnel during elections would infringe on the fundamental human rights of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2564

citizens to freedom of movement, association, expression and treatment. Any time election is to be conducted

in Nigeria, it is like preparation for war due to heavy deployment of security personnel to the election venue

(Adekeye and Chima, 2022). This has led to drastic reduction in the number of voters during elections in the

fourth republic. According to Salihu and Yakubu (2021), in 2011, 69.3 million electorates registered to vote

but only 40.7 million voted due to previous experiences of violence during elections. As a matter of fact, low

turnout of voters during elections could give room for manipulation and outbreak of violence.

There is also the challenge of inadequate funding which relates to the role of the electoral umpire, INEC.Poor

finance is another INEC issue. INEC complains about low funds despite millions of naira for election

organization (Fourchard & Sikiru, 2023). Election-related ad hoc personnel should be compensated

handsomely. All these unlawful vote-buying methods stem from their low salary. Thus, the INEC must raise

their honoraria and pay them on schedule (Berebon, 2023).

Loss of confidence in the Electoral process is another challenge. The electorate may lose confidence in the

electoral process if their votes do not count. This may eventually snowball into electoral violence and break

down of law and order. Also, the inability of political aspirants to fulfill electoral promises when elected into

public offices may discourage voters from participating in subsequent elections (Adekeye and Chima, 2022).

According to Transition Monitoring Group (2021), Nigerians are losing confidence in the electoral system

because of malpractice, manipulation, violence, commercialization and privatization of political parties and

offices for self-centered interests. The loss of confidence in the electoral process has the tendency of

discrediting the outcome of 2023 general election.

The issue of logistics also constitutes a challenge. Transportation of persons, sensitive and non-sensitive items

is challenging during elections. Logistics have caused elections to start late or not at all. There are spots that

are hard to find or get there on time, such riverside and dangerous neighborhoods. INEC also worsens these

issues (Brusnahan¸et al., 2022). INEC sometimes forgets to plan. Planning beforehand and not making plans

on election day helps avoid these delays. The INEC should also provide secure housing for ad-hoc personnel.

Allowing them to convey at INEC offices on election day is inappropriate and might create delays (Berebon,

2023).

Another challenge is the lack of adequate political education. Most citizens who are not properly educated

about the numerous benefits inherent in casting their votes during elections may be apathetic and nonchalant in

performing their civic responsibilities making themselves available to vote or be voted for. According to the

conversation Newspaper (2022) politicians and their paid agents are known to have been involved in violence

against opponents and their supporters. This is sometimes done directly, with mobilization of thugs, or

indirectly through hate speech and incitement of violence, against targeted opponents. This became possible

because such individuals were not properly education about the danger inherent in participation in electoral

violence, manipulation and malpractices (Adekeye and Chima, 2022).

Proliferation of Security Agencies remains a serious challenge to the conduct of free and fair elections in the

country. Security agencies in Nigeria consist of the Nigerian Police Force, Members of the Nigerian Armed

Forces (Army, Navy, Custom and Air Force), Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corp, Traffic Warden,

Road Safety, Fire Service, Directorate of State Service, Vehicle Inspector Officers (VIO), Nigerian

Intelligence Agencies. However, the Nigerian Police Force and Civil Defence are to be assisted by other

security personnel during election based on the provision of Electoral Laws and the 1999 Constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria (Adekeye and Chima, 2022).Specifically, the responsibilities of the Nigerian

Police Force and Civil Defence Corp are to take charge of internal security while the duty of the Nigerian

Army is to defend the territorial integrity of Nigeria from external aggression (Adekeye and Chima, 2022).On

the contrary, the Nigerian Army has been saddled with the responsibilities of assisting the Nigerian Police

Force in the maintenance of internal security in the fourth republic due to increase in crime wave, insurgency,

banditry and kidnapping. The interconnectivity in functions of surety personnel has therefore resulted into role

conflict among members of Armed Forces and the Paramilitary during the period of elections (Adekeye and

Chima, 2022). According to Mahmud (2015), security could improve without the use of the Army. In the most

civil of political activities, the presence of the Armed Military personnel makes voting look more like a war

than an occasion of civil responsibility. Well trained police equipped with the appropriate tools can handle

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2565

elections and should be left to do so. The proliferation of security agencies therefore posed a great challenge to

the successful conduct of 2023 general elections.

