When votes are sought with threats, inducements and political muscle, Nigeria’s democratic experiment enters dangerous territory.
By Celestine Okafor (Editor-in-chief)
Nigeria’s 2027 general election is gradually assuming a character that goes beyond the ordinary contest for political power.
Beneath the speeches, political rallies, cross-party defections and campaign promises, is a disturbing question: will the 2027 election be decided primarily by the free choice of Nigerian voters, or by money, political structures, intimidation, gun-barrel attacks and the fear of force of any kind?
The question has become more urgent following a series of inflammatory statements by political actors, especially associated with the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) stalwarts, including the latest declaration by Edo State APC Chairman, Jarret Tenebe, in which he invoked “AK-47 fire” against anyone he said might stand in the way of the party's plan to deliver 2.5 million votes to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in Edo State.
Tenebe's statement, made during the APC's mobilisation activities in Edo State, was widely reported after a video of the address circulated on social media. He reportedly said: “Anybody who refuses, who wants to stand in our way ... AK-47 fire.” He also referred to “Holy Ghost fire” and a “General Purpose Machine Gun” in the same political context.
Whatever political or rhetorical intention may have been behind the statement, the reference to an assault rifle in connection with securing votes cannot be treated as ordinary campaign language. In a country with a long history of election-related violence, such language inevitably raises questions about the safety of opposition politicians, party agents, journalists and, most importantly, ordinary voters. And Tenebe's statement did not emerge in isolation.
Already, there's a disturbing language of political intimidation ongoing on the political campaign firmament. In September, Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, was reported to have spoken about politics sometimes proceeding through “force”, while threatening to flog those unwilling to support the APC. The remarks generated criticism from civil society and media organisations.
In Ebonyi State, it was reported that Governor Francis Nwifuru told newly inaugurated local government chairmen that they could be removed if their areas did not deliver for the APC in 2027. A newly inaugurated council chairman subsequently warned opposition politicians to stay away from his local government area or submit to the APC.
In the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Kuje Area Council Chairman, Mr Danjuma Shekwolo, was also reported to have told residents that they should either support the APC or leave the area. He subsequently said his remarks had been taken out of context.
There was equally the highly controversial statement attributed to Senator Francis Fadahunsi during the Osun governorship campaign, when he used the word “kill” against members of the rival Accord Party. His media team later explained that he meant defeating the party politically, and the senator was subsequently invited by the police.
Individually, these statements may be explained, retracted, qualified or defended by their authors. Collectively, however, they point to a worrying political vocabulary in which the language of winning votes is increasingly mixed with the language of coercion and force. That is where the real danger lies. From “deliver the votes” to controlling the votes.
Another expression increasingly heard in the political arena is that a particular politician will “deliver” a state, local government or constituency to a presidential candidate.
For instance, the FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, has repeatedly spoken precisely in those terms regarding President Tinubu's 2027 re-election campaign.
In September, Wike declared that he was in charge of the political structures in Rivers State and the FCT Abuja, and said he owed President Tinubu the responsibility of delivering both territories to him. He described himself as the “General Commander of the Political Infantry.”
Just last week, Wednesday, September 30, 2026, Wike went further, saying that if Tinubu lost the FCT and Rivers State in 2027, he would resign as FCT Minister.
There is nothing inherently unlawful about a politician mobilising voters for a preferred candidate. Political parties exist precisely to organise supporters and win elections. The democratic problem begins when the language of mobilisation appears to suggest that voters belong to political leaders rather than exercising an independent constitutional choice.
A governor, minister, party chairman or local government chairman cannot constitutionally own the votes of citizens. Votes belong to citizens. The phrase “deliver the votes” therefore deserves careful scrutiny in a democracy. It should mean persuading voters through programmes, policies, records and campaigns, not controlling them through political patronage, public resources, threats or fear.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has also deployed his own seeming combative rhetoric in the whole game. The Nigerian leader used what appears like a belligerent language while discussing the political battle ahead, although it is important to distinguish his rhetoric from the more explicit threats made by some party officials.
In April, Tinubu described himself as a “very stubborn politician” who would not be forced out of office and said he would campaign for another term. In July, also, Tinubu told visiting Catholic Bishops that he would not give his opponents the “leash” to tie him, and that the political contest would continue “to the finishing point.” These are worrisome developments while examining the broader escalation of political comments and rhetoric ahead of the 2027 election.
But there is another side to the President's public position. At the signing of the 2027 election peace accord in August, Tinubu called on political actors to avoid the use of ethnicity and religion as weapons of electoral mobilisation and appealed for a peaceful contest. It is a distinction that matters.
Most analysts of the 2027 election politics are of the unanimous view that the President's seeming combative political language should not automatically be interpreted or equated with the explicit firearm threat made by a state party chairman. Nor should every aggressive political speech be described as evidence of a plan to rig an election. There is presently a difference between evidence of inflammatory rhetoric and proof of a coordinated plan to rig the 2027 poll. It is however important to that
distinction in the interest of responsible journalism.
From the foregoing, one may ask: Is Nigeria moving towards money and gun-barrel democracy? The expression “money and gun-barrel democracy” might be viewed in a context as deliberately provocative, but it truly captures two persistent threats to the Nigerian elections, which are financial inducement and intimidation. Money can distort an election without a single shot being fired. A poor voter who is offered money, food, transport or another inducement may be placed in an impossible economic situation. The transaction may be presented as “empowerment”, “mobilisation”, assistance or whatever it may be called, but when money is tied directly to voting behaviour, the equality of the ballot is compromised.
