On 29 August 2026, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) won all 21 chairmanship and 326 councillorship seats in Anambra State’s local government elections.
Also, a week earlier, on 22 August 2026, the All Progressives Congress (APC) won all 13 chairmanship and 171 councillorship seats in Ebonyi State’s local government elections.
On the face of it, both results suggest overwhelming support for the governing parties across the two states, but the circumstances were different, with APGA fielding sole candidates in 20 of Anambra State’s 21 local government areas and opposition parties not participating in the Ebonyi State election.
What, however, does the absence of political opposition mean for Nigeria’s democracy and the ability of citizens to hold those in power to account?
Democracy depends on citizens being able to choose who governs them and on the existence of political competition through which those seeking public office can be challenged and held to account.
Elections are therefore expected to provide voters with competing choices, allow political parties to test their support and provide a basis for judging the strength of that support.
When opposition parties are absent from the ballot, or where a party is the sole candidate, an election may still produce winners, but the result provides less insight into the electorate’s political preferences.
Opposition parties play an important role in democratic competition by providing alternatives to the governing party and challenging its policies, decisions, and record. Their participation also gives voters an opportunity to consider different candidates and political positions.
Where opposition is absent or limited in an election, voters have fewer political choices, and those seeking public office face less competition for their support.
When this continues across elections, opposition parties have fewer opportunities to build political support and compete for public office. Political competition can weaken, while those in government face less electoral pressure to defend their record and maintain public support.
This does not mean that a one-party sweep is automatically evidence of an unfair election. Voters can legitimately give every available position to the same party, and political parties can decide not to participate.
The question is what happens to democracy when meaningful opposition is absent from elections, and voters are repeatedly presented with fewer political alternatives.
When Political Competition Weakens
Instances of limited political competition have also occurred in other states, including the 2018 Rivers State local government elections, where the PDP won all 23 chairmanship positions after the APC did not participate, as well as elections in Adamawa, Gombe, Edo and Bauchi where opposition political parties have been absent, or competition has been significantly reduced.
Repeated absence from elections can gradually affect the ability of opposition parties to maintain the political structures needed to compete effectively, as elections provide parties with opportunities to establish and sustain grassroots networks, develop candidates, mobilise supporters and build relationships with communities that can support future electoral contests.
When those opportunities are repeatedly lost, opposition parties can lose visibility, organisational capacity and connections with voters, making it increasingly difficult to build the support and structures required to compete in subsequent elections.
As this occurs, continued electoral success can strengthen the political organisation and networks of the governing party across different levels of government. This can create an increasingly uneven political environment in which parties remain legally recognised, and elections continue to take place, but some parties have considerably less capacity to organise, field competitive candidates and challenge the party in government.
The effects of this imbalance can be seen in the development of political leadership, since regular electoral contests give new political actors opportunities to gain experience, build public support and establish political networks, while also allowing established parties to renew their leadership and bring forward new candidates.
Where meaningful competition becomes limited across successive elections, these opportunities can narrow and political influence can become increasingly concentrated within established political networks.
When this pattern persists across election cycles, it can weaken the role of elections as a means of changing political leadership, because elections are one of the principal ways through which citizens determine who holds public office.
The Question of Electoral Independence
The strength of political competition also depends on the institutions responsible for conducting elections and the confidence that political parties and voters place in those institutions.
Section 197 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) establishes a State Independent Electoral Commission in every state and gives each Commission responsibility for organising, undertaking and supervising elections to local government councils.
The Constitution places these commissions within a political structure in which the state government has a role in determining their composition.
Under Section 198, the Governor appoints the chairman and members of the State Independent Electoral Commission, subject to confirmation by the State House of Assembly, while Section 201 provides for the removal of members before the expiration of their tenure through a process involving the Governor and the House of Assembly.
This arrangement can create a potential conflict of interest where the state government has a role in the composition of the institution conducting an election in which the governing party is itself contesting.
The constitutional designation of these bodies as “Independent” therefore needs to be reflected in how they exercise their powers and administer elections.
Political parties need confidence that the rules governing nomination, campaigning, voting and the declaration of results are applied consistently, while voters need confidence that their votes can influence the outcome.
Confidence in electoral institutions forms part of the wider democratic process because elections give citizens a means of choosing their political representatives and holding them accountable.
Where electoral institutions are not regarded as impartial, political parties and voters may have less confidence that they are competing on equal terms or that electoral outcomes will reflect the votes cast.
The experiences of Anambra and Ebonyi States, points to a wider issue in Nigeria’s democracy, where the strength of political competition, the ability of parties to contest for power and the independence of electoral institutions all affect the extent to which elections can give citizens a meaningful say in government.
Political parties need the opportunity to compete, voters need meaningful choices, and electoral institutions need sufficient independence and credibility to administer elections fairly.
Where these conditions weaken over time, elections can continue to take place without giving citizens the same ability to influence who governs them, hold those in power accountable, or bring about political change through the ballot.