Femi Akintunde-Johnson
There is something deeply disturbing about a political environment in which a candidate cannot travel to meet supporters, a party cannot organise a gathering, or citizens cannot attend a campaign event without the possibility of being attacked. Nigeria is still some distance from the 2027 general election, yet the atmosphere surrounding political activities is already acquiring an unsettling character. Violence, intimidation, disruption of meetings and physical attacks are becoming recurring features of political engagement. We should be concerned, not merely because politicians and their supporters are at risk, but because the freedom to participate in democracy is being threatened.
The incidents are no longer easy to dismiss as isolated disagreements between overenthusiastic supporters. In Katsina, supporters All Progressives Congress travelling towards a campaign flag-off in Funtua were reportedly attacked along the Yashi-Funtua route in late October. A female passenger was injured, vehicles were damaged, and the police subsequently announced 14 arrests. In Cross River, the convoy of Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, came under attack in Calabar on 4 November. Police confirmed damage to vehicles and announced the arrest of a suspect, while investigations continued. The suspect, it should be emphasised, remains entitled to the presumption of innocence. These incidents follow other reported confrontations and disruptions of political activities in different parts of the country.
The National Peace Committee has reportedly recorded 60 election-related incidents within one month, including violence, intimidation and threats. That is a sobering indication of the climate developing around the next electoral cycle. We should not wait for a more frightening statistic before appreciating the danger.
Political competition is not supposed to be a contact sport in which supporters demonstrate loyalty by breaking heads, smashing windscreens or chasing opponents out of neighbourhoods. Campaigns are opportunities to persuade, debate, canvass and present alternatives. They are not territorial conquests. No political party owns a street, a community or a public space. No candidate has an exclusive right to campaign in a particular part of the country. And no citizen should need a security convoy to exercise the basic freedom of political association.
Unfortunately, Nigeria has a long and uncomfortable history of politicians cultivating the services of young men who are recruited, equipped or encouraged to intimidate opponents. Some are described as supporters, mobilisers or loyalists when their activities serve political interests, but conveniently become unknown hoodlums when violence attracts public condemnation. This convenient disowning must end. Those who recruit, finance, encourage or deploy violent enforcers cannot escape responsibility simply because the violence has become embarrassing.
Of course, allegations must be investigated and responsibility established on evidence. It would be irresponsible to attribute every attack to a particular party or political sponsor merely because an opposing camp makes the accusation. But it would be equally irresponsible for political leaders to hide behind the absence of immediate proof while refusing to condemn violence or cooperate with investigations. The standard must apply equally, whether the victims belong to the ruling party or the opposition.
The security agencies have an especially important responsibility. The police must protect the right of every lawful political gathering to take place without intimidation. Their duty is not to preserve the comfort of incumbents, frustrate opposition mobilisation or display greater enthusiasm for one political colour than another. Security deployment should be guided by credible intelligence and assessed risks, not political convenience. Those who attack campaign convoys, disrupt meetings, threaten candidates or assault supporters must be identified, investigated and prosecuted.
It is encouraging that police authorities have issued warnings and made arrests in some cases. The Inspector-General of Police has also spoken against the recruitment and mobilisation of young Nigerians for political violence. But warnings, however emphatic, cannot substitute for prevention and enforcement. The public must see investigations pursued to their logical conclusion, sponsors exposed where evidence establishes their involvement, and prosecutions conducted without selective application of the law. Otherwise, the familiar cycle of outrage, arrest announcements and eventual silence will continue.
The Independent National Electoral Commission also has a role beyond preparing ballot papers and organising polling arrangements. Its responsibility to protect the integrity of the electoral process must include sustained engagement with security agencies and political parties on the safety of campaigns and voters. The National Peace Committee, civil society organisations, traditional institutions and religious leaders can help promote restraint, but moral appeals must be matched by institutional action.
The danger is that violence at this stage could become a rehearsal for something worse as the election approaches. Political hostility can escalate. An attack on one group may provoke retaliation against another; a disrupted meeting may become an excuse for revenge; inflammatory statements may turn suspicion into collective hostility. Before long, ordinary supporters who have little or nothing to gain from political office may become casualties of battles fought on behalf of those seeking it.
And what happens to the undecided citizen in such an environment? The trader who wants to listen to competing candidates, the student curious about policy proposals, the elderly voter who wishes to attend a rally, or the resident who simply wants to observe the political process may decide that staying away is safer. Violence therefore does more than injure its immediate victims. It narrows democratic participation, silences public discussion and allows intimidation to determine who can be heard.
Political leaders must understand that democracy does not belong to the people who can assemble the largest crowds, hire the loudest musicians or deploy the most intimidating entourages. It belongs to citizens whose rights remain intact regardless of the party they support. A candidate’s popularity cannot be measured by the fear generated around a campaign, just as political strength cannot be established by the number of opponents prevented from speaking.
President Bola Tinubu, state governors, party chairmen, presidential aspirants and other political leaders must speak clearly and consistently against violence, including when the perpetrators appear to be associated with their own political interests. The temptation to condemn attacks only when one’s own camp is affected is part of the problem. Political restraint cannot be selective, and neither can accountability.
The coming election should be an opportunity for Nigerians to interrogate competing ideas, assess records and make choices without intimidation. That requires political parties to discipline their supporters, candidates to moderate their language, security agencies to demonstrate impartiality, and the justice system to ensure that offences do not disappear into the familiar fog of political influence.
Nigeria has enough insecurity to contend with without adding politically sponsored violence to the national burden. We should not allow the pursuit of political power to turn our streets into battlegrounds or make physical intimidation an accepted instrument of electoral competition.
The warning signs are already visible. We must not pretend otherwise, nor should we wait until campaign violence becomes election violence before treating it as a national emergency. The people who throw stones today may be carrying more dangerous weapons tomorrow; the political rival chased away from a meeting today may become the target of a more organised assault later. Prevention is not an act of pessimism. It is an obligation of responsible leadership.
The 2027 election must be decided by the votes of Nigerians, not by the fists, knives, guns or threats of political enforcers. Those seeking public office must understand that the mandate they desire can only be legitimate when citizens are free to choose without fear.
Stop the violence before it consumes the election. And, more importantly, before it consumes the very democratic freedoms the election is supposed to protect.