In summary, the key challenges ranges from ethnic and tribal loyalty where voting was carried out along ethnic

or tribal lines rather than the candidate’s qualification or policies, corruption particularly within the security

agencies which undermined the credibility of the electoral process, insecurity and violence which discouraged

voters from participating in the election, lack of trustin the electoral umpire and institutions to inadequate

electoral reforms and the failure of security support services. It is unarguably certain that these challenges

added to the erosion of the credibility of the 2023 general elections and its resultant failure to meet the standard

that could be adjudged to be free, fair and credible.

Electoral Militarization, Free and Fair Election and the 2023 Presidential Election in Nigeria

The best point to begin this analysis is to examine first the main motive behind the Nigerian government’s

massive deployment of troops for the 15

February, 2023 presidential election. This can however be viewed in

two perspectives. The first being the reason offered by the presidency that the troops were for the security of

lives and property, which is the very essence of government and in the process, ensure a free, fair and

transparent election. This has also been justified by some scholars and analysts as being in tandem with the

desire of government to prevent the breakdown of law and order by using the military forces in the conduct of

the election. This position is equally supported by the Hobbessian conceptualization of security which argues

for the maximum use of state power to secure the lives of the people and their property (Olaniyan and Amao,

2024). In a democracy, elections represent the acceptable platform for the emergence of political leaders. In

that wise, it behooves on the state to ensure credibility of the process. One of the ways to achieve this is the

protection of the men that will conduct the election, the materials to be used, the voters, the voting

environment and the political gladiators (Gueye and Hounkpe, 2010, Jega, 2013, Olurede, 2013).

In furtherance of their argument in support of the heavy deployment of soldiers for the election, Idowu and

Iyabode (2024) observed that the desire to protect lives and property by the state is where the security forces

come in as the only recognized state institution empowered to ensure security before, during and after

elections. In essence therefore, securing election is a fundamental duty of the security forces, on behalf of the

state. In this wise, massive deployment of security forces to secure election, as witnessed in the 2023

presidential election is in order and highly essential. The second perspective has to do with the motive behind

such deployment as observed by other scholars. To them, the hidden motive of the heavy deployment points to

desperate desire to influence the outcomes of the election through intimidation, coercion, oppression and

suppression of members of the opposition parties. This much manifested in the 2023 presidential election as

members of the opposition were singled out for arrest and detention. In Lagos it was an open attack on the

Igbos living there because of their perceived support for Peter Obi an Igbo and presidential candidate of the

Labour Party (LP) who eventually scored the highest vote in the said election. Not a single member of the All

Progressive Party (APC), the President’s party was molested.

Thus, the major problem is therefore not in the overt reason for such an excessive deployment of troops, but

rather in the covert underpinning motives of the deployment. In other words, there could be militarization to

ensure safety and there could be militarization to intimate opposition. In the case of this study, the case seems

to be the latter as evident in the selective harassment of members of the opposition parties. A situation where

security forces are deployed to intimidate the opposition in order to secure a victory for the President’s party

does not augur well for neither free and fair election nor the consolidation of democracy. This was agreed to by

the Civil society group when they aver that “this culture of hooded gunmen ostensibly acting in the capacity of

legitimate state operatives is thoroughly condemned and has no place in nurturing a democracy in which the

citizens are not terrorized by agents of State” (Sahara Reporters cited in Idowu and Iyabode, 2024). It must be

noted that democracy thrives in the presence of vibrant opposition and as such any threat to the existence of

opposition is therefore a threat to free, fair and credible election as well as democratic sustenance and

consolidation.

For the election under discourse, INEC promised free, fair and credible elections (Moses 2023), and received

more than 300 billion naira from the federal government (The Guardian Editorial 2022). During the election,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2566

police and security agencies supplied more than 400 000 security agents for the protection of INEC staff and

voters (Taiwo-Obalonye, 2023). Even the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) deployed its

staff to curb voter inducement and vote buying. During the elections, voters were attacked and there was an

apparent manipulation of the election’s outcome (Fasakin, 2023:98) In Lagos, cases of intimidation, violence

and voter suppression were rife. One voter, Efidi Bina Jennifer, was attacked by thugs and her face was bruised

(Folorunso-Francis et al. 2023). In Port Harcourt, attacks on voters were linked to former Rivers State

governor Nyesom Wike, who worked for Bola Tinubu, the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate.

