Nigerians still doubt federal neutrality after Osun account freeze, poll finds

BusinessDay Election Insights poll on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission's decision to freeze Osun State's government account days before a governorship poll shows most respondents view the move as an act of political interference rather than a straightforward fight against graft. The account freeze, later lifted after the President stepped in, has reopened debate over whether INEC can run elections free from federal pressure. Confidence in INEC splits along a fault line Asked how much they trust INEC to conduct a free and fair election where such tension exists, 41.2% of respondents said they had no confidence at all, expecting manipulation. A further 26.5% said past elections raise doubt. Only 11.8% expressed full confidence in INEC's processes. The freeze itself divides opinion When asked to judge the freeze, 47.1% called it political and out of place so close to a poll. Another 41.2% said the move fell within the agency's legal mandate, though it came at a poor time. Just 5.9% called it a straightforward defence of public funds that should not wait on a political calendar. Reversal reads as proof, not relief The reversal, ordered by the presidency, did little to settle nerves. 73.5% of respondents said it signalled political interference regardless of the outcome. Only 20.6% read it as a sign that institutions can correct course under public pressure. Perceptions of neutrality take a hit 76.5% of respondents said episodes like this damage how voters view federal neutrality in a state election. A smaller share, 17.6%, said a swift reversal can help perceptions of fairness rather than harm them. State polls seen as a bellwether Most respondents, 55.9%, believe governorship elections of this kind send a strong signal about the national mood ahead of the next general election. 20.6% said such contests matter but do not decide outcomes, while 23.5% said state elections rarely predict what follows at the national level. Calls for a 'quiet period' rule Respondents were asked whether a formal rule should stop federal agencies from taking major financial action against a state government in the days before an election, even under a valid court order. Related News Several backed the idea outright. One respondent said, 'any government action within the election period has an ulterior motive.' Another argued a quiet period is needed 'to avoid their actions being politicised no matter the good intentions.' A third put it plainly: 'an action by a federal agency close to an election, even justified, sends wrong signals.' Some tied the proposal to a wider constitutional fix. One respondent suggested Nigeria adopt 'an interim government at both state and national levels for a period of three months during which their responsibility will be to conduct a free and fair election after which they will hand over power to the winner.' Not everyone agreed a new rule was needed. One respondent said federal agencies 'should not dabble into states' financial transactions at all if we are practising true federalism,' arguing that responsibility belongs with state assemblies instead. Another dismissed the idea altogether, saying 'any victimised state government can sort it out in the courts.' A third felt existing rules already cover the ground, saying there are 'more than enough rules in existence that guide institutional operations and we cannot possibly have specific rules for specific instances.' A middle position also emerged. One respondent said a quiet period is 'not necessarily' required but called for 'a mechanism for preventing government agencies from political manipulation.' Another tied the answer to intent, saying action taken 'devoid of political shenanigans' should not need a blanket rule, adding that Nigeria's institutions remain weak. What would build trust in INEC? The final question asked what it would take for Nigerians to trust that INEC and federal bodies act without political bias during high-stakes state elections. The answers pointed mostly to one issue: how the INEC chairman gets appointed. One respondent said, 'The President should not appoint INEC Chairman and commissioners.' Another added that 'the INEC chairman and other federal institutions must not be beholden to the president.' A third called for 'an independent INEC Chairman & a President who demonstrates respect for Federal Agencies & shows that he is a statesman.' Others pointed to the concentration of power itself. One respondent described a system where 'the President of the country controls everything from the Executive, Judiciary and the National Assembly and all Federal institutions,' leaving the opposition 'little or no chance of having a free electoral process.' Another respondent said simply, 'the electoral umpire is not independent.' At the same time, a further comment noted, 'if the body is constituted independent of the executive because he who pays the piper dictates the tune.' A handful of respondents raised transparency over structure. One called for 'absolute transparency, openness and good communication of activities before, during and after the election.' Another said trust requires INEC 'not only to be fair but be seen as being fair to all involved.' Some doubted trust was achievable at any point. One respondent wrote, 'Nigerians can never agree as we are politically divided.' Another was blunter still: 'No trust.' A few respondents pointed past INEC to the wider system. One noted that 'the Electoral Act 2026 has sufficient guidelines for free and fair elections,' but said polling agents and party representatives 'must be alert for all infractions including problems from no real-time transmission of results.' Another argued trust will only follow once 'vote buying and corrupt practices from politicians are eliminated from the system,' and INEC officials hold 'no affiliation to any political party' and take no money 'from our politicians.' The poll points to a public that reads the Osun freeze, and its reversal, through a single lens: politics rather than procedure. Whether the EFCC acted within its mandate matters less to most respondents than the timing of the action and who holds the levers over the agencies involved. For a large share of respondents, the path back to trust runs through one change above all others: an INEC chairman appointed without the President's hand on the process. Take a look at the previous results. Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date Open In Whatsapp