At 74, Senator Francis Fadahunsi is a seasoned politician and a serving lawmaker who should arguably understand better than most citizens the importance of respecting Nigeria’s electoral laws and the rules governing the conduct of elections.
Yet, following the controversy surrounding his conduct at a polling unit in Ilase, Osun State, serious questions are now being raised about whether some politicians consider themselves exempt from the same laws they are expected to uphold.
Fadahunsi has offered an explanation for the widely circulated video, insisting that his intervention was intended to assist elderly voters and prevent them from casting invalid ballots. But that explanation has not extinguished the controversy. Instead, it has raised a more fundamental question: where exactly is the line between offering legitimate assistance to voters and interfering with the electoral process?
Nigeria’s electoral regulations are not optional guidelines. They exist to protect the integrity of the ballot and ensure that every voter, candidate, party agent and public official operates within clearly defined boundaries.
For a serving senator, the expectation should be even higher.
The controversy becomes more troubling against the backdrop of the reported invitation of the senator by the police following the incident. Barely days after the controversy erupted, the 74-year-old lawmaker is back in public, moving around freely, while Nigerians are left asking whether the machinery of justice is being applied equally to everyone.
The issue is not whether Senator Fadahunsi is old. It is not whether he is a respected politician. And it certainly should not matter which political party he belongs to.
The question is whether the law applies to him in exactly the same way it applies to an ordinary Nigerian.
If an ordinary citizen were accused of conduct capable of undermining an electoral process, would the authorities treat the matter with the same apparent leniency?
And if an offence was committed, who has the courage to say so and apply the law without fear or favour?
This is where the silence becomes uncomfortable.
Could it be that a sitting senator enjoys a level of political protection that ordinary citizens do not? Could partisan considerations be influencing how aggressively the authorities pursue the matter? Or is the police investigation simply following due process and Nigerians are prematurely interpreting the senator’s release as preferential treatment?
These questions deserve clear answers.
The governing All Progressives Congress (APC) should also be above partisan protectionism. If one of its members is accused of conduct that potentially violates electoral regulations, the appropriate response should not be political shielding but accountability and cooperation with lawful investigation.
Political affiliation cannot become a substitute for compliance with the law.
At 74, Senator Fadahunsi should be among those demonstrating to younger Nigerians that public office comes with responsibility, restraint and respect for institutions.
Instead, the controversy has produced an unsettling spectacle: a senior lawmaker at the centre of an electoral dispute, an invitation by the police, a subsequent release, and then a return to political activity while questions about the incident remain unresolved.
That is precisely why the authorities must provide clarity.
Was an electoral offence committed?
Was the senator’s conduct within the limits permitted by electoral regulations?
If not, what action is being taken?
And if no offence was committed, why not publicly explain the legal basis for that conclusion?
Nigerians deserve answers, not political whispers.
The bigger issue goes beyond Senator Fadahunsi.
It is about whether Nigeria has one law for the powerful and another for everyone else.
If a 74-year-old senator can become embroiled in an alleged breach of electoral rules and simply walk away from the controversy without a transparent determination of the facts, then Nigerians are entitled to ask:
Are our political leaders above the law?
Or, worse still, have we reached the point where political connections determine who answers questions and who simply walks away?
The law must answer that question not the party, not political influence and certainly not age.
