PAT ONUKWULI argues against reckless political and religious rhetoric
Some words heal; others leave scars that nations carry for generations. Words can calm a crowd or inflame a mob, bind a country together or turn neighbours into enemies. Nigeria must recognise this danger before reckless political and religious rhetoric hardens into something far more destructive. In a nation already strained by insecurity, sectarian tension and political distrust, inflammatory speech from influential voices cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric.
As Nigeria approaches another election cycle, politicians and clerics must remember that words carry consequences. When public figures demean religious groups, threaten opponents, or cast fellow citizens as enemies, disagreement can quickly harden into hostility. Politics should yield to ballots, not bullets; religion and conscience, not carnage; leadership and restraint, not flames. History shows the danger of allowing inflammatory rhetoric to become commonplace.
That is why the remarks attributed to Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir warrant unequivocal condemnation. The National Human Rights Commission said he used derogatory language about people of other faiths, promoted religiously exclusive politics, and made statements capable of inflaming sectarian hostility. A cleric is entitled to political views, but no religious leader should reduce citizenship to a contest between believers and outsiders or turn the pulpit into a platform for division.
Again, Senator Francis Fadahunsi’s remarks in Osun were equally troubling. In a widely circulated video, he reportedly said that if an Accord Party member was found in Ilesa, “we will kill him.” He later said he meant defeating Accord at the ballot box, not physical violence. That clarification matters, but a senator should know that language threatening the killing of political opponents is dangerously combustible in an already tense political climate.
Social-media verdicts should not settle these matters. They should be investigated under the law. Where there is sufficient evidence that either man or anyone else committed an offence, the person should be charged and brought before a court. Nobody should enjoy immunity because of their status as a senator, celebrated cleric, ruling-party figure or opposition heavyweight. The law must not know big men and small men; it must know conduct, evidence and justice.
History warns of its urgency. Nazi propaganda dehumanised Jews long before persecution escalated into genocide. In Rwanda, radio and newspapers helped turn hatred into a weapon, and media figures were later convicted of incitement to genocide. In Myanmar, the United Nations documented widespread hate speech alongside brutal violence against the Rohingya. The contexts differ, but the lesson endures: violence is often preceded by language that makes its victims easier to hate.
Nigeria’s laws recognise that free expression is vital but not absolute. Section 39 of the Constitution protects the right to hold and express opinions, while Section 45 permits restrictions in the interests of public safety, public order and the rights of others. That balance is essential: “hate speech” must never be a pretext for silencing dissent, but free speech cannot be a shield for threats or incitement.
The criminal law draws a similar line. Section 417 of the Penal Code prohibits conduct intended to stir hatred or contempt against a class of persons, where such conduct endangers public peace. In contrast, Section 418 addresses false reports capable of causing fear, alarm or breaches of the peace. The principle is clear: speech may offend, but when it becomes a vehicle for incitement or public disorder, the law must respond.
The Electoral Act 2026 is even more explicit. Section 96 bars abusive campaign language that could inflame religious, ethnic, tribal or sectional tensions; Section 97 prohibits threats of force or violence intended to influence political support; and Section 101 outlaws campaigning along religious, tribal or sectional lines. The message is unmistakable: politics is not a free-for-all.
That is why President Bola Tinubu’s statement that “all is fair in politics” is troubling and, as a democratic principle, incorrect. He made the remark during a recent meeting with Catholic bishops in Abuja. All is not fair in politics. Murder is not fair. Threatening voters is not fair. Religious intimidation, ethnic hatred, electoral violence and rigging are not fair. Democracy is competition under rules; even warfare has rules. Indeed, the Electoral Act itself sets clear boundaries, showing that not everything is permissible in politics.
A country will endure every election. Christians and Muslims will remain neighbours. Supporters of rival parties will continue to trade in the same markets, work in the same offices and send their children to the same schools. Politics is temporary; the country is permanent. Elections must therefore never become a do-or-die affair. Political victory cannot be more important than the peace of the nation the victor hopes to govern.
The government must send an unmistakable message that inflammatory rhetoric, with possible criminal consequences, will be investigated, regardless of who speaks. Jingir and Fadahunsi must not be prejudged, but neither should influence or status place anyone above the law. Where the evidence meets the legal threshold, prosecution should follow, and the courts should decide guilt. Nigeria must choose law over lawlessness, ballots over bullets, and citizenship over sectarianism before dangerous words turn to blood.
Dr. Onukwuli is a legal scholar and public affairs analyst. patonukwuli2003@yahoo.co.uk