According to Adeseye Ogunlewe, a leader in the APC, Wike has been ‘compensated’ with a ministerial

position for his role during Tinubu’s election (Channels Television 2023). There were cases of ballot box and

BVAS snatching and the destruction of ballot boxes and papers in other parts of the country. On his part, Abati

(2023) opined that the elections were ‘…the worst in terms of management as violence raged on in Lagos,

Rivers, Taraba and as political gladiators turned the elections into war and an opportunity for bloodshed’.

There were also reported cases of disruption of elections during the 2023 elections, soldiers and political thugs

were allegedly involved in the disruption of electoral process at the polling units and collation centres. In

Akwa Ibom State, the military were used to perpetuate electoral malpractice as they ordered voters, observers

and some party agents out of the centers where the results were collated so as to achieve their aim of falsifying

the results for candidates of their choice (Udoh, 2023). This scenario was not different in Rivers, Imo, Cross

River etc. Partisan deployment of the military has been criticized by some analysts. As posited by Odinkalu

and Nwachukwu (2019) in their report on the 2019 election, rather than deploying the military to those parts of

the country that had a higher risk of violence, such as the North-East and the North-West, they were sent to

areas that reported fewer casualties in violence (South-East) or reinforced in parts with the longest presence of

expeditionary military deployment (South-South/Niger Delta). In the case of Rivers State, the INEC

acknowledged that ‘collation centres were invaded by some soldiers and armed gangs resulting in the

intimidation and unlawful arrest of election officials thereby disrupting the collation process’ (Ebiri et al.,

2019).

However, the 2023 election scored some level of pass mark as recorded by CLEEN Foundation in the area of

security deployment for the election. The Election Security Support Centre observed that there were adequate

security personnel deployment for the conduct of the 2023 Presidential elections held on 25

February 2023

however there were gaps in the deployment of the security personnel in terms of spread. While majority of the

polling units recorded three or more security personnel, other polling units had one or two security personnel

while very few had no security personnel. Armed security personnel were observed to be patrolling the major

roads and kept their distances from the polling units across the country (CLEEN, 2023).

Additionally, there seemed to have been some decorum in the conduct of security personnel in some states of

the federation. The CLEEN foundation commended the conduct of the security personnel deployed on duty for

the Presidential and National Assembly Elections across the country for their professionalism during the

polling exercise although it drew the attention of the army authority to the allegations of voter intimidation and

collusion to rig the election levelled against some of the military personnel. The foundation demanded for

decisive actions to be taken against such personnel after thorough investigation (CLEEN, 2023). This study

cannot state categorically that the military authorities have taken any positive step in this direction to date.

The above commendation of the military notwithstanding and basically from the legal point of view, the

military has no place in elections in Nigeria. This much has been argued by legal experts that it is illegal for

the government to employ or use the armed forces to maintain law and order during elections. Relying on

Sections 215 and 217 of the Constitution, they noted though that the President of the country has the powers to

deploy armed forces, but that such powers are only applicable to the suppression of insurrection, including

insurgency and aiding the police to restore order when it has broken down (Falana, cited in PM News, 11

August, 2014). It is imperative to mention that the effects of the militarization of the 2023 presidential

elections were believed to have been mostly felt by members of Nigeria’s main opposition party, the Peoples’

Democratic Party who were battling to regain power after losing to the then opposition All Progressive

Congress (APC) in the 2015 presidential election.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2567

Similarly, judicial pronouncements on militarization of elections in Nigeria shows that the Courts have in

several judgments frowned at the involvement of the military in elections. That is why the opponents of

military deployment during election based their argument on the fact that it puts fear on the electorate and that

there are subsisting judgments of courts barring the military from involving its personnel directly in elections

in Nigeria. One of such judgments is a Federal High Court Sokoto Division judgment where Justice Aikawa in

the suit marked: FHC/S/CS/29/2014 among others, restrained the President and Commander in-Chief of the

Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and INEC from engaging the service of the Nigerian armed

forces in the security supervision of elections in any manner whatsoever in any part of Nigeria, without the Act

of the National Assembly (Okechukwu et al, 2019).

