Nigeria’s struggle with electoral violence has continued despite repeated peace accords signed by political parties and candidates, with no fewer than 870 people reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.
The figure has renewed concerns over the effectiveness of the peace agreements, particularly with political parties and presidential candidates preparing for the 2027 general elections.
Politics in Nigeria appears to have strayed far from political scientist David Easton’s description of politics as the “authoritative allocation of values”, with contests for political power frequently degenerating into violence, intimidation and destruction of lives and property.
The National Peace Committee, chaired by former Head of State, Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar and co-chaired by the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Matthew Kukah, introduced the peace accord ahead of the 2015 general election as an attempt to prevent violence before, during and after elections.
Ahead of the 2015 presidential election, the then presidential candidates of the All Progressives Congress, Muhammadu Buhari, and Peoples Democratic Party, Goodluck Jonathan, signed the agreement in Abuja, pledging to accept the outcome of the election and refrain from acts capable of undermining the democratic process.
Despite the optimism generated by the initiative, election-related violence persisted.
A 2016 report by the Council on Foreign Relations put the number of deaths recorded during the 2015 elections at 106.
The situation was considerably worse in 2019. The Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room, in its General Election Final Report, estimated that 626 people were killed in the six months between the commencement of electioneering activities and the start of the elections.
For the 2023 general elections, the Centre for Democracy and Development reported about 109 deaths, despite presidential, governorship and National Assembly candidates signing peace agreements in which they pledged to reject violence.
The trend, according to reports, continued during the recently concluded Osun State governorship election won by Governor Ademola Adeleke, where at least 29 deaths were reported.
The figures have consequently raised questions over whether the peace accords have evolved beyond symbolic ceremonies into effective instruments capable of preventing electoral violence and holding perpetrators accountable.
With the 2027 elections approaching, the National Peace Committee, a fortnight ago, brought political parties and prominent presidential contenders together to sign a fresh peace accord.
President Bola Tinubu was represented at the ceremony, which was held in Abuja, by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, George Akume.
Also present were the presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Peter Obi, the Social Democratic Party candidate, Adewole Adebayo, Omoyele Sowore of the African Action Congress and former Cross River State governor, Donald Duke, who is contesting the presidency on the platform of the People’s Redemption Party, among others.
However, former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the ADC, was conspicuously absent.
Explaining the ADC’s decision not to participate, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, told The PUNCH that the committee needs to go beyond obtaining signatures from politicians and ensure that breaches of the agreement attract consequences.
“We felt the accord needs to go beyond ceremonial signing. The peace committee should be able to call out whoever violates the peace agreement in words and deeds. We recognise the importance of what they are doing, but we say they need to do more,” Abdullahi said.
The criticism has been echoed by international bodies and civil society organisations, which have questioned the absence of effective sanctions against politicians and their supporters who engage in inflammatory rhetoric or acts of violence.
The Country Director of Amnesty International, Isa Sanusi, said although the objective of the peace accord was commendable, previous agreements had done little to prevent electoral violence.
“The peace accord is on the surface good, but in reality, it never prevents or discourages anything. There must be sanctions, and there must be a mechanism for monitoring and documenting breaches of the peace accord,” Sanusi told our correspondent.
According to him, a peace agreement “is not supposed to be a mere public event,” warning that “early signs show the peace accord is weak and is not helping matters.
“Already, some politicians have started hateful rhetoric,” he said, adding that “politicians who incite hatred or cause violence must be held to account.”
The SDP also called for stronger enforcement of electoral laws, arguing that signing an agreement without consequences for violations would do little to change the behaviour of political actors.
The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Rufus Aiyenigba, said, “Our presidential candidate spoke the mind of the party on the matter on the sidelines of the event. The signing of a peace accord has become mere seasonal political ritual good only for its symbolism.
“We need to enforce strong punitive measures against electoral offenders to sanitise our elections.”
The SDP had made a similar demand in the aftermath of the Osun governorship election.
However, security expert and Managing Director of Beacon Security and Intelligence Limited, Kabir Adamu, disagreed with the argument that the peace accords had become ineffective simply because electoral violence continued after their signing.
According to him, the question should not be whether a signed agreement, by itself, can stop violence, but whether the existence of the accord provides a stronger framework for monitoring political conduct and responding to violations.
“Those questioning the effectiveness of the peace accords and who believe that they are unnecessary given the scale of violence that has greeted elections in the past few years, are asking the wrong question,” Adamu said.
He continued, “The issue was never whether a signed accord, by itself, stops violence, as it doesn’t, and no one on the National Peace Committee has ever claimed it does. The real question is what happens to political conduct in the absence of one, and whether this year’s accord is materially different from the ones that came before it.
“We saw the old peace accord model’s limits play out in Osun, where a state poll with its own peace accord still recorded loss of lives. So I understand why some Nigerians, and even some candidates, ask what the point is.
“Omoyele Sowore called the August 18 signing a ritual. Adewole Adebayo argued past accords were violated without consequences. Peter Obi questioned why office-seekers need to sign a pledge to behave the way public office already demands. Those are fair criticisms.”
Adamu, however, said the 2026 accord introduced mechanisms that could make it more consequential than previous agreements.
In his words, “the 2026 accord is not the same instrument as 2019 or 2023. Two things changed. First, in March 2026 the National Peace Committee, working with the Kukah Centre, presented legal annotations tying the accord’s provisions directly to the Constitution and the Electoral Act and moving it from a moral pledge to an instrument with defined legal consequences for violation, including for the fake news and incitement that spokespersons and supporters, not just candidates, are typically responsible for.”
He added that “the involvement of the Nigeria Police Force and the Independent National Electoral Commission,” which he described as “the two organisations with the most responsibility for ensuring compliance,” was another important development.
Adamu also pointed to the Kukah Centre’s Election Security Information Hub, which he said represented a significant departure from the traditional approach to election monitoring.
“Second, and more significant in my view, is the Kukah Centre’s Election Security Information Hub. The ESI Hub is a modern, technology-driven information collation and analysis centre that has logged over 2,500 security incidents and more than 380 electoral offences since mid-2025, mapped to specific hotspots, and that data is meant to feed public compliance scorecards and early-warning responses rather than sit in a drawer until after the vote,” he said.
For Adamu, the significance of the latest accord lies not in the ceremony itself but in whether the new mechanisms for monitoring, verification and sanctions are actually deployed.
“This is the real shift,” he said, arguing that verification and consequences had been built into the accord’s architecture, “making it not just a signing ceremony.”
The debate over the effectiveness of the peace accord comes against the backdrop of Nigeria’s long history of electoral violence, in which political competition has frequently been accompanied by intimidation, hate speech, attacks on political opponents, destruction of campaign materials and killings.
The latest agreement therefore faces a familiar test: whether political actors will merely sign another pledge or whether institutions responsible for electoral security and justice will act decisively when the commitments are breached.
With the 2027 general election drawing closer, the effectiveness of the new mechanisms will ultimately be judged by whether they can deter violations, identify perpetrators and ensure consequences for those who resort to violence.
For now, the central question remains whether the latest peace accord will become another symbolic political ritual or mark a genuine turning point in Nigeria’s efforts to curb electoral violence.
