Who Pays for 2027? What Nigeria’s New Campaign Finance Rules Mean for Business and Voters

Elections are won with votes, but they are fought with money. As Nigeria heads into the 16 January presidential and National Assembly polls, and the 6 February governorship and state assembly polls, the rules on how that money is raised, spent and disclosed have changed more than most voters realise.

The Electoral Act 2026, signed into law on 18 February, raised campaign spending limits across every office. It multiplied the cap on what a single donor can give by ten. And it raised the point at which a donor’s name must be recorded a hundredfold. Supporters say the changes reflect economic reality. Critics say they open the door to elite capture. Either way, the questions they raise are about governance, ethics and trust, which is the ground CSR Reporters exists to cover.

This article sets out what changed, why it is contested, what enforcement realistically looks like, and what it means for the companies, citizens and institutions that sit around the political process.

What changed in the law

The Electoral Act 2026 revises how campaign money is governed through Sections 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94. The Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), which has analysed the Act closely, summarises the new candidate spending limits against those of the 2022 Act as follows.

The limits apply from the date of the notice of election to polling day. Two other changes matter as much as the caps themselves, and they are less visible.

The change that matters most: who gets named

Under the 2022 Act, a party had to record the name and address of any donor giving ₦1 million or more. Under the 2026 Act, that threshold is ₦100 million. In practical terms, almost every contribution below that figure no longer triggers mandatory donor identification.

The 2022 Act also barred parties from accepting donations above ₦50 million unless they could identify the source of the money to INEC. PLAC reports that this requirement has been removed from the 2026 Act.

Put those changes together. A single donor, which can be an individual or an entity, can now legally give a candidate up to ₦500 million. Contributions up to ₦100 million need not be recorded by name. The room for large, undisclosed support is wider than it was, and that is the core of the concern. As PLAC puts it, raising the recording threshold weakens transparency at the point where much of Nigeria’s political financing begins.

The case for higher limits

It would be unfair to treat the increases as self-evidently improper. The case made for them rests on economic realities. The naira has lost substantial value, and the costs of printing, transport, security, media and agents have risen. Limits set in 2022 would, on this argument, have been unrealistic for 2027, pushing candidates to under-report real spending. Realistic ceilings, the argument goes, make honest reporting more likely.

Some of the Act’s other provisions also point toward accountability. Parties must file an audited return with INEC within six months of the election, supported by a sworn affidavit, disclosing items of expenditure, the value of goods and services received, and donor details. They must publish that return in at least two national newspapers and on their websites. Accountants who falsify campaign records face a fine of at least ₦5 million or three years’ imprisonment. Parties holding funds outside Nigeria face forfeiture and fines.

These are real tools. The question is whether they will be used.

The enforcement question

The critics’ main objection is not that the rules are absent. It is that the limits rose well beyond inflation, as PLAC notes, while the disclosure net narrowed, and that Nigeria’s record on enforcing campaign finance rules is weak. The 2022 Act contained similar provisions that were rarely enforced.

The numbers illustrate the gap. A candidate who breaches the spending ceiling faces a fine of 1 per cent of the permitted limit, or 12 months’ imprisonment, or both. For a presidential candidate, 1 per cent of a ₦10 billion ceiling is ₦100 million. Whether that deters anyone depends entirely on whether anyone is investigated and prosecuted.

That depends on capacity. PLAC points out that INEC has historically lacked the investigative and prosecutorial leverage to pursue violations at scale, and it asks questions the Act leaves unanswered: how will the Commission verify candidates’ expenditure returns, and how will it monitor spending while campaigns are running? Within INEC itself, its Head of Legal Unit has acknowledged that the Act raises practical questions, including the enforceability of campaign finance limits. Civil society voices, such as former ActionAid Nigeria Country Director Ene Obi, have questioned both the practicality of the figures and the lack of stronger oversight of funding sources.

The honest summary is this: the law on paper is stricter in penalties and looser in disclosure. What it delivers in practice will be decided by enforcement, and enforcement is untested.

What this means for business

For companies, this is not a spectator issue. A donation cap of ₦500 million per entity puts large corporate contributions within the law. That does not make them wise.

Three risks stand out. First, reputational risk: a donation that is legal but later disclosed, leaked or questioned can damage stakeholder trust, particularly where a company also presents itself as a responsible corporate citizen. Second, governance risk: contributions routed through intermediaries, consultants or “community” programmes can blur the line between political support and corporate social responsibility. Third, regulatory and investor risk: investors and development partners increasingly scrutinise political engagement as part of ESG governance, and the weak disclosure environment means the burden of transparency falls on companies themselves.

Responsible practice does not need to wait for regulators. Companies can adopt a board-approved political engagement policy. They can state publicly what they will and will not fund. They can keep CSR spending clearly separate from political activity, including in the timing of community projects near polling dates. And they can vet third parties who act on their behalf. A company that is transparent when the law does not require it earns more trust than one that relies on the law’s gaps.

What citizens, media and civil society can demand

The Act gives the public one concrete lever. Within six months of the election, parties must file audited expenditure returns with INEC and publish them in newspapers and online. That obligation exists whether or not anyone is watching.

The practical task is to watch. Journalists and civil society groups can track whether returns are filed, whether they are published, whether donors are named, and whether INEC publicly checks them. Voters can ask candidates directly where their money comes from. Companies can be asked whether they contributed. None of this requires new legislation, only attention.

What to watch between now and the polls

• INEC’s monitoring plans: whether the Commission explains how it will track campaign spending in real time.
• Disclosure by parties and candidates: voluntary publication of donors and expenditure ahead of polling day.
• Corporate statements: whether major companies publish policies on political contributions.
• Post-election returns: whether audited returns are filed and published on time, and what they show.
• Prosecutions: whether any breach of spending or donation limits is actually pursued.

The takeaway

The rules for funding Nigeria’s 2027 campaigns are bigger, looser on disclosure and stronger only on paper. That does not mean the election is compromised. It means the system now relies more heavily on enforcement and voluntary integrity than it did before.

For a platform that exists to close the gap between promises and lived impact, the lesson is familiar. A rule that is announced but not verified is an intention, not an assurance. Voters, companies and institutions all have a role in making sure the money behind this election can be seen, explained and, where necessary, challenged.