As Anambra prepares for the November 8 governorship election, political debates have extended beyond campaign promises into heated arguments over candidates’ educational qualifications. The exchanges, while common in Nigeria’s political space, highlight a recurring issue, the gap between constitutional requirements for office and public expectations of leadership. Every election season in Nigeria, whether off-cycle elections or general elections, questions arise about who is eligible to contest for the office of governor. From age requirements to academic qualifications, these questions shape pre-election debates and, in some cases, even decide election petitions in court. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) clearly lays out these requirements. Understanding these provisions is crucial, as they not only determine who can run but also form the basis for many of the legal disputes that follow Nigeria’s elections.
Why education dominates the debate
While the Constitution requires only a secondary school-level qualification for gubernatorial aspirants, public expectations often go far beyond this legal minimum. In the lead-up to Anambra’s November 8 election, the focus on certificates accompanied by accusations and counter-accusations reflects a broader frustration with what many perceive as a too-low bar for leadership relative to the complexities of governance. The discourse signals that citizens are not only concerned with legal eligibility but also with the capability of leaders to navigate economic, social, and political challenges.
Concentrating political debates on academic credentials risks distracting from pressing governance concerns, including insecurity, youth unemployment, infrastructure deficits, and effective economic planning at the state level. Research by the CDD War Room shows that performance in office is often more closely tied to institutional strength, accountability mechanisms, and political will than formal qualifications alone. While education remains a visible metric for competence, it is not a definitive predictor of leadership effectiveness.
The recurring controversies around qualifications highlight both the vibrancy and fragility of Nigeria’s democracy. On one hand, they show that citizens are actively scrutinizing candidates, signaling a more engaged electorate. On the other hand, these disputes demonstrate how elections can be reduced to technicalities rather than substantive issues. For Anambra, as in other states, voters face the dual responsibility of verifying that candidates meet constitutional thresholds while also assessing whether aspirants exhibit vision, competence, and a commitment to democratic governance. Balancing legal eligibility with political legitimacy remains a critical task for both citizens and institutions.
While political debates often emphasize personalities and academic credentials, the Constitution establishes a relatively simple benchmark for gubernatorial aspirants: citizenship, age, political party sponsorship, and a basic education. Electorates should keep this framework in mind when evaluating claims about who is “qualified” or “unqualified” to contest. What remains far more complex and critically important is the mechanism through which citizens hold leaders accountable once they meet these minimum requirements. Understanding both the legal thresholds and the broader expectations of governance is essential for strengthening democratic practice and ensuring that electoral outcomes reflect not just eligibility, but effective and responsible leadership.
Who can contest for governor in Nigeria?
According to Section 177 of the Constitution:
“A person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if:
(a) he is a citizen of Nigeria by birth;
(b) he has attained the age of thirty-five years;
(c) he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party; and
(d) he has been educated up to at least the School Certificate level or its equivalent.”
These provisions set a clear, minimum bar for aspirants. In practice, however, political debates often focus on candidates’ higher degrees or certificates, even though the law only mandates secondary education or its equivalent. Citizenship by birth ensures that only those with permanent and unquestionable allegiance to Nigeria can hold such a critical office. The age requirement of 35 reflects a constitutional balance: it excludes younger aspirants, while still allowing those with some maturity and experience to govern. Political party sponsorship underscores Nigeria’s rejection of independent candidacy, meaning no one can run for governor without the backing of a registered political party. Finally, the School Certificate requirement has become one of the most contested points. While the law sets this as the minimum academic threshold, political opponents often challenge rivals by questioning the authenticity of their certificates or by appealing to public sentiment that demands higher educational qualifications. In reality, many contestants possess university degrees and advanced qualifications, but electoral disputes repeatedly return to the constitutional minimum. This tension between the legal threshold and societal expectations has fueled some of Nigeria’s most contentious pre-election and post-election litigations.
Who is disqualified from contesting?
