Bola A. Akinterinwa
Manu Militari is a Latin phrase derived from manus (hand/force) and militaris (military/soldier) and meaning ‘with a military hand’ or ‘by military force.’ Legally, it is the act of carrying out a court order or action with the use of public armed forces or police. In ordinary political usage, it means compelling someone forcibly, brutally or abruptly. It is an act of doing something with force or with armed intervention. In this regard, winning election in international relations, especially in Nigeria and Africa, by manu militari, has become the technique increasingly adopted which should not be so.
Without iota of doubt, there are many ways of winning an election, particularly in Nigeria. The most often talked about is election through the ballot box. However, election by ballot box or by highest number of votes has generally been weaponized. For example, political parties and their presidential standard bearers want to win elections by manu militari, by hook or by crook, or by do or die approach, etc. A good and current illustration is the Osun State gubernatorial election, held yesterday. Many people were killed before the election took place. When election by manu militari becomes controversial, the issue is referred to the court for ruling and judgment. Candidates have to be delayed until final court decision. New voting cards had to be printed to reflect court decision, meaning double expenses.
It is against this background that the political campaigns of the gubernatorial election that took place on Saturday, August 15, 2026 and the implications for ‘Emi lokan’ (it is my turn) are hereby explained. Senator Francis Adenigba Fadahunsi, representing Osun East Senatorial District, called, during his political campaigns in front of the Owa Obokun palace in Ilesha for the killing of members of Accord Party. The call not only raises questions of national security, but has seriously damaged the essence of Emi l’okan politics of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT), and tainted Nigeria’s international image. Trying to win election by manu militari has damaged PBAT’s good image of democracy advocate.
Winning Election by Manu Militari
Election by manu militari is not only by use of force. The force can be subtle and fraudulent in design. The essential point is trying to win dishonestly. In Africa of today, coup making, sit tightism, constitutional manoeuvres, using power to harass and oppress opposition elements, influencing electoral bodies, neutralize the opposition, etc. are manifestations of manu militari. Even when people get to power by legitimate election, to accept defeat thereafter, or allowing for free and fair election, is most difficult for incumbent leaders. And most unfortunately, too, this manu militari attitude has been part of Africa for long.
Put differently, politicians in Africa appear to have belligerent blood in their veins when it comes to struggling for power. As far back as 1927, elections considered ‘the most rigged ever’ took place in Liberia. The elections were listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the most fraudulent election in history, as noted by the head of the National Elections Commission, Frances Johnson-Morris. The fraud is not difficult to understand: there were only 19,000 officially registered voters as recorded in the official results, but candidate Charles D.B. King of the True Whig Party had 229,527 votes, which represented 96.23% of the total votes. Thomas J.R. Faulkner of the People’s Party scored 8,992 votes, representing 3.77%.
Even though these figures, as given by Saye Guannu, raise how there were only 19,000 registered voters and there were more than 19,000 votes for candidate King, the incumbent president, there were also the suggested figures of Harold D. Nelson of the American University, who had not explained why there were more votes than the registered voters. Harold Nelson said candidate King received 24,000 while Faulkner got 9,000. The fraud was to the extent that the incumbent President King was not only accused of ‘using slave labor and selling slaves to the Spanish colony of Fernando Po, as well as involving the army in the process,’ the League of Nations had to establish an International Commission of Inquiry into the Existence of Slavery and Force Labor. By recalling this story is to suggest that, as of today, the interest of winning elections by hook or by crook is still much there. African leaders often engage in whatever is humanly possible to win election, including use of coercion and intimidation. This is precisely what Nigerians are presented with in the 2026 gubernatorial elections that took place yesterday in Osun State in Nigeria.
As noted above, at the domestic or national level, winning an election by manu militari involves the use of coercion, intimidation, physical violence and state machinery, with the ultimate objective of suppressing the opposition and enabling the continuity of an incumbent government. In international relations, it is referred to as ‘coercive electoral engineering’ or violent electoral engineering. Winning election by coercion unnecessarily destroys democratic legitimacy and generates instability. In the eyes of Professor Chidi Odinkalu, former Chairman of the Nigerian Human Rights Commission, ‘the biggest source of insecurity in Nigeria is the illegitimacy of election mandate… When people discover that their votes do not count and judges have been bought, they resort to violence.’ Put differently, generation of instability creates localized chaos and the potential to deter opposition voters from turning out at polling stations. When voters do not turn out to vote, room is consciously allowed for un-monitored electoral malpractices. As such, expected result cannot but be wide vote margins which are often presented to the public as correct and fair.
In the eyes of the international community, election victory by coercion is not acceptable. The election victory necessarily loses its legitimacy. The 2025 election in Tanzania provides a good illustration of this observation. Michelle Gavin noted in her “Protest and Crackdown in Tanzania: A Farcical Election and a Brutal State Violence Make Tanzania the Latest Example of a Government Not Fit for Purpose,” that ‘for months leading up to the polls, the State waged a campaign of dodgy legal maneuver and even more alarming abductions and torture of opposition leaders and civil society activities to clear the field of any serious challenge. The foregone conclusion led to markedly low voter turnout. But with or without the actual voters, the State was determined to achieve a resounding victory.’
