WhatsApp: 08034747898
In recent days, a curious storm has been whipped up by opposition elements over the benign promise made by Professor Charles Chukwuma Soludo to reward his best-performing ward after the forthcoming Anambra gubernatorial election. The opposition, ever desperate for relevance, has twisted this noble and post-election gesture into a baseless accusation of inducement. Yet, upon a careful legal and moral examination, their argument collapses under the weight of logic and law.
To begin with, the alleged inducement lacks both the actus reus (the physical act) and the mens rea (the guilty intent) required to establish a crime in electoral law. Inducement, as understood within the confines of the Electoral Act, is a pre-election offence — an act done before the fact — designed to unlawfully influence a voter’s decision. In this case, there was neither a transfer of material benefit nor a prior agreement before the election. Soludo’s statement, at best, was a post-election administrative incentive, intended to motivate excellence in governance and performance across wards. Legally speaking, one cannot criminalize intent without evidence of execution. Hence, the material ingredients to prove inducement are glaringly absent.
Furthermore, political promises are an established norm in democratic societies. From the United States to the United Kingdom, and even across Africa, politicians make forward-looking commitments — to reward communities, institutions, or individuals for performance after elections. These are not inducements; they are expressions of accountability and motivation toward post-election development. What Professor Soludo proposed is precisely that — a promise of reward after the verdict of the people has been freely rendered.
What truly irritates the opposition, particularly the YPP, LP, and APC camps, is not the legality of Soludo’s action but their own lack of moral standing. These are political parties that openly splash cash and distribute gifts before elections — a clear case of inducement in law — while pretending to be reformers. They operate campaigns without manifestos, without governance blueprints, and without ideological conviction. Their campaigns are façades — extravagant spectacles designed to impress foreign donors and deceive the uninformed into believing they stand a chance in a contest they’ve already lost.
Let’s be honest: a candidate seeking the exalted office of Governor without a coherent plan is not a visionary but a gambler — one whose ambition is tethered to the theft of the ballot or the mercy of ill-gotten donations. Anambra cannot afford such recklessness.
Come November 8th, the people of Anambra will vote not for noise but for continuity, not for bribery but for development. Our democracy must mature beyond the antics of desperation and deceit. We, the people, have entered a social progressive contract with Professor Charles Chukwuma Soludo — a contract grounded in trust, competence, and post-election performance.
Therefore, I urge the opposition to fold their ill-fated campaigns, endorse Soludo, and save themselves the humiliation of a political shellacking. We know their tricks — the convoys, the lies, the thuggery, the empty slogans — and we reject them. Our collective reward is not in pre-election handouts but in post-election progress. Soludo has proven himself a man of integrity, and we shall keep faith with him.
On November 8th, we vote for continuity, not corruption. So help us God.
Post-Election Reward, Not Inducement: A Legal and Moral Defense of Professor Soludo’s Promise – By Clem Aguiyi
Leave a Reply