The Court of Appeal in Yussuf vs Obasanjo, 2005, 18 NWLR (PT956), 96, ruled that, “It is up to the police to

protect our nascent democracy and not the military, otherwise the democracy might be wittingly or unwittingly

militarized. This is not what the citizenry bargained for in wrestling power from the military in 1999.

Conscious step or steps should be taken to civilianize the polity to ensure the survival and sustenance of

democracy (Okechukwu et al, 2019).

One of the effects of militarization, and electoral violence to Nigeria’s democracy is voter’s apathy. There was

wide spread apathy on the side of Nigeria voters during the 2019 General Election and as Olukosi (2019) puts

it militarizing the Nigerian elections indirectly contributed to low voter turnout. Because of the precedent of

aggression in Nigerian soldiers, most electorates dread them to the extent that they do everything to avoid

them. The 2023 Nigerian presidential election had a total of 93.47 million registered voters. However, only

24.9 million persons actually voted, representing a 26.72% voter turnout. This turn out has remained the lowest

since the return to democracy in 1999 (Amata, 2023). Compared to the voter turnout of 34.74% in the 2019

general election, the turnout in the just concluded election declined by 8.03 percent (Amata, 2023). Besides the

low turnout, which has become a -trend in Nigeria’s recent elections, the 2023 presidential election cannot be

said to have been free, fair and credible with all the recorded incidences of malpractices and outright

intimidation of voters by troops deployed for the election in various states of the federation.

CONCLUSION

This study examined the militarization of the 2023 presidential election and the challenges of free, fair and

credible elections in the country. It uncovered from the gamut of data and evidence gathered that it may be

difficult for Nigeria to have a completely demilitarized election as it happens in other popular democracies in

the world. It equally observes that for electoral demilitarization to be achieved, attempts must however be

made by the Nigerian government and more importantly, the country’s electoral umpire (INEC) to limit the

role of the military to situations which cannot be brought under control by the Police and other para-military

agencies, and not the outright involvement as witnessed in the 2023 presidential election. Over all, it seems

that the deployment of troops runs in tandem with the do or die nature of electoral contests in Nigeria as well

as the predatory character of the Nigerian political elites. Therefore, there is need for Nigeria’s politicians and

its citizens to embrace a change of attitude and perception towards politics and governance, so that democracy

can mature fast, such that the military can be restricted to performing their constitutional duties. Conclusively,

it is the stand of this study that as far as the military is deployed in elections in the country, the attainment of

free, fair and credible elections will remain elusive while the expectation of democratic sustenance and

consolidation in Nigeria will be a mirage.

However, given the above conclusion, this study advances the following recommendations:

(i) The Nigerian government should undertake constitutional and political reforms aimed at making

politics less attractive particularly at the centre. This can be done by the devolution of presidential

powers and the clear application of fiscal federalism where proceeds from resources found in a

particular state should first and foremost be utilized in the development of such a state and a certain

percentage sent to the centre instead of what is presently obtainable in the country.

(ii) It is imperative that the jumbo salaries and allowances as well as other privileges attached to the office

of the president be cut down alongside that of other political and other public officials. This will reduce

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2568

the level of desperation by political office seekers and by extension a reduction in thuggery, electoral

malpractices and violence during elections.

(iii) There is need for a wider security sector reforms where the police will be effectively equipped and

capacitated to deal with electoral security in league with other civil security agencies other than the

military.

(iv) Finally, the introduction of electronic voting and collation of results will on its reduce the work of

security agencies and discourage parties from strategizing to rig or perpetuate other forms of electoral

malpractices and violence before, during and after elections in Nigeria.

REFERENCES

1. Abati, R. (2023, March 1). Nigeria 2023: The best and the worst of times’, Premium Times.

2. Adekeye, J. A. & Chima, A. C. (2022). Military, policing and security during 2023 general elections in

Nigeria. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 26, (5).

