Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by public officials. The goal domestic or foreign actors strive to achieve through lobbying is the advancement of their respective interests. Given that elections in Nigeria require substantial capital, domestic or foreign actors have commonly tried to influence results by meeting a candidate’s need for financial support. As the upcoming Nigerian elections draw closer, the geopolitical interests tied to domestic and foreign lobbying deserve examination. 

To understand why lobbying is critical for the geopolitical implications surrounding Nigeria’s elections, the background behind Nigeria’s current political demands and electoral laws regarding political donations is helpful. Earlier this year, two of the major Nigerian political parties - the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) announced significant price hikes in the nomination forms necessary to run for President, Senate, and House of Representatives. While the total for the incumbent APC was 20 million naira for the 2015 general presidential elections; it was raised to 45 million naira in the 2019 general elections and now 100 million naira for the 2023 general elections. The PDP nomination forms are also at significantly  higher prices than prior years. The increases in these forms only add to the already costly business of running a presidential campaign. According to Africa Report, a minimum of $300 million is needed to run a competitive presidential race in Nigeria. This reality flies in the face of past and present Nigerian election laws, specifically the Electoral Act, 2022 which stipulates in Section 88(2) that “the maximum election expenses to be incurred by a candidate at a presidential election shall not exceed N5,000,000,000.”. The equivalent of roughly $12,000,000. 

Turning to concerns regarding lobbying by domestic and foreign actors in Nigeria’s 2023 elections, the distinction between domestic and foreign actors is that domestic actors are in Nigeria while foreign actors are geographically outside of Nigeria. While this distinction appears mundane, it is important because the current legal framework places the actions of some foreign actors in a legal grey area. Specifically, Section 223(3)(b) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution denies all political parties the ability to “be entitled to retain any funds or assets remitted or sent to it from outside Nigeria.” Currently, there are allegations that one 2023 presidential candidate Peter Obi is soliciting funds from Nigerians living abroad in violation of existing law as reported in a previous London Politica article. There are, however, past political moments from Nigerian politics that indicate foreign lobbying influencing prior elections sometimes in shady ways.

On February 20th, 2019, a relatively unknown Saudi Arabian official Ahmed Qattan, titled the “Minister of State for African Affairs” visited Abuja to visit Nigeria’s President, Muhammadu Buhari, who was running for re-election. The official Twitter account for the Nigerian government noted the next day that President Buhari had received a “letter” from the Saudi Arabian official on behalf of King Salman Bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia. The very next day Vanguard reports that President Buhari “expressed astonishment at the huge amount of foreign currency flooding the country intended to influence the outcome of the general elections beginning on Saturday.”’ What makes this visit fascinating is that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) - the body in charge of facilitating and running the Nigerian elections - postponed the vote in the presidential election in 2019 from 16 to 23 February. The timing of this postponement is suspicious as if the elections occurred at their pre-set time, President Buhari would likely have been consumed with the details of the election and unable to meet with Sheikh Qattan.

Vanguard argues that “the candidates and parties, stretched by INEC’s limitations, would not have had spare bandwidth to entertain him (Sheikh Qattan) unless it was for a quite substantial purpose that could not await the conduct of the vote. Unraveling the kind of purpose that would have met this criterion does not exactly task the imagination”. If this conclusion is true, Saudi Arabia’s interest in Nigeria to keep President Buhari in power should be questioned. Given Nigeria’s and Saudi Arabia’s mutual economic interest in oil as well as Saudi Arabia’s interest in supporting shared religious interests abroad, possible connections could be drawn there. Of additional considerable interest is that a few months later in September of 2019 under the Buhari administration, State-owned Saudi Arabian companies, Saudi Aramco and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc) were publicly planning investments in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector.

Other foreign actors who should be considered are China, Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States. China is highly involved on the African continent and is Nigeria’s largest trading partner. While China has not notably been linked to specific election bribery in Nigeria, its economic initiative - the Belt Road Initiative also known as “the New Silk Road” has substantial geopolitical implications that reach into Nigerian elections. China’s expansion into Nigeria is not limited to Nigeria but extends to West and East Africa as well as much of central Asia, the Middle East and Southern Europe. This initiative aims to link China with these regions by investing and building these regions’ transcontinental highways, speed trains, and other trading infrastructures. Nigeria joined the initiative in 2018 and since then China has played a leading role in the construction of important Nigerian infrastructure. The Kaduna-Kano railway line, Lagos-Kano railway line, and Lagos-Ibadan railway line, as well as the construction of airports and ICT infrastructure. This construction is typically operationalized by Nigeria entering into loans with the Chinese government to pay Chinese companies to build this infrastructure. The contracts that Nigeria entered into for these railroads have been criticised for their lack of transparency and their stringent terms that some have argued disadvantage the nation and primarily benefit Nigerian political elites who enrich themselves through kickbacks from contracts. It is worth also noting that China also influences Nigerian governance through educational initiatives which train African elites and leaders about the “Chinese Communist Party mode of governance and business”. These trainings will have long-term effects down the road if these aspiring African leaders adopt those lessons when they attain positions of political power. 

Israel, rather surprisingly, contains foreign actors that attempted to influence the Nigerian elections. During the former election, A Tel-Aviv-based political consulting and lobbying firm named Archimedes was tied to a disinformation campaign supporting incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari and bashing his leading opponent, Atiku Abubakar. The reasons and implications behind these actors are difficult to speculate but it could be related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. In particular, Nigeria’s influence in the United Nations as a member state that Israel has relied on to not strongly support Palestine.

Other foreign actors that should be considered are the United States and the United Kingdom. The United States famously got involved in the Nigerian elections in 2015 with President Obama releasing a video urging Nigerians to vote and open a “new chapter with their votes”. Additionally, then Secretary of State John Kerry travelled to Nigeria to voice the United State’s dismay with the postponement of the elections due to the Nigerian government’s stated reason of terrorist violence by the insurgent group Boko Haram. These actions which implied that voters should support newcomer Muhhamumdu Buhari and vote out incumbent Jonathan Goodluck, could possibly be tied to Jonathan’s refusal to adopt gay rights as well as the United State’s dislike of Jonathan’s handling of Boko Haram. These actions would be an example of the first mode of influence mentioned at the beginning of this article. With respect to foreign actors and elections, the United States additionally also trains and hosts workshops for journalists and the INEC on reporting, and election counting. Some Nigerian political insiders have alleged that the US utilizes these trainings to advance their purposes and influence the election but no public instances of corruption or fraud have been shown. 

Concluding the United Kingdom. Just in November, the UK came out calling for free and fair elections stating that they will be watching this election “very closely” and has threatened Nigerian citizens and government officials alike with visa sanctions if free and fair elections are not achieved. Shortly after meetings with leaders of APC officials, the United Kingdom released a statement noting that it does not have a “preferred candidate in the Nigerian elections” and emphasizing its commitment to democracy and free elections in Nigeria. The phenomenon of aspiring Nigerian presidential candidates travelling to the UK’s Chatham House and justifying why they should lead Nigeria can also be viewed through a neocolonistic lens where aspirants of a former colony are attempting to “legitimize” themselves to the UK. 

Ultimately, with Saudi Arabia, the US, the UK, Israel, and any other actors, foreign actors always stand to advance their interests, even at the expense of a country’s sovereignty.  Nigeria must stay vigilant to hold its leaders to account.