The Electoral Act 2022, however, contains provisions against undue influence, including corruptly giving or accepting money or other inducements to influence voting. The International Republican Institute's (IRI) recent pre-election assessment of Nigeria similarly urged authorities to make it clear, that financial or material inducements are incompatible with legitimate political competition. It also called for stronger investigation and prosecution of election-related violence and voter inducement.
The second danger in the whole campaign and election exercise is the gun. Where politicians or political supporters invoke AK-47s, killing, flogging, force or expulsion in the context of electoral competition, the psychological effect can be enormous, even if no weapon is eventually fired. A voter does not need to be shot to be intimidated. And if a voter believes that supporting an opposition candidate could result in violence, loss of livelihood, harassment or physical attack, the ballot may cease to be genuinely free. That is why threats must not be dismissed merely because the speaker later describes them as a joke, metaphor or figure of speech.
There is also a growing public discussion on the spectre of rigging and about whether the political environment is being prepared for electoral manipulation. Former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Mr Babachir Lawal, recently alleged that if rigging became the determining factor in 2027 polls, nobody could compete with President Tinubu. His comments were allegations about a hypothetical electoral environment, not evidence that the President or APC has a plan to rig the election.
Similarly, a video circulated in 2026 purporting to show former APC national vice-chairman, Salihu Lukman, saying the APC could only win 2027 by rigging, was fact-checked by Africa Check as an old 2024 interview being circulated out of context.
These examples demonstrate the need for caution.
Nigeria's political atmosphere is already sufficiently tense without journalists converting allegations, recycled videos or political rhetoric into established facts.
But the allegations themselves should not simply be ignored. The appropriate response is greater transparency; transparent electoral administration, open results processes, strong party-agent monitoring, effective security arrangements, financial accountability and prompt investigation of credible allegations.
Therefore, the test for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is here already. INEC has announced the timetable for the 2027 general elections. The Electoral umpire's February 2026 announcement scheduled the presidential and National Assembly elections for 20th of February 2027, followed by governorship and State Assembly elections on 6th of March 2027.
INEC has pledged to deepen technology deployment, clean and update the voters' register, strengthen engagement with security agencies and expand voter education. The Commission has also explicitly called on political parties, candidates and supporters to shun violence and inflammatory rhetoric.
This means the 2027 election will not be judged merely by who wins. It will also be judged by how the winner wins. An election that produces a president through intimidation, inducement or manipulation would carry a democratic legitimacy problem even if the result is eventually declared according to the law.
The opposition also has responsibilities. The burden of protecting democracy does not rest exclusively on the APC or the Federal Government. Opposition parties must equally reject violence, hate speech, misinformation, vote buying and inflammatory mobilisation. They must protect their agents, document violations and use lawful mechanisms to challenge irregularities. Opposition politicians must also resist the temptation to interpret every political defeat as proof of rigging.
Democracy requires both the right to win and the responsibility to accept a genuinely credible result. Where a result is disputed, the answer must be evidence, collation records, legal challenge and peaceful civic action, not violence.
What must happen before February 2027 is that first, the politicians must lower the temperature. A politician who threatens opponents, even rhetorically, should understand that words from political leaders can have consequences far beyond the podium.
Second, security agencies must investigate credible threats irrespective of the political status of the speaker. Third, INEC must maintain institutional independence and communicate promptly whenever allegations arise concerning the electoral register, technology, results transmission, polling officials or other aspects of the process.
Fourth, political parties should publicly discipline members whose conduct violates their own commitments to peaceful elections. Fifth, the media must refuse to become an amplifier for incendiary propaganda. Political statements should be reported accurately, but claims must be distinguished from established facts. Sixth, Nigerians themselves must reject the idea that political leaders can “own” their votes.
A governor cannot own a state and a minister cannot own the FCT. In the same vain, a party chairman cannot own a local government. And no political leader can legitimately own the conscience of a voter.
That would be the real meaning of the 2027 election Nigeria has conducted many elections since independence. It has also experienced some of the worst consequences of electoral violence, disputed results, political manipulation and abuse of state power.
The 2027 election therefore represents another test of whether the country can move beyond the politics of “who controls the structure” to the politics of who can persuade the electorate. The APC has every constitutional right to campaign for Tinubu.
The opposition also has every constitutional right to campaign against the APC. The FCT minister, Nyesome Wike, has the right to mobilise support for Tinubu. Abubakar Atiku, Peter Obi and other opposition candidates have the right to seek votes. But ultimately, the Nigerian voter must remain the sovereign actor at the polling unit. The ballot paper must be more powerful than the cheque book. The voter must be more powerful than the political godfather. The law must be more powerful than the gun. And the result must reflect the votes actually cast not votes supposedly “delivered” by political strongmen.
The warning signs are already visible. The recent AK-47 reference in Edo, threats against opposition activity in other states, the language of political “delivery”, allegations of rigging and the increasingly militaristic vocabulary surrounding political mobilisation should all be treated as matters requiring serious attention. But Nigeria still has an opportunity to prevent rhetoric from becoming reality. That responsibility belongs to INEC, the security agencies, political parties, government at all levels, the judiciary, civil society, the media and, ultimately, the Nigerian people.
The 2027 election should not become a contest in which citizens ask themselves “Who has more money?” or “Who has more guns?” It should be a contest in which Nigerians ask: Who has the better programme? Who has the stronger record? Who has the capacity to govern? And who has earned my vote? That is the essence of democracy. Anything else risks turning the ballot box into an extension of the battlefield.
And for a country already struggling with insecurity, economic hardship and declining public trust, Nigeria cannot afford a democracy in which money buys consent and the gun commands obedience. NNL.