3. Ademowo, A.; & Ojo, O. (2015). Electoral security and its implications for democratic consolidation

in Nigeria. The International Journal of Humanities and Social Studies. 3 (4), 223-255.

4. Adenyi, T. O. (2016). Elements of peace studies and conflict resolution. Oktek Publishers.

5. Adigbuo, E., (2008). Defender of the faith: The challenges of Nigeria’s 2007 presidential election.

Politikon,35(2), 223–245.

6. Ajayi, O., (2014, August 17). Osun: our victory was hard fought — Lai Mohammed. Vanguard

7. Ake, C. (2003). Democracy and development in Africa. Spectrum Books.

8. Alaye, A. (2023). Pitfalls in the electoral process of Nigeria’s fourth republic. African Journal of

Democracy and Election Research, 4(2), 93-108.

9. Amata, D. (2023, March 3). Nigeria records only 26.73% voter turnout in 2023 election. Dataphyte.

10. Animashaun, B. O. & Borisade, O. M. (2021). Militarization and the crisis of democratization in

Nigeria’s fourth republic: A reconsideration of the fourth-arm theory, LAJOHIS, 3(1), 240-265.

11. Bekoe, D. (2011). Nigeria’s 2011 elections: Best run, but most violent. Peace Brief, 103.

12. Berebon, C. B. (2023). Addressing electoral hurdles in Nigeria: analyzing the 2023 general elections

and INEC's role. Jurnal Ilmu Sosiologi Dialektika Kontemporer, Vol. 11, No. 2, Juli – December.

13. Brusnahan, A., Carrasco-Tenezaca, M., Bates, B. R., Roche, R., & Grijalva, M. J. (2022). Identifying

health care access barriers in southern rural Ecuador. International Journal for Equity in Health, 21(1),

55.

14. Campbell, J., (2010). Electoral violence in Nigeria. Contingency Planning Memorandum, No. 9,

Council on Foreign Relations.

15. Channels Television (2023, January 20). ‘Wike’s nomination compensation’ for role in Tinubu’s

election, says Ogunlewe’, Accessed fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?vt.

16. Cheeseman, N., & Klaas, B. (2018). How to rig an election? Yale University Press.

17. CLEEN Foundation (2023). Election security management and the 2023 general elections: A SWOT

analysis, CLEEN Foundation.

18. Dii, C. T. (2023). Voters’ disposition and the outcome of 2023 general elections in Nigeria.

International Journal of Development and Management Review, 18(1), 1-17.

19. Ebiri, K., Akubo, J., Umeh, K., Ityokura, M., & Agboluaje, R. (2019, March 17) INEC decries military

intervention in Rivers Guber election. Guardian.

20. Eguegu, O. & Iwara, M. (2023). Militarization of Elections in Nigeria: A bane of democratic growth.

Journal of Mediterranean Basin and African Civilizations, Vol. 5, No.1.

21. Ekweremadu, I. (2011, May 16). General Election: A Critical Review. This Day, 23.

22. Fasakin, A. (2023). Nigeria’s 2023 presidential elections the question of legitimacy for the tinubu

administration, Journal of African Election, 22 (2), 97-117.

23. Folorunsho-Francis, A et al. (2023, February 26), ‘Nigeria Elections 2023: Killings, BVAS, ballot box

snatching mar polls’, Punch Newspaper.

24. Fourchard, L., & Sikiru, A. K. (2023). The 2023 cashless election in Nigeria: The politics of

withdrawing money. African Affairs, 122(488), 429-445.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2569

25. Frank, E. O., & Ukpere, U. I. (2012) The impact of military rule on democracy in Nigeria. Journal of

Social Sciences, 33(3), 285–292.

26. Gueye, A & Hounkpe, M. (2010). The role of security forces in the electoral process: The case of six

West African countries. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

27. Herskovits, J. (2007). Nigeria's Rigged Democracy, Foreign Affairs, 86(4),115–130.

28. Idowu, A. A. &Iyabode, A. S. (2024). Voting pattern and voting behaviour in 2023 presidential

elections in Nigeria: A cursory prognosis. Journal of Administrative Science, 21(1), 95-126.