More importantly, Michelle Gavin noted further that ‘as evidence of methodology, ballot box stuffing surfaced and citizens took to the streets to protest the lack of genuine choice on the ballot, security forces responded with deadly force, killing hundreds. Prominent journalists were assassinated. Officials trotted mobile data speeds and blocked access to social media.’
On Tuesday, 11th August, 2026 Senator Francis Adenigba Fadahunsi reportedly said ‘Kill Accord members,’ but later denied having meant that the members of the ACCORD Party should be killed. He truly said what he did not mean. Consequently, I took time to study the video. First, the video is a true reflection of what transpired in Ilesha. The video is not an Artificial Intelligence-generated, contrarily to the pretension of Senator Fadahunsi. Secondly, he gave an introduction to his call for killing. As he put it, ‘ti a batun gbo ACCORD kankan ni Ilesa, ni ibiyi, ibo ti ama di yi…’
In other words, ‘if we hear anything ACCORD again in Ilesa, here in this place, this election that is to take place…’ Anyone can complete the sentence objectively, especially in light of what he said thereafter: ‘titi di ojo ibo, bi a ba riwon, pipa nio,’ meaning ‘until the time of voting, if we see them, it is killing.’ He emphatically said ‘e ma pawon ni,’ ‘you have to kill them.’
Expectedly, Senator Fadahunsi denied calling for killing, claiming his intention was misconstrued. He explained that what he meant was killing ACCORD members with massive votes. As reported in the media, Senator Fadahunsi put it this way: “Kill Osun Accord with Votes, Not Violence, Senator Fadahunsi tells APC.” We can admit here probably, that he never meant what he said. However, when he claimed in another news platform that the video in which he called for killing was not original, that it was AI-generated and that what he said had been doctored, how do we interpret his new thinking? Why did he take Nigerians for granted? We have always observed in this column that Nigerian leaders often think after action and never think deeply before action. Is the action of Senator Fadahunsi not a reflection of thinking after action?
Without jot of doubt, Senator Fadahunsi has totally lost his integrity as a distinguished Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He can no longer be seen as a man of integrity if he has any. As explained by the News Central Television, Senator Fadahunsi said: ‘they say we are worried about them. We are saying it now, anyone that is not APC should not come out on the day of election. We are saying it now.’ What does this mean? What future has it? Can it stop impunity? Whatever is the case, it seriously damages the person of PBAT, his APC party, and Nigeria’s international image. How is PBAT’s ‘Emi lokan’ politics and Senator Fadahunsi’ ‘E ma pa won’ (killing them) impacted upon?
Killing Accord Party Members is
Self-defeatist
The politics of ‘Emi lókan,’ that is, ‘it is my turn,’ is ascribable to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT). When he was seeking the mandate of the APC as its standard bearer, and it appeared to him that he might not be given the opportunity of becoming the standard bearer of the party, he openly made it clear to all Nigerians that it was his turn and should therefore he should not be unnecessarily punished. And true enough, he was given the opportunity. The phrase entered into the political lexicon in Nigeria since then.
However, Emi lokan does not simply mean ‘my turn.’ It has become synonymous with PBAT’s style and mania of governance, philosophy and code of behavior. For example, PBAT’s ‘fìlà’ (Yoruba traditional cap) has been accepted as a manifestation of political support. Several APC members wear it to show off, to show belonging. In the same vein, several people seek to join the APC in the strong belief that their membership of the party will stop official inquiries into their political misdeeds and criminal allegations against them.
In fact, as APC members, many of them wrongly believe there is impunity when one is recognized as being pro-PBAT, and particularly for supporting his re-election in 2027. This is most unfortunate. It is within this context that many APC members have been opening their mouths recklessly and more than necessary and thinking that they are above the law. They all become other Commanders-in-Chief in the political scene, by arrogating to themselves the right of instruction to direct that their opponents be killed.
Additionally, let us admit that Senator Fadahunsi did not intend to kill the members of ACCORD party. Are the members of ACCORD not all citizens of Osun State? How can he kill them with votes? Are they really killable? If yes, can the killing be total? If the killing is about massive votes, how do we explain pursuing them to their house and to the extent of their families also being killed? Without any whiff of doubt, Senator Fadahunsi misfired. He bastardised the name of his good family. He tainted his political record and brought shame to the entire Senate.
Secondly, and perhaps more disturbingly, Senator Fadahunsi said in the video that anyone could record what he said. This was to say that he was much conscious of what he was saying and what the implications were. He even said if members of the ACCORD were not seen, they should be pursued. This was nothing more than a declaration of war. One supporter at the campaign venue said in the background that supporters should go to the market place. As if this was not enough, another APC supporter told people that whoever would not be coming to vote for the APC should not bother to come out to vote.
