Nigeria is presently celebrating its 26th year of this Fourth Republic and 65 years as an independent, sovereign nation. However, if there were a survey asking Nigerians if they are faring better or worse as citizens, the majority are likely to confirm the latter. Why is it that successive administration tends to sink Nigerians into the abyss of poverty, unemployment, insecurity, hunger and underdevelopment? Why is it that government policies, projects and programmes are like a decoy to plunder the commonwealth for the enjoyment of the ruling elite? Why is there so much hopelessness even when there is a promised renewed hope?  Are we cursed, or are we the cause?

I have been reflecting on these posers, and my research has revealed that the reason things remain the same, the more they change, especially in politics and governance, can be linked to a phenomenon called state capture. Emily Patterson, co-founder of State Capture: Research and Action, said, “The term ‘state capture’, first coined in 2000, has gradually evolved over the past two decades. Originally focused on the undue influence exerted by new industrialists over state institutions in post-Soviet countries, the term has acquired a broader meaning to reflect the complex and varied interplay between economic elites and state infrastructure.”

She went further to assert that Joel S. Hellman, Geraint Jones, and Daniel Kaufmann first set out a theory of state capture in a 2000 World Bank paper entitled “Seize the State, Seize the Day: State Capture, Corruption, and Influence in Transition”. The authors focused on new market entrants during the waves of privatisation that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. These new “industrialists” were concerned about their ability to compete as new firms operating in legacy/state-controlled industries, and many sought to fortify their position through “illicit and non-transparent private payments to public officials” with the goal of “influencing the formation of laws, rules, regulations, or decrees by state institutions”. The owners of these captor firms got rich and succeeded at exerting considerable control over state institutions so that they could more easily protect their assets and personal interests.

Politically, Nigeria has witnessed a steady trend where the ruling class deliberately exert undue influence over state institutions to gain an unmerited advantage. Starting from the political parties, some powerful individuals whom I tag political barons use their money and influence to gain control of the decision-making organs of their respective political parties so that they can help their cronies and stooges win elections. A typical example is what’s going on in the main opposition political party, the Peoples Democratic Party, where a few political barons are trying to gain control of the organs of the party ahead of the next general elections in 2027. The ongoing pull and push tearing the fabric of the PDP apart is due to the inordinate ambition of a handful of barons to plant their hirelings in key decision-making organs of the party to gain total control of the party.

The same goes for the ruling All Progressives Congress. There is a powerful cabal made up of the top echelon of the ruling class that determines what goes on in the party. There are various caucuses involved, from the Presidency to the governors of the party and top brass in the National Assembly. The governing elite at the national and sub-national levels also try to capture state institutions for their undue advantage. Check out the appointments in the Independent National Electoral Commission, the judiciary, and the leadership of ministries, departments and agencies of government; they reek of a high dose of political consideration meant to gain control for the appointing authority.

Civil society and the media have been at the vanguard of ensuring that partisan persons do not get nominated as INEC chairmen, national commissioners and resident electoral commissioners. However, we have not succeeded, as clearly partisan persons are deemed to have been nominated to the electoral management body. For instance, the nomination of former presidential aide Lauretta Onochie as a national commissioner in INEC. It took a lot of resistance from the CSOs to have her dropped by the Senate. There have been several appointments after that controversial one that have scaled through despite vociferous objections from civil society. This is why there is now ongoing advocacy for the appointment of INEC chairman and commissioners to be subjected to a more transparent nomination process where there will be an independent body that will screen the applications of those who have applied for the INEC job, with an opportunity for claims and objections by the Nigerian public.

Remember the suspension and eventual removal of the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, under former President Muhammadu Buhari in January 2019. Many believed that it was politically motivated so that he would not preside over the presidential election petition due to come after the 2019 general elections. The gentleman was last year discharged and acquitted of all the trumped-up charges levelled against him over asset declaration impropriety.  There is a growing concern that the Nigerian judiciary is now populated with wives, children and cronies of high-profile politicians. The danger in that is that political considerations and not law may influence the decisions of their lordships, especially in political matters brought before them. Recall that the husband of a former president of the Court of Appeal openly declared on the floor of the Nigerian Senate that he helped his fellow senators on their election petition cases, superintended by his wife.

Under the Nigerian Constitution, the president of the Court of Appeal constitutes the election petition tribunals that adjudicate over post-election matters.

It goes without saying that the rationale behind our highly monetised and violent elections could be found in the attempt at state capture willy-nilly. Politicians deploy the Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means to ensure electoral victories, not minding if they are in breach of electoral laws. That’s why it will be difficult to contain electoral violence and vote-buying.

A look at the leadership of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission will reveal an attempt by the political class to exert undue influence on the commission. None of its previous chairmen have had a hitch-free and successful tenure, as they were all removed in controversial circumstances. From Nuhu Ribadu to Farida Waziri to Ibrahim Lamorde to Ibrahim Magu to AbdulRasheed Bawa, none of them had a seamless tenure. It is hoped that the incumbent chairman, Ola Olukoyede, will have a smooth sail.

At the sub-national level, governors of the 36 states have vehemently resisted financial and administrative autonomy for state Houses of Assembly and judiciary despite two constitutional amendments to give effect to this. Same with the financial autonomy of the 768 local governments and six area councils.  President Tinubu was very concerned and asked the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to file a suit at the Supreme Court last year seeking the interpretation of section 162 of the Nigerian Constitution, especially the one that deals with joint state and local government accounts. The apex court on July 11, 2024, ordered that funding due to the local governments should be paid directly to them and that states that do not conduct local government elections should have their LGA allocations withheld. However, nearly a year after that Supreme Court verdict, Nigeria’s LGAs are yet to enjoy financial autonomy, as the governors ganged up against its implementation while the Presidency looked on without enforcing the judgement.

Nigeria will not develop with the stranglehold of the powerful ruling elites on the state institutions. The loyalty of the political appointees should be to the Nigerian Constitution, not their appointers. The rule of law and due process should be the cardinal principles of governance and not the undue meddlesomeness and executive recklessness being witnessed in this country. Until this culture of impunity is dismantled, successive administrations will not be able to deliver good governance.