29. Idowu, O., 2010. Corruption, the police and the challenges of a free and fair election in Nigeria. Journal

of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 12(7).

30. Ifedi, F. O., Ngwu, E. C., & Nnamani, R. G. (2023). Election and security challenges: critical issues in

Nigeria’s 2023 general election. University of Nigeria Journal of Political Economy, 13(1).

31. Ikeji, I. (2015, March 5). Is deployment of soldiers during elections constitutional? Vanguard.

32. Jega, A., (2012, August 21). The electoral process and security sector synergy. A paper delivered to

EIMC 6

Participants of Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Abuja.

33. Mahmud, S.S (2015) “The 2015 general elections: voters turn out, voting behaviour and democratic

consolidation in Nigeria”. Being a paper presented at the Post-Election Conference. The Electoral

Institute, Abuja

34. Mapuva, J. (2010). Militarization of public institutions, flawed electoral process and curtailed citizen

participation: The case of Zimbabwe. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(4), 460–475.

35. Odinkalu, C., & Nwachukwu, N. (2019, April 6). How to stop digital terrorism in elections. The News,

13.

36. Okechukwu, A. T., Chukwuka, O. M.& Chikwado, N. K. (2019). Militarization, electoral violence and

2019 general election in nigeria. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 9 (10),

84-92.

37. Olaniyan & Amao (2015). Election as warfare: Militarization of elections and the challenges of

democratic consolidation, Nigeria International Affairs Forum, 6 (1).

38. Olukosi, I. (2019, June 17). The implications of militarizing Nigerian elections. The Guardian

39. Olurede, L. (2013, January 26). Participation in political debates have manifest, hidden values. The

Guardian, 7.

40. Omotola, S., (2010). Elections and democratic transition in Nigeria under the fourth republic. African

Affairs, 109(437), 535-553.

41. Onapajo, H. (2014). Violence and votes in Nigeria: The Dominance of Incumbents in the use of

violence to rig elections. Africa Spectrum, 49(2), 27–51.

42. Oni, S., Chidozie, F, & Agbude, A., (2013). Electoral Politics in the Fourth Republic of Nigeria’s

Democratic Governance. Developing Country Studies, 3 (12).

43. Onuegbu, C. (2019, February 28) 25 killed in presidential, Nat’l Assembly elections—

Observers. Vanguard.

44. Onuoha, F. C., Okafor, J. C., Ojewale, O., & Okoro, C. (2020). Militarization of the 2019 general

elections and electoral integrity in Nigeria. The Round Table, 109(4), 407.

45. Orji, N. (2015). Nigeria’s 2015 election in perspective. Africa Spectrum, 49(3), 121–133.

46. Osumah, O., & Aghedo, A., (2010). Elections in Nigeria since the end of military rule. AFRICANA,

4(2).

47. PM News, (2014, December 16). Nigerians condemn militarization of elections.

48. Salihu, M &Yakubu, Y. (2021). Election violence and voter turnout in 2019 general elections: What

role for political parties: European Scientific Journal. 17(2),1857-7881.

49. Salihu, N. (2016). The colonial legacy of civil-military relations and democratic stability in West

Africa. Conflict Trends, 4, 50–56.

50. Taiwo-Obalonye, J. (2023, February 16) ‘General elections: 400,000 security personnel to be deployed

– IGP’, The Sun Newspaper,

51. The Conversation (2022, June 7). “There’s violence every election season in Nigeria: what can be done

to stop it”.

52. This Day, (2014, June 20). Soldiers stop Oshiomhole, Amaechi from venturing into Ekiti.

53. Udoh, S. (2023, February 26). Mayhem in Akwa Ibom as soldiers aid ballot snatchers. The Plenary.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 2570

54. Yohana, C. & Maichbi, H. J. (2022). Effect of insecurity on 2023 general elections in Nigeria: A case

study of Munya local government area of Niger State. FUWukari Journal of Policy and Development,

8(2), 6-18.

55. Yoroms, P. G (2019) “Electoral violence, arms proliferations and electoral security in Nigeria:lessons

from the twenty-fifteen elections for emerging democracies” Being a conference paper presented at

Independent National Electoral Commission, FCT. Abuja.