Vote buying reportedly remained widespread during the August 15 Osun governorship election despite warnings from INEC, EFCC and ICPC that offenders would be arrested and prosecuted.
Ahead of the election, the Independent National Electoral Commission, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission publicly announced measures to tackle vote trading.
INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan said the commission would work with anti-corruption agencies to address both physical cash payments and digital transfers linked to vote buying.
The ICPC also carried out sensitisation campaigns across Osun, warning voters and political actors that buying or selling votes was punishable under Nigerian law.
Despite the preparations, reports from several polling locations indicated that money and other incentives were still exchanged for votes.
Some voters reportedly received between ₦15,000 and ₦40,000, while others were offered food items and promises of electronic transfers.
One voter in Boripe Local Government Area alleged that the price offered increased from ₦15,000 to about ₦30,000 after he experienced difficulties with the BVAS machine.
Another voter in Ilesa East alleged that political agents offered as much as ₦40,000, although some recipients reportedly collected the money and later voted according to their preferred candidates.
In Ile-Ife, a voter also alleged that a political agent distributed a mudu of garri before voting, followed by a cash payment of ₦20,000.
The accounts suggest that vote inducement extended beyond direct cash-for-vote transactions to food distribution, pre-election empowerment programmes and electronic payment arrangements.
Former INEC National Commissioner Professor Lai Olurode described the situation in some polling environments as resembling a “bazaar”, warning that widespread vote trading could make it harder to determine whether voters were acting freely.
Legal practitioner Chief Abimbola Ige similarly described the scale of alleged vote buying as exceptionally large and expressed concern that money was increasingly replacing policies and ideas in Nigerian elections.
However, the reported inducements did not necessarily guarantee that voters followed the wishes of those who gave them money.
Some voters reportedly accepted payments but still voted for their preferred candidates because the secrecy of the ballot made it difficult for political agents to verify how individual voters actually voted.
Political parties also rejected allegations that they participated in vote buying.
The Ademola Adeleke campaign council and Osun APC separately denied involvement in vote trading, while the parties traded accusations over alleged spending ahead of the election.
One allegation that about ₦110 billion was brought into Osun in two tranches ahead of the election could not be independently verified.
The controversy has renewed questions about the effectiveness of Nigeria's existing measures against electoral vote buying.
While INEC and anti-corruption agencies can deploy personnel and monitor polling locations, enforcing laws against transactions can become difficult when payments occur outside polling units or through digital channels.
The Osun experience therefore highlights a wider challenge facing Nigerian elections: poverty and economic hardship can make financial inducements attractive to voters, while the secrecy of the ballot limits the ability of political actors to guarantee that purchased votes will actually be delivered.
The development also raises questions about whether enforcement alone can defeat vote trading without sustained voter education, stronger prosecution and broader efforts to reduce the economic pressures that make voters vulnerable to inducement.
As Nigeria looks ahead to future elections, the events in Osun could provide another case study in the continuing struggle to protect the ballot from the influence of money.