Thinking Loud on Kogi East
«“The power in the people is greater than the people in power.” — Andrew Mamedu»
I carried my Permanent Voter’s Card to my polling unit and even trekked to another, hoping to exercise the most basic right of a citizen in a democracy: to vote and help determine who governs. At the polling units I visited during Kogi State’s October 17, 2026, local government election, I could not find the voting activity or the gathering of voters I expected. Yet, before long, winners were being declared. Meanwhile, Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo described the election as peaceful. The contrast between my experience and the official celebration raises a fundamental question: what is the value of a peaceful election if eligible citizens cannot find a meaningful opportunity to cast their votes?
My experience is personal, not a claim that every polling unit across Kogi State was empty or that no one voted. However, it cannot be dismissed in a democracy that should take every citizen’s participation seriously. On October 19, the Conscience for Human Rights and Conflict Resolution reported that many polling units it monitored experienced late arrivals of electoral officials and materials, while some reportedly lacked both at the scheduled time. The group also raised concerns about low turnout and the absence of displayed voter registers and election notices in locations observed. These findings give wider context to the concerns raised by voters like me.
The issue is bigger than one election, one political party or one declaration of victory. It concerns the legitimacy that gives elected officials the moral and democratic authority to govern. A declared result answers the question of who has been announced as the winner; a credible electoral process must also answer whether citizens had a genuine opportunity to participate and whether the outcome can withstand scrutiny. The absence of widespread violence is welcome, but peaceful conditions alone cannot establish electoral credibility. Where participation is obstructed or the process is inadequately documented, the responsible response is to investigate, explain and correct the shortcomings rather than assume that the announcement of results ends the debate.
For Kogi East, this should be a moment of political reflection. Local government is not an ornamental tier of administration; it influences the roads connecting communities, the condition of primary healthcare facilities, sanitation, markets and other services that shape daily life. If citizens cannot meaningfully influence who manages these responsibilities, representation becomes distant from the people it is supposed to serve. The danger is not merely that a voter may miss one election. It is that repeated disappointment can breed resignation, weaken participation and allow political decisions to become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few influential actors.
The Igala/Bassa people, as the predominant ethnic group in Kogi East, have a substantial stake in the region’s political future. But population strength alone cannot guarantee effective representation. It must be matched by political organisation, informed participation, credible leadership and a willingness to hold elected officials accountable regardless of party affiliation. To change the status quo is not to promote ethnic hostility or replace one political monopoly with another. It is to build a civic culture in which public office is treated as a responsibility entrusted by citizens, not property owned by political patrons. The question for Kogi East is whether its people will shape their collective future through organised democratic participation or continue to leave crucial decisions to others.
Governor Ododo’s description of the election as peaceful deserves to be considered alongside the concerns raised by voters and independent observers. Both the absence of violence and the presence of electoral shortcomings can be true at the same time. The Kogi State Independent Electoral Commission must therefore address credible complaints transparently, explain reported logistical failures and ensure that its procedures can withstand public scrutiny. Citizens should not have to choose between peace and accountability; a credible democracy requires both. Trust is not created by official assurances alone. It is built when the electoral process is visible, accessible, verifiable and responsive to legitimate concerns.
The path forward begins before the next election. Voters must be informed about their polling units and rights; political parties must organise around clear programmes and credible candidates; journalists and civil society groups must document electoral conduct independently; and electoral officials must be held to established standards. Where irregularities occur, citizens should preserve evidence and pursue lawful complaints. Traditional, religious and community leaders can help protect civic participation by rejecting intimidation and encouraging peaceful engagement. These measures are more useful than post-election outrage that fades while the conditions producing public distrust remain unchanged.
Andrew Mamedu’s words capture the principle Kogi East must take seriously: “The power in the people is greater than the people in power.” That power, however, must be exercised through institutions that allow citizens to participate freely and hold leaders answerable. My experience of carrying a voter’s card from one polling unit to another without finding the voting activity I expected should not become a recurring picture of democracy in our communities. Nor should the declaration of winners silence legitimate questions about how an election was conducted. The real test of Kogi East’s democracy is not simply who occupies public office, but whether the people have a genuine and verifiable voice in deciding who gets there.
– Inah Boniface Ocholi writes from Ayah – Igalamela/Odolu LGA, Kogi state.
08152094428 (SMS Only)