Senator Fadahunsi’s death threats have generated national controversy. On Friday, 14 August, 2026, the Amnesty International Nigeria asked Nigerians to sign an online petition calling for sanctions against Senator Francis Adenigba Fadahunsi over his statement asking for the killing of members of an opposition party, the Accord. As told by the Amnesty International, the petition is ‘to ensure that Senator Francis Adenigba Fadahunsi face justice for inciting violence ahead of Osun election… The human rights of the people of Osun State must be upheld and protected. People must be free to vote – without anything or anyone undermining their right to make political choices… Political differences must never become a justification for violence” (vide Samuel Omotere, “Amnesty initiates online petition against Fadahunsi over ‘kill Accord’ comment,” punchng.com, August 14, 2026).
The call for death for members of ACCORD party has prompted questions and much animosity for Senator Fadahunsi. He is believed not to be fit to be a distinguished Senator. In fact, many people have, on their own, removed the word ‘distinguished’ from Senator. Questions are being asked as to why he still remains a Senator. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, the Osun State Government filed a suit number HOS/M.157/26 on August 12, 2026 at the Osogbo Judicial Division against Senator Fadahunsi. The prayers of the Osun State government in the suit are very damaging and cannot but be tainting in terms of his political career.
Thirdly, Nigeria’s international image cannot but be tainted in light of the African Union Protocol on democracy, generally referred to as the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG). It was adopted on January 30, 2007 and designed to promote good governance, human rights, and democratic stability. The ACDEG is meant to ensure democratic rule, respect for human rights, nip corruption in the bud, as well as sustain political pluralism. In this regard, when political stakeholders become agents of death, not in the promotion of rule of law, but in its disrespect, Nigeria’s national image is tainted. It unnecessarily sends wrong foreign policy signals to partners.
For instance, how will Senator Fadahunsi be perceived by his international counterparts? Can he freely go to other African countries, Europe or the United States and be expected to be treated with respect? Is he going to be able to convince them that go and kill means go and vote? Diplomacy will even make a mockery of him by over-praising him for talking reasonably.
Additionally, how will Nigeria be able to defend its international responsibility especially in terms of respect of sanctity of agreements? Article 7 of the ACDEG stipulates that ‘State parties shall take all necessary measures to strengthen the Organs of the Union that are mandated to promote and protect human rights and fight impunity and endow them with necessary resources.’ Supporting AU organs fighting impunity necessarily implies non engagement in acts of impunity. It first requires seriously sanctioning violations of human rights. Most unfortunately, Nigeria is a terra cognita for political impunity. It is because there is no much interest in sanctioning political infractions in Nigeria. This is why Senator Fadahunsi and people like Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi and others who have been making very destabilizing statement and they go scot free.
Perhaps this may not be taken too seriously because PBAT himself is on record to have provided the platform for the saga. PBAT has it that ‘political power is not going to be served in restaurant… At all cost, fight for it, grab it, and run with it’ and that ‘all is fair in politics.’ Why must the acquisition of political power be a matter of do or die? Why must it be ‘at all cost?’ There is nothing wrong in fighting for it if the fighting is not criminally done. If the acquisition of political power is done fraudulently, what is the implication of having to run away with it?
Whatever is the case, Comrade Ini Ememobong, the National Publicity Secretary, Interim National Working Committee of the People’s Democratic Party, could not have been more correct when he said that ‘elections were not structured as a do-or-die contest, but as an opportunity for the masses to freely choose their leaders. What Nigerians face instead is a ruling party that has normalized warlike rhetoric – intimidating the people, silencing the opposition, and working to impose a pre-determined outcome on the electorate in 2027.’ With many APC candidates being identified as merchants of death, to what extent can PBAT dissociate himself from him and from other supporters? Has the problem created by Senator Fadahunsi not seriously damaged whatever good personality the APC may have?
Without any whiff of gainsaying, the conduct and management of electoral affairs in Nigeria always point to conscious and unconscious intention to be fraudulent. In the gubernatorial elections held in Osun State yesterday, one elderly voter, by name Adebayo Aderibigbe, gave his experience at the polling station in an interview with Tokunbo Oyetunji, an Arise News Chief Correspondent. Mr. Aderibigbe said the INEC first came with a list of registered voters containing about 1000 names. The people rejected the list because the list they had already seen had more than 2000 names. The INEC went back and came back with a completely different list. The voters again rejected it. The INEC went back and returned the third time with the correct list. In this regard, was it an honest mistake by the INEC or it was deliberate? Besides, Arise News correspondent in Ile-Ife showed the case of two voters, who gave conflicting views on the two APC candidates who came with presidential vehicles to the polling station. The male interviewee quarreled with how the candidates came to the voting units while the female interviewee, who said she was an APC member, said there was nothing the candidates did wrong. She admitted that the candidates truly came, but for what? The questions of concern are these: why are they in presidential vehicles? Vehicular movements are prohibited. Is it not to enable their movement that presidential vehicles were used? The bottom line is that government officials aid and abet societal indiscipline. This is why threatening to kill does not mean anything anymore and why the likely disintegration of Nigeria is a matter of time. Nigeria remains indissoluble and indivisible on paper but cannot survive with the promotion of lawlessness and national unity by manu militari.s