The Hypocrisy And Lies Of Civil Society In Nigeria -By Leonard Karshima Shilgba

Yet, beneath this posture of moral authority lies a troubling pattern of contradictions, selective outrage, and unproven claims that deserve closer scrutiny.

The Myth of the “Beautiful Ones”

A recurring assumption within Nigerian civil society is that there exists a pool of competent, visionary candidates—“the beautiful ones”—whom voters are eager to elect but who are systematically blocked by shadowy political conspiracies.

However, this claim is rarely supported with verifiable evidence. In many elections, candidates widely promoted by civil society platforms have performed poorly at the polls, suggesting a disconnect between elite advocacy and grassroots political realities.

For instance, during the 2023 Nigerian general election, several candidates celebrated in civil society and social media circles failed to secure broad electoral support beyond urban centres. This raises an uncomfortable question: Is civil society projecting its preferences onto the electorate?

Overestimating the Nigerian Voter

Civil society often assumes that Nigerian voters make decisions based on candidates’ records, policy proposals, or ideological clarity. Yet, paradoxically, the same civil society has invested very little in sustained civic education, especially between election cycles.

Organizations such as Yiaga Africa and Enough Is Enough Nigeria have made commendable efforts in voter education and election observation. However, these efforts remain limited in scale relative to Nigeria’s vast and complex electorate.

It is therefore inconsistent to assume a level of voter sophistication that civil society itself has not systematically cultivated.

The Contradiction on Political Defections

Another frequent claim is that Nigeria’s democracy is being “destroyed” or “opposition politics stifled” whenever politicians defect to the ruling party.

Yet, freedom of association is guaranteed under the Constitution. When elected officials voluntarily switch parties—as seen in multiple defections into the All Progressives Congress over recent years—civil society often interprets this as systemic coercion rather than individual political calculation.

This raises a fundamental question:
At what point does criticism of political behavior become an attempt to restrict democratic freedoms?

Distrust of Institutions—Without Proof

Civil society has also cultivated a habit of preemptively delegitimizing national institutions, particularly the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Allegations of “electoral fraud,” “complicity,” and “rigging” are frequently made—often before, during, and immediately after elections—without conclusive evidence.

For example, after the 2023 elections, multiple observer groups raised concerns about technological glitches in result transmission via the BVAS/IREV system. While these concerns warranted investigation, many conclusions circulated in the public space went far beyond the evidence established in court proceedings.

Even when tribunals and courts deliver judgments, civil society actors often dismiss them as compromised—thereby reinforcing a narrative in which every institution is guilty unless it agrees with their position.

The “Vote Buying” Narrative

The term “vote buying” has become a central feature of Nigeria’s electoral discourse. Civil society organizations such as Transparency International and local monitoring groups have documented incidents of inducement at polling units.

However, there is often little rigorous, publicly available data demonstrating that vote buying consistently determines electoral outcomes at scale.

The danger lies in turning a real but localized problem into a blanket explanation for all electoral outcomes, thereby dismissing the agency of millions of Nigerian voters.

Selective Transparency

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction is civil society’s demand for transparency from government institutions while often failing to uphold the same standard internally.

Questions about funding sources, foreign partnerships, and political affiliations of NGOs are frequently brushed aside. Yet, many Nigerian NGOs receive significant support from international organizations such as Open Society Foundations and USAID.

Transparency in funding does not invalidate their work—but refusal to openly address these connections undermines their moral authority when demanding accountability from others.

A Culture of Perpetual Cynicism

The cumulative effect of these patterns is a dangerous one:
A society in which every election is presumed rigged, every institution is corrupt, and every outcome is illegitimate.

This culture of cynicism does not strengthen democracy—it erodes it.

If the Independent National Electoral Commission, the courts, political parties, and even the electorate are all persistently discredited, then what remains of the Nigerian state?

A Call for Self-Reflection

Civil society plays an essential role in any democracy. But credibility demands consistency, evidence, and self-scrutiny.

Those who claim to guide public conscience must first examine their own assumptions, methods, and accountability structures. As the biblical admonition reminds us: the physician must first heal himself.

Nigeria cannot be built on distrust alone. It requires shared responsibility, intellectual honesty, and mutual respect among all actors—government, civil society, and citizens alike.