I carried my Permanent Voter’s Card from one polling unit to another during Kogi State’s October 17, 2026, local government elections, hoping to exercise my democratic right. What I encountered left me searching for the ballot and the opportunity to vote. Yet, in the days that followed, winners were declared across the state. That experience sharpened a question that no democracy can afford to ignore: what does an election mean when a citizen cannot find a meaningful opportunity to participate?
The ruling All Progressives Congress was declared the winner of all 21 chairmanship positions and 239 councillorship seats. While the electoral commission and state officials described the exercise as peaceful and credible, the scale of the sweep, considered alongside experiences such as mine, makes public scrutiny of electoral participation and the credibility of the process essential. Peace on election day is valuable, but the absence of violence alone cannot establish that an election has reflected the will of the people.
The deeper tragedy lies in what happens when political loyalty becomes more important than democratic principle. Some Igala political actors and supporters appeared more willing to accommodate the outcome than to insist publicly on truth, justice and fairness. When those who should be defending the people’s political agency instead prioritise immediate advantage, they risk helping to normalise a system in which citizens become spectators to decisions that should be theirs to make.
Democracy is not a gift bestowed by powerful patrons. It is a right exercised by citizens and protected by institutions. The ballot box should be the people’s instrument of power, not a ceremonial prop in a political performance. When electoral competition appears predetermined, or when voters cannot meaningfully participate, the damage extends beyond the candidates who lose. It strikes at the public’s confidence that its voice matters.
This is where the politics of internal betrayal becomes particularly consequential for Igala land. The concern extends beyond election results to the conduct of political elites who may place private ambition above collective interests. The allegation that some Igala figures sponsor political interests among other ethnic groups to advance their own influence raises difficult questions about the use of alliances, money and power. If political relationships are being exploited to weaken one’s own community for personal gain, the consequences deserve serious scrutiny.
There is nothing inherently wrong with alliances across ethnic boundaries. Neighbouring communities have legitimate aspirations, and political cooperation can promote development, peaceful coexistence and fair representation. The danger lies in using such relationships to manipulate divisions, undermine legitimate interests or preserve individual power at the expense of the public. A leader who treats his community’s future as a bargaining chip is not building political strength; he is mortgaging the interests of those whose trust sustains his influence.
The consequences are felt far beyond the political arena. While elites manoeuvre for influence, ordinary citizens continue to confront inadequate infrastructure, limited employment opportunities, poor public services and the daily cost of ineffective governance. Political division becomes a convenient distraction from these pressing concerns. The community is left arguing over personalities while the foundations of its development remain neglected.
Yet the answer is not to turn neighbouring ethnic groups into enemies. Igala land cannot protect its future by treating every external alliance as a conspiracy or every political disagreement as hostility. Its strength must come from principled leadership, credible institutions, informed citizens and the ability to negotiate with others without surrendering legitimate interests. The responsibility for defending Igala political interests rests first with the integrity and accountability of those who claim to represent them.
The local government elections should therefore prompt more than arguments over winners and losers. They should provoke a serious examination of electoral credibility, political patronage and the willingness of influential people to defend democratic principles even when doing so threatens their immediate interests. Where citizens report that they could not meaningfully participate, those concerns deserve to be heard, examined and addressed through appropriate electoral and legal channels. Equally, allegations of political manipulation or improper sponsorship must be tested against evidence rather than left to speculation.
No political leader should be above scrutiny because of wealth, party affiliation, ethnic identity or proximity to power. Traditional institutions, civic organisations, journalists and citizens must demand transparency in electoral administration and political financing. Loyalty to a community should never require silence in the face of possible injustice, and loyalty to a political party should never become permission to abandon the principles that make representation legitimate.
Igala land stands at a critical crossroads in its political consciousness. Its future will not be secured by the number of powerful individuals who claim to speak for it, but by the quality of the institutions they build, the principles they defend and the opportunities they create for ordinary citizens. A community that tolerates the erosion of its democratic rights for temporary political advantage may discover that the price of that compromise is paid long after the politicians responsible have left the stage.
The gravest danger is not simply that a politician may form an alliance with another ethnic group or that one party may sweep an election. It is that citizens may gradually lose the power to question the process, challenge those in authority and demand a fair opportunity to determine their own future.
A people do not lose their future only when their opponents defeat them. They risk losing it when those entrusted with their interests stop defending their rights, when political loyalty silences legitimate questions, and when the powerful mistake the people’s patience for consent. Igala land must decide whether its political future will be shaped by the free choices of its citizens or by the private calculations of those who believe they can speak, bargain and decide on their behalf.
– Inah Boniface Ocholi writes from Ayah – Igalamela/Odolu LGA, Kogi state.
08152094428 (SMS Only)