The Constitution also makes it clear who cannot contest. Section 182(1) provides that:
“No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a State if –
(a) subject to the provisions of section 28 of this Constitution, he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a country other than Nigeria…
(b) he has been adjudged to be of unsound mind;
(c) he is an undischarged bankrupt;
(d) he has been convicted and sentenced for fraud, dishonesty or any offence punishable by imprisonment of more than one year… within ten years before the election;
(e) he is a member of a secret society;
(f) he has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a judicial commission or tribunal;
(g) he has been removed or dismissed from public office for misconduct.”
These disqualifications emphasize integrity, fiscal responsibility, and civic suitability. In essence, they aim to ensure that those seeking governorship are of sound character, loyal to Nigeria, financially accountable, and free from criminal or unethical baggage. The bar against dual citizenship (except where acquired by birth) reflects concerns about divided loyalty, while the exclusion of those adjudged to be of unsound mind underscores the importance of mental capacity in exercising executive powers. Bankruptcy rules stress financial responsibility, suggesting that someone who cannot manage personal finances should not be trusted with state resources.
Similarly, convictions for fraud, dishonesty, or other serious crimes highlight the Constitution’s insistence on probity. Even when sentences have been served, the law requires a ten-year “cooling-off” period before eligibility is restored. The bans on secret society membership and indictment for embezzlement reinforce public suspicion of shadowy affiliations and corruption, both of which have historically undermined governance in Nigeria. In political practice, these provisions are often weaponized during campaigns and litigations. Opponents dig into rivals’ pasts, looking for evidence of misconduct, fraud, or questionable affiliations to challenge their eligibility. While some challenges are genuine, others are politically motivated, reflecting how constitutional disqualifications can become tools of contestation in Nigeria’s high-stakes elections.
What happens if a candidate lies?
The law anticipates dishonesty in the nomination process. Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act 2022 provides that:
“Any aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by his political party’s candidate in relation to constitutional requirements is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court against the candidate seeking a declaration that the information is false.”
This provision empowers rivals within the same political party to legally challenge a candidate who falsifies documents relating to age, citizenship, education, or other constitutional qualifications. It reflects a growing emphasis on transparency and accountability in Nigerian elections, giving courts a formal role in adjudicating eligibility disputes.
In practice, several cases illustrate how these rules operate: In Bayelsa State (2020), David Lyon of the APC lost his governorship victory because his running mate, Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo, submitted forged academic certificates. Similarly, in Delta State (2023), Sheriff Oborevwori of the PDP was disqualified from contesting the governorship election after the Federal High Court ruled that his nomination was invalid due to issues with his certificates. The Supreme Court ruled that the falsification breached constitutional and electoral provisions, invalidating the joint ticket. The example shows that the Electoral Act’s provisions are not merely theoretical. They actively shape the political landscape, influence pre-election debates, and determine post-election outcomes. They also reinforce the importance of verifying credentials before filing for office, emphasising that misrepresentation can have immediate and decisive consequences for both the candidate and their party.
Why it matters
The constitutional requirements serve as both a minimum standard and a legal filter, ensuring that candidates possess the basic qualifications to hold the office of governor. At the same time, they provide formal avenues for opponents to challenge eligibility, reinforcing the role of the judiciary in maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. With the Electoral Act 2022 making false declarations a direct ground for disqualification, aspirants now face heightened scrutiny, both from political rivals and the public.
These debates go beyond legal technicalities. They reveal a growing demand for accountability, transparency, and competence in Nigerian politics. While the Constitution defines what it means to be legally eligible, voters and civil society are increasingly attentive to qualities that extend beyond the minimum legal bar such as professional experience, ethical conduct, and overall leadership capacity.
The ongoing contest in Anambra ahead of the November 8 governorship election highlights this tension. Arguments over candidates’ educational qualifications underscore a broader question: legal eligibility does not automatically translate into political legitimacy or public trust. Even if a candidate meets the constitutional criteria, perceived gaps in integrity, competence, or transparency can influence voter confidence and affect the credibility of the electoral process.
In this way, the rules on eligibility serve a dual purpose: they protect the formal integrity of elections while also reflecting evolving expectations of Nigerian citizens for accountable and capable leadership. Understanding these provisions helps voters, political actors, and observers navigate disputes, anticipate challenges, and assess the broader implications for democratic governance in the country.
Leave a Reply