When Votes Don’t Count: What Prof. Chidi Odinkalu Means When He Says Tinubu Doesn’t Need Nigerians’ Votes
In a recent social media outburst that quickly went viral across platforms like X and Facebook, renowned human rights lawyer and public intellectual Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu made a bold and provocative claim:
👉 “Tinubu does not need Nigerian’s votes to be President. Tinubu needs INEC and judges to give him a result.”
At face value, this statement seems alarmist — but its implications run far deeper than a political soundbite. For millions of Nigerians who have grown skeptical of the country’s democratic processes, Odinkalu’s words crystallize a powerful critique of Nigeria’s electoral and judicial system. This blog post breaks down what he really means, why this resonates with many Nigerians, and what it says about democracy in West Africa’s most populous nation.
Who Is Prof. Chidi Odinkalu?
Professor Chidi Odinkalu is not just another commentator — he is a prominent Nigerian human rights advocate, constitutional lawyer, and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Over decades, Odinkalu has been deeply engaged in matters of legal reform, civil rights, and political accountability in Nigeria.
His voice carries weight in legal and civic circles both locally and internationally. He has repeatedly challenged institutional structures that he believes undermine democratic governance — most notably the judiciary and electoral bodies.
Understanding the Quote: “INEC and Judges”
The core of Odinkalu’s statement is not merely an insult directed at President Bola Ahmed Tinubu — it is a broader indictment of two pillars of Nigeria’s democratic process:
1. The Electoral Commission (INEC)
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is constitutionally mandated to conduct free and fair elections in Nigeria. But over the years, its credibility has been contested:
Despite claiming that the February 25, 2023 presidential election was compliant with the law, INEC’s declarations were met with skepticism and legal challenges.
Critics argue that the commission’s conduct — like the timing of result announcements and controversial collation practices — foster mistrust among voters.
Odinkalu’s point is that if an electoral body lacks public trust, then popular votes — the essence of democracy — can be overshadowed by institutional decisions.
2. The Judiciary as Final Arbiter
In democratic theory, the courts are meant to act as legal interpreters, not political kingmakers. But in Nigerian political practice, the judiciary has increasingly become the final decider of electoral outcomes:
Judges now frequently overturn election results or determine winners in contested polls, leading to the perception that they decide leadership more than the electorate itself.
Odinkalu and other critics say this trend has created a ‘judicial selectorate’ — where judges, rather than voters, hold the ultimate power to legitimize or invalidate political victories.
This framing suggests that political leaders may prioritize aligning with institutional gatekeepers — INEC officials and judges — over genuine mass support.
Why This Matters to Democracy
Public Disillusionment With Elections
The 2023 presidential election was Nigeria’s most watched and contested since the return to democracy in 1999. President Tinubu was declared the winner amid tight competition, but many observers questioned the transparency of the process.
When results are opaque and disputes are litigated rather than resolved at the ballot box, citizens begin to feel that their votes matter less. Odinkalu’s statement amplifies this sentiment — that the real determination of power may lie in power structures instead of voter preference.
The Broader Issue: Credibility of Institutions
Odinkalu’s critique isn’t limited to one politician — it highlights systemic weaknesses:
Loss of Trust in the Judiciary
For years, Odinkalu has warned that Nigerians are losing faith in the judiciary’s independence. In a 2023 interview, he claimed there is a “vast trust deficit” in the judicial system, especially in how it handles politically charged cases.
When courts are seen as politically influenced — whether they actually are or not — it feeds public cynicism and erodes the legitimacy of governance.
Elections Decided by Institutions, Not Citizens
In a widely shared opinion piece, Odinkalu once argued that politicians no longer need citizens’ votes to enter office; they just need compliant electoral bodies and courts to certify results.
This is the essence of his viral quote — a stark assertion that the mechanisms of democracy have been hollowed out.
What Critics and Reformers Are Saying
Odinkalu’s position is part of a larger national debate about electoral reform in Nigeria:
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has urged that leaders be decided by voters, not judges, and called for systemic reforms like mandatory electronic result transmission and changes in how INEC leadership is appointed.
Many analysts argue that increasing judicial involvement in election outcomes undermines political stability and confidence in the democratic process.
These voices point to a shared concern: a democracy cannot thrive if citizens believe their ballots are secondary to institutional gatekeeping.
What This Means for Nigeria’s Future
Odinkalu’s striking comment has sparked intense debate on social media and in political circles. While some dismiss it as partisan rhetoric, others see it as a necessary wake‑up call.
What’s clear is that the health of Nigeria’s democracy depends not just on elections, but on citizens’ belief in the fairness of those elections.
➤ If INEC and the judiciary are perceived as detached from popular will, then political legitimacy becomes fragile.
➤ If citizens feel their votes don’t matter, voter turnout — already low in recent elections — could decline further, weakening civic engagement.
➤ If electoral outcomes are ultimately decided off the ballot box, then the very foundation of representative government is at risk.
Conclusion
The controversy over Odinkalu’s quote — “Tinubu doesn’t need Nigerians’ votes — he needs INEC and judges to give him a result” — serves as a powerful lens through which to examine Nigeria’s evolving democratic struggles.
Whether one agrees with Odinkalu or not, his words force an important question: In a democracy, who should really decide who leads? If the answer isn’t the majority of Nigerian voters, then addressing institutional credibility isn’t just reform — it’s survival for the democratic project itself.
0 Comments