The political temperature in Osun State has risen sharply ahead of the forthcoming governorship election following explosive allegations that residents, predominantly women, were allegedly given ₦10,000 each and subjected to a religious oath to compel them to vote for Governor Ademola Adeleke.
The allegation, contained in a viral video reviewed by SaharaReporters, has triggered fresh concerns over the growing influence of money, intimidation and religious pressure in Nigeria’s electoral politics.
In the footage, the residents appear to receive cash before being led through an oath-taking exercise by individuals reportedly identified as loyalists of Governor Adeleke.
The participants are heard repeating a declaration after a coordinator, pledging to vote for the incumbent governor while calling upon biblical blessings if they honoured the promise and invoking biblical calamities upon themselves if they failed to do so.
“I will vote for Demola Adeleke. I promise to be a faithful and honest person and I promise to do what you want and if I refuse to do it, all the troubles and calamities in the Bible should be mine. But if I collect money and vote for him, all the goodness in the Bible should be mine,” they were heard reciting.
The development has raised a fundamental question over the boundary between political mobilisation and electoral coercion: when money is placed in a voter’s hand and a religious oath is allegedly used to bind that voter to a particular candidate, can the resulting vote truly be described as free and voluntary?
While the authenticity, circumstances surrounding the recording and identities of all those involved would require independent verification, the footage has already added significant controversy to an election being closely watched across the country.
The allegations are particularly sensitive because they reportedly involve the use of religion — a deeply personal and influential force in Nigerian society — to reinforce an electoral commitment.
Rather than merely asking voters to support a candidate, the oath allegedly sought to attach spiritual consequences to any decision to vote differently after collecting the money.
If established, such conduct would raise serious questions about compliance with Nigeria’s electoral laws and the responsibility of political actors to respect the independence and freedom of voters.
The controversy comes just days before Osun residents are expected to head to the polls to elect their governor in one of Nigeria’s most closely watched off-cycle governorship contests.
Governor Adeleke is seeking re-election amid a fierce campaign by opposition parties, with the contest expected to be closely fought across the state.
The latest allegations have also emerged against the backdrop of heightened political tensions between the Osun State Government and the Federal Government following controversies surrounding the freezing of state government accounts by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
On Thursday, President Bola Tinubu directed the EFCC to take immediate steps to unfreeze the affected accounts of the Osun State Government.
According to the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, Tinubu personally conveyed the decision to Governor Adeleke during a telephone conversation.
The President had earlier stated that although the EFCC acted pursuant to a valid court order and within its statutory powers, he was “deeply embarrassed” by the timing of the action.
Tinubu stressed that nothing should create the impression that federal institutions were being deployed to influence the outcome of the governorship election.
The President consequently directed the EFCC to approach the court to vacate the order and discontinue all actions connected to the freezing of the state’s accounts.
The EFCC had earlier explained that it froze the accounts as part of an investigation into the alleged diversion of approximately ₦11 billion in Ecology Funds, Intervention Funds and Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) allocations.
The commission maintained that its actions were connected to an ongoing investigation into suspected financial misconduct and were not politically motivated, despite the timing of the development.
However, the emergence of the alleged vote-buying video has now introduced another explosive dimension into the political atmosphere surrounding the election.
Vote-buying has remained one of the most enduring problems confronting Nigeria’s electoral system. Despite repeated warnings from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), security agencies and anti-corruption authorities, allegations of politicians distributing money, food items and other material inducements to voters continue to surface during election periods.
Critics argue that vote-buying does more than influence individual voters; it fundamentally alters the character of democracy by transforming citizens’ constitutional right to freely choose their leaders into a transaction between political candidates and economically vulnerable voters.
The alleged Osun incident has therefore generated concerns beyond the ₦10,000 reportedly handed to each participant.
The more disturbing allegation is that the money was allegedly accompanied by an oath designed to make voters feel spiritually or psychologically bound to deliver their votes to a particular candidate.
Civil society organisations and election observers have consistently warned that financial inducement, voter intimidation and other forms of electoral manipulation undermine the credibility of elections and weaken public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic process.
As the Osun election approaches, pressure is expected to mount on INEC and security agencies to scrutinise the video, establish the facts surrounding the alleged incident and determine whether any electoral offences were committed.
The central issue confronting the state is therefore becoming bigger than the rivalry between candidates. It is whether an Osun voter can walk into a polling unit with a completely free mind — without a ₦10,000 payment in one hand, a political promise in the other and a religious oath hanging over their conscience.
For democracy to be meaningful, the ballot must belong to the voter — not to the highest bidder, not to the most powerful political machine and not to anyone who believes a citizen’s conscience can be bought, sworn or bound.