Legal experts say Nigerian law clearly frowns on election officials accepting gifts or benefits from politicians, stressing that neutrality is both a constitutional and statutory obligation for staff of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
While the specific allegation that Imo State governor Hope Uzodimma sponsored a Jerusalem pilgrimage for some INEC officials remains a matter of political controversy and fact‑finding, the legal position on such benefits is relatively clear: anything that looks like a reward or inducement tied to electoral duties can attract serious consequences under the Electoral Act, the Constitution and INEC’s own Code of Conduct.
The Electoral Act criminalises the giving or receiving of gifts, money or other benefits when they are intended to influence how elections are conducted or how people vote.
In legal commentary on the Act, “gifts and money for election” are explicitly described as forms of bribery and corruption, carrying penalties including fines and possible terms of imprisonment for those found guilty.
A person who offers such a benefit, and any official who accepts it as an inducement connected to election duties, can both fall within the ambit of electoral offences.
Beyond direct vote‑buying, the law views benefits that could compromise neutrality during voter registration, result collation, or declaration of results as especially problematic.
The logic is that any material favour from a candidate or political office holder to an election official creates a reasonable suspicion of bias and may taint both the process and the outcome in an election petition.
In effect, the Electoral Act is built on the presumption that elections must not only be free and fair, but must be seen to be free from improper financial or material influence on officials.
INEC staff and ad hoc officials are required to take an oath of loyalty and neutrality, promising not to accept bribes or gratification and to perform their duties “without fear or favour.”
Simplified guides to the Electoral Act emphasise that electoral officers must not be members of political parties, must not openly support any candidate, and must avoid any conduct that suggests undue familiarity or indebtedness to political actors.
A sponsored foreign trip, particularly one alleged to have been paid for by a sitting governor, would likely be scrutinised against this oath if it appears to confer a private benefit on officials who may later handle elections in that state.
In practice, this means that even if a benefit is packaged as a “religious pilgrimage” or “welfare gesture,” investigators and courts will ask whether the officials involved are in positions where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
If a clear link is established between the benefit and the discharge of electoral duties, such conduct could be interpreted as gratification contrary to both the Electoral Act’s spirit and the letter of INEC’s internal rules.
INEC’s own Code of Conduct for Election Officials goes further by expressly instructing officials to “shun corrupt practices such as bribery, soliciting or accepting reward, treating or favoritism and gifts.”
The Code warns that officials must avoid partisanship, must not pursue personal gain in the conduct of their duties and must declare any conflict of interest in writing where it exists.
This places a professional and ethical bar on accepting trips, allowances or expensive hospitality from governors, candidates or parties who may appear before them in an electoral context.
Under this Code, the perception of bias is almost as damaging as actual proof of corruption. If an official is seen to have benefited materially from a politician who later becomes a party to an election they supervise, the Code suggests that such conduct is unacceptable and should be reported and sanctioned internally, even before any criminal liability under the Electoral Act or anti‑corruption statutes is considered.
The Constitution, through the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, also restricts what public officers—including electoral officials—may receive from private interests.
The Code states that a public officer shall not ask for or accept any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything done or omitted to be done in the discharge of his duties.
Legal analyses stress that gifts from persons or entities that have dealings with government are presumed to be improper, unless the officer can prove otherwise, and only modest gifts from relatives or genuine personal friends on customary occasions are tolerated.
Where a benefit such as international travel, accommodation and allowances is offered by a politician to public officers who may later take decisions affecting that politician’s interests, the constitutional presumption of conflict becomes harder to rebut.
In such scenarios, anti‑corruption advocates argue that the appropriate approach is to either refuse the benefit, declare it fully, or treat it as a gift to the institution rather than to individual officials, in line with the Code’s requirement that certain gifts be surrendered to the appropriate public body.
If it is proven that INEC officials accepted sponsored trips or similar benefits as an inducement connected with elections, they could face multiple layers of sanction.
These range from internal disciplinary measures under the INEC Code of Conduct—such as suspension, redeployment or dismissal—to prosecution for electoral offences or charges under general anti‑corruption and public integrity laws.
Any such finding could also strengthen opposition petitions seeking to nullify elections on the basis that officials were compromised or that the process violated the standard of neutrality required by law.
However, legal liability often depends on evidence of intent and linkage: whether the benefit was given “for or on account of” an official act or omission in the electoral process.
This is why opposition parties and civil society groups frequently demand transparent investigations, including publication of sponsorship records and travel approvals, whenever allegations of politically funded “pilgrimages” or “training trips” involving election officials emerge.