Presidential elections across Africa in 2025 have been defined by a troubling pattern: opposition candidates systematically sidelined before campaigns even begin. Two recent contests—Djibouti’s April 10 vote and Benin’s April 12 election—illustrate how prohibitive nomination fees are reshaping the democratic landscape on the continent.

In Djibouti, opposition leader Alexis Mohamed abandoned his presidential bid after facing what he described as insurmountable barriers. While security concerns played a role in his decision, the nomination fees—exorbitant by any standard—proved decisive. The outcome? A sixth term for incumbent President Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, who secured a staggering 97.8% of the vote in a contest widely viewed as devoid of meaningful competition.

Across the border in Benin, the story mirrored itself. Romuald Wadagni, handpicked successor to outgoing President Patrice Talon, claimed victory with 94% of ballots cast. Analysts point to similar financial hurdles that prevented credible challengers from entering the race. The pattern is clear: elections are increasingly resembling ceremonial processes rather than genuine contests of political will.

The financial barrier: a silent coup against democracy

Nomination fees have become a formidable obstacle for opposition candidates across the continent. These costs, often exceeding a candidate’s personal wealth or party resources, effectively exclude all but the most financially privileged contenders. In many cases, the fees are set at levels designed to deter serious competition rather than facilitate it.

The consequences are far-reaching. When viable opposition candidates are priced out of the race, elections lose their competitive edge. Voters are left with little meaningful choice, and incumbents face minimal accountability. The result is a democratic process that serves more as a veneer of legitimacy than a true reflection of public sentiment.

Why these fees matter

  • Economic exclusion: Nomination fees disproportionately impact opposition candidates from smaller parties or grassroots movements, who lack access to substantial funding.
  • Political consolidation: High fees reinforce the dominance of established parties and incumbents, reducing the diversity of voices in governance.
  • Public perception: When elections are perceived as predetermined, trust in democratic institutions erodes, fueling disillusionment among citizens.