Anambra lawmaker Uzokwe explains why criminalising vote-buying in party primaries is complex, highlighting practical challenges, empowerment, and electoral reforms.
The lawmaker representing Nnewi North, Nnewi South, and Ekwusigo Federal Constituency of Anambra State, Hon. Peter Uzokwe, has clarified the House of Representatives’ stance on criminalising vote-buying in party primaries, insisting that the issue is more complex than public opinion suggests.
Uzokwe spoke amid mounting criticism over the ongoing clause-by-clause consideration of the Electoral Act 2022 Amendment Bill.
Appearing on Politics Today, a current affairs programme on Channels Television, Uzokwe addressed concerns that lawmakers deliberately failed to criminalise inducement during internal party elections.
“The House’s position has been widely misunderstood,” he stated.
“We considered this issue carefully, examining it holistically before reaching any conclusion.”
Last week, iREPORT247NEWS reported that the House approved amendments to the Electoral Act 2022, including making the electronic transmission of election results mandatory under Section 60.
However, controversy arose because lawmakers could not agree on whether inducement and bribery during party primaries should be made a criminal offence.
Former Anambra State governor and 2023 Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, expressed disappointment over the House’s decision.
Obi described the failure to criminalise inducement as a major setback for Nigeria’s democratic development, saying it signals a lack of commitment to genuine electoral reform.
“By ignoring vote-buying at the foundational level of political competition, lawmakers undermine trust in the democratic process,” he remarked.
READ ALSO: Peter Obi faults lawmakers over failure to tackle vote buying at primaries
Electoral bill 2025 reforms set to reshape Nigeria’s election system
Responding to these criticisms, Uzokwe explained the practical challenges lawmakers face in addressing vote-buying during party primaries.
He noted that proving such cases is inherently difficult, especially given the internal nature of party elections.
“When you say someone influenced a vote during primaries, how do you prove it?” he asked.
“Your opponent can bring an accuser. How do you show you had no connection to the person? By the time this is proved, justice may be delayed or impossible.”
Uzokwe further argued that vote-buying is not limited to financial inducement. Influence can take various forms, including promises, agreements, or gifts.
“It is not only money that can sway outcomes,” he explained.
“Promises of land, cars, or other favors can also influence results. Without clear definitions, criminalisation can be misused, especially in intra-party contests where opponents may weaponise allegations for political gain.”
The lawmaker also touched on broader electoral reform measures, including timelines for party activities.
Party registers are submitted at least 30 days before primaries, but election-related activities often begin months before general elections.
“In 2026, serious election activities will begin long before voting day,” Uzokwe said.
“Governance will reduce to the bare minimum one year before elections. How do we balance governance with electoral processes while ensuring people still receive value for their mandate?”
He noted that lawmakers considered proposals requiring primaries and other internal activities to conclude at least 180 days before elections, though some stakeholders suggested extending the period to 210 days to allow for smoother processes.
Reflecting on his personal electoral experience, Uzokwe rejected the notion that political success must be driven by inducement.
He recounted winning his election without distributing money, rice, or other handouts.
“When I stood for election, I didn’t have money to give away,” he said.
“I neither shared rice nor one naira, yet people voted for me. Here I am today.”
Since assuming office, Uzokwe emphasized that his focus has been on continuous empowerment of constituents rather than election-season handouts.
“I have been sharing rice and empowering petty traders even when there is no election,” he added.
“The voters own us, not the other way around.”
Uzokwe also criticised what he described as the weaponisation of poverty in Nigerian politics. Unlike more developed democracies, where campaigns rely on communication and engagement, Nigeria often expects cash inducement before votes are cast.
“In America, political campaigns focus on communication,” he said.
“In Nigeria, poverty has been weaponised. People ask for money before they vote. This is a culture we must consciously move away from.”
He concluded that addressing vote-buying and other electoral malpractices requires more than criminalisation alone.
Strengthening democratic institutions, improving citizens’ welfare, and promoting political empowerment are key steps toward reducing undue influence in Nigerian elections.
“Real reform comes from providing citizens with opportunities and support, not just punishing those who engage in inducement,” Uzokwe said.
Uzokwe’s explanation highlights the intricate balance between electoral reform, practical enforcement, and political empowerment.
While the debate over vote-buying continues, his position underscores the need for systemic solutions that combine legal frameworks with citizen-focused initiatives, ensuring that Nigerian democracy strengthens at every level—from party primaries to general elections.
Ireport247news
