The controversy surrounding Nigeria’s 2023 presidential election has resurfaced in a damning international assessment of the country’s democratic trajectory, with the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) classifying Nigeria as a “fully authoritarian regime.”
In its latest assessment published on its Tyranny Tracker platform, the foundation cited what it described as a flawed 2023 presidential election, alleged voter disenfranchisement, election-related violence, irregularities and manipulation, alongside the weakening of institutional checks on executive power.
The report’s verdict represents a severe indictment of Nigeria’s democratic institutions more than two decades after the country’s return to civilian rule in 1999.
Rather than measuring democracy solely by the continuity of elections, the HRF assessed Nigeria against three broad indicators — electoral competition, freedom of dissent and institutional accountability — and concluded that the country had fallen short across the three areas.
The foundation acknowledged that Nigeria has experienced its longest uninterrupted period of civilian government since independence, including seven consecutive elections and the historic transfer of power from a ruling party to an opposition party in 2015.
However, it argued that the persistence of electoral politics has not been matched by a corresponding strengthening of democratic institutions.
According to the report, successive administrations have consolidated power across the executive, legislature and judiciary, weakening institutional checks and creating an environment characterised by corruption, patronage politics and impunity.
At the heart of the assessment is the 2023 presidential election, won by President Bola Tinubu but challenged by opposition candidates and subjected to extensive litigation.
The HRF described the election as flawed, citing legal challenges, protests, violence, alleged irregularities and voter disenfranchisement.
It claimed that election-related violence resulted in more than 100 deaths and alleged that more than one million voters were disenfranchised.
The foundation also pointed to delayed transmission of election results, concerns over the voters’ register and alleged attacks on opposition supporters by political thugs and vigilante groups in several states.
It further alleged that the political playing field was tilted towards the ruling party, with opposition parties facing restrictions on campaigns, limited access to public facilities and state-owned media, excessive administrative charges and alleged interference by security agencies.
“The regime hinders opposition parties’ electoral campaign, engages in voting irregularities, enjoys significant and unfair campaign advantages, and undermines independent electoral oversight,” the report stated.
The allegations have significant implications for Nigeria’s electoral credibility, particularly as political parties and institutions begin positioning for the 2027 general elections.
The HRF also raised concerns about the independence of the Independent National Electoral Commission, alleging that successive administrations had weakened the electoral umpire through politically controversial appointments and executive influence over its funding.
The foundation’s criticism strikes at the institutional core of Nigeria’s electoral system, where the credibility of the umpire remains central to public confidence in elections.
The controversy surrounding the 2023 poll had already generated intense debate over the electronic transmission of results, the performance of the electoral commission and the conduct of political actors.
The HRF’s assessment has now placed those concerns within a broader argument about the weakening of democratic institutions.
Beyond elections, the report expressed concern over what it described as the shrinking space for dissent and criticism of government.
It alleged that journalists, civil society organisations, opposition politicians and ordinary citizens increasingly face intimidation, arrests, prosecutions and censorship for expressing views critical of government policies.
The foundation cited the arrest and detention of journalists during the August 2024 nationwide protests, prosecutions under the Cybercrimes Act and cases involving labour leaders and activists.
It also referred to sanctions against citizens over social media posts critical of government officials.
The National Broadcasting Commission’s restriction involving Eedris Abdulkareem’s protest song, Tell Your Papa, was cited as an example of restrictions on critical expression.
The report further questioned the effectiveness of Nigeria’s judiciary and legislature as checks on executive authority.
It alleged that election petitions and cases challenging executive actions have sometimes been delayed or dismissed, while also raising concerns over alleged non-compliance with judgments of the ECOWAS Court of Justice.
The National Assembly also came under scrutiny over its March 2025 approval of the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
The foundation argued that the voice vote used to approve the declaration did not satisfy constitutional requirements.
It further alleged that security officials accused of human rights violations have frequently escaped prosecution, contributing to what it described as a “longstanding culture of impunity.”
Nigeria’s democratic journey since 1999 remains one of considerable contradiction.
The country has avoided another military takeover, conducted multiple elections and witnessed a historic change of governing party through the ballot box.
Yet the HRF report argues that these milestones have not prevented the gradual erosion of institutional safeguards.
Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, has endured political instability, ethnic and political divisions, a civil war, military coups and insurgencies since independence in 1960.
The foundation contends that the return to civilian government has not sufficiently insulated democratic institutions from executive dominance, corruption and political patronage.
The Nigerian government has previously rejected international criticism of its human rights record and electoral management.
But with the 2027 elections approaching, the latest assessment places renewed focus on the unresolved questions surrounding the 2023 presidential poll.
The central issue is no longer only whether the 2023 election was contested or whether its outcome was upheld by the courts.
It is whether the institutional weaknesses identified by critics of the election have been sufficiently addressed to prevent a recurrence.
For Nigeria, the significance of the HRF verdict may therefore lie less in the label of “fully authoritarian” than in the warning embedded in the assessment: a democracy cannot be sustained by elections alone if the institutions responsible for making those elections credible, protecting dissent and restraining political power continue to weaken.