How soaring nomination fees threaten inclusivity and turn politics into a marketplace of wealth. KEHINDE ADEGOKE writes.
The APC’s 2027 timetable promised order with screenings, primaries, and appeals, but the ₦100 million presidential form dominated all discourse.
The sheer scale of the fee reframes candidacy as a transaction rather than a civic duty. It signals that access to the ballot is reserved for those with deep pockets or entrenched patrons, not for citizens with ideas, integrity, or grassroots support. In effect, the nomination form becomes less a gateway to democratic competition than a toll gate, filtering out voices that lack financial muscle.
Beyond individual exclusion, the implications ripple through the system. When aspirants must rely on wealthy sponsors (godfathers) to cross the threshold, politics risks becoming an investment scheme in which financiers expect dividends in the form of contracts, appointments, or policy favours.
This dynamic distorts governance priorities, shifting them from public interest to private return. The result is a democracy that looks orderly on paper but functions more like a marketplace—where wealth, not vision or opportunity, rather than competence, determines who leads.
The Timetable: Orderly but Exclusive
Although the APC’s process appears transparent, access is determined by wealth rather than merit or ideology. The high fees turn the system into one where money is the primary criterion.
The Price of Desire
Presidential aspirants: ₦100m
Governorship aspirants: ₦50m
Senate aspirants: ₦20m
House of Representatives aspirants: ₦10m
State Assembly aspirants: ₦6m
Discounts for women, youths, and people with disabilities are insufficient. For most Nigerians, the dream of running for office ends at this prohibitive financial hurdle.
For example, APC’s ₦100m presidential form sets an unprecedented high bar.
PDP charges ₦50m for a presidential form—half APC’s rate—, yet it’s still inaccessible to most.
Labour Party: Historically modest fees, signalling inclusivity. The contrast is telling: while APC’s model cements elite control, the PDP’s is only a little more accessible. The Labour Party is recognised as the most open to new voices.
In advanced democracies, nomination fees are typically under $5,000. Nigeria’s ₦100m (about $70,000) fee is among the highest globally, turning candidacy into a business venture.
Countries like the UK, Canada, and Germany value accessibility and equity. Nigeria, by raising costs, risks reducing democracy to a privilege for the wealthy.
Politics as Business
The high cost of political candidacy turns office into an investment to recover, which drives corruption, deepens dependence on wealthy patrons, and undermines true public service.
Democratic Consequences
Ordinary Nigerians are priced out as grassroots voices are excluded, limiting the diversity vital to democracy.RDiversity drops—women, youths, and reformers struggle to compete.Public distrust – Citizens view politics as a marketplace, where money, not merit, determines electoral outcomes. Elections no longer offer people genuine choices, but favour those who can afford to pay.
Policy Pathways Forward
Nigeria must curb the commercialisation of politics by enforcing strict caps on nomination fees to prevent financial exclusion. Public funding to support candidates transparently.
Stricter campaign finance rules to curb corruption.
Expanded support for marginalised groups.
Civic advocacy to pressure parties into increasing access.
Democracy or Marketplace?
The APC’s organisational skills are notable, but the ₦100m fee sharply limits participation to the wealthy and undermines democratic principles and unapologetically encourages corruption, as nobody cares how you make your money. It has brazenly dissuaded those with genuine intentions and tested capabilities from contesting at the outset.
Editorial Closing: A Price Too High for Democracy
In advanced democracies—from the US to Germany—nomination fees are modest and rarely top a few thousand dollars. In Africa, South Africa, Kenya, and Ghana keep fees moderate, ensuring leadership stays accessible. Nigeria’s ₦100m fee blocks ambition and access. This issue goes beyond finances. When participation requires enormous wealth, democracy is hollowed out.
APC’s fee policy exposes troubling questions: Does Nigeria’s future belong to all, or only the rich? Nigeria must choose: defend broad representation or let privilege dominate. Until the cost of contesting is lowered, warnings about “Politics for Sale” will ring true.