2027 Polls: Lawyers raise alarm over threats, intimidation

By Dayo Johnson, Regional Editor, South West

The polity is already awash with threats of violence and intimidation against those who do not support the ruling All Progress Congress. Few days ago, Chairman of Esan West Local Govt Area of Edo state threatened a hotel hosting Nigeria Democratic Congress meeting that any building hosting any other party apart from APC would be bought down.

Read Also: From Obasanjo and Tinubu camps to Atiku’s war room, by Emmanuel Aziken

He also went to Ekpoma motor park where he ordered that any commercial driver wearing any other cap other than APC cap would be barred from entering the park. In Abuja, a council chairman told the residents who would not support the APC to relocate from the Federal Capital territory while in Borno, a commissioner threatened that any resident who dared to oppose the ruling party would be flogged. Across the states, thugs have disrupted political gatherings, attacked the people and destroyed property.

Concerned lawyers in the country have therefore raised the alarm over the threats and attacks ahead of the January general elections. They warned that such violence can plunge the nation into a state of chaos and this portends a great danger for our democracy.

Threatening citizens’ freedoms erode confidence in election result before ballot — Ahia

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr Kenneth C. Ahia, said: “Demolishing a hotel for hosting an opposition meeting, forcing drivers into party caps, banishing residents from the FCT, threatening floggings, or vowing to remove elected council chairmen who fail to ‘deliver,’ all violate Sections 34, 40, 41 and 42 of the Constitution, which protect the dignity of the person, the rights of assembly, association and movement, and freedom from discrimination on account of political opinion.

“The Supreme Court has also settled that no governor can remove democratically elected local government councils. An election remains meaningful only when citizens can campaign, speak and vote without fear.

“When officials threaten those freedoms, they discourage participation and erode confidence in the result before a single ballot is cast. Every reported threat should be investigated fairly, and any official found to have abused public power should face appropriate consequences. Leaders of all parties should make clear that votes must be won by persuasion and performance, never by coercion.

“Those in power must also remember that power is transient. Years ago, the PDP held sway across the country and acted with impunity; today it is the APC. No party holds power forever, and there is always a time for reckoning.”

It’s a reflection of our democracy is degenerating — Akinlaja

Another SAN, Mr. Dayo Akinlaja, insisted that Nigeria should have grown beyond politics of bitterness and intolerance. He said: “It is clear beyond any measure of doubt that all these threats are highly unconstitutional, illegal, unfortunate and disturbing. They have no legitimate space in a proper democratic culture. It is a pointer to the fact that our democracy is not improving but degenerating. Over these years, we should have gone beyond this level of intolerance and incivility. Issues, not threats, should define electioneering campaigns.

“Sadly, issues are relegated to the background. Fear Mongering is elevated in their place. The situation is tragic, and that is even an understatement.”

Infringing on people’s rights to choose unconstitutional, actionable —Akpan

For an Abuja-based senior lawyer, Mr. Nkereuwem Akpan, threats emanating mostly from states controlled by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) constitute an electoral offence. He said: “This ugly trend by supporters of the ruling APC is a cause for concern. I say so because a multi-party democracy such as ours thrives where there is a constitutional guarantee of freedom of choice and the right to self-determination.

“Even under military rule, we had options to choose from. Recall that Gen. Ibrahim Babangida gave us the choice between the National Republican Convention (NRC) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP). That was the basis on which we had Chief Moshood Abiola going up against Alhaji Tofa. Again, during the General Sani Abacha years, we had a slew of political parties to choose from. I think the APC must learn from the history of our recent past, from the tragedy that befell the PDP. I remember a time, about 15 years ago, when the PDP was the biggest political party in the whole of Africa.

“In fact, members of the PDP became so boisterous, unruly and careless that one Ogbulafor came out on national TV boasting that the PDP would rule Nigeria for sixty years. In those days, you were either PDP or you were wasting your time. It took Nyesom Wike, working from within the ranks of the PDP, to destroy it. Democracy thrives on the choice that the electorate is able to make at the polls every four years.

“The APC was an outsider until 2015 and cannot be greater than the masses. It goes without saying that ours is a constitutional democracy founded on the principle of one man, one vote, where the right to cast a vote for a candidate of one’s choice is a fundamental right. Any attempt, before, during, or after the elections, to infringe on this right to choose is clearly unconstitutional and actionable in the law courts. Secondly, it will also constitute an electoral offence to attempt to stifle freedom of choice or to discriminate against a person on the basis of party membership or political affiliation.

“These are the very foundations of our democracy. In other jurisdictions, the police would have arrested, prosecuted and jailed anyone engaged in this conduct, but they won’t, because orders will come from Abuja to truncate the case”.

Doomsday beckons if political actors don’t comply with the laws — Chief Nwachukwu

For his part, another senior legal practitioner, Chief Chukwuma Nwachukwu, said: “All I can see in the above scenarios is the impunity and arrogance of our politicians, especially those of the ruling party. It is important to state that no one is above the law, and by virtue of Section 1(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), all authorities and persons are subject to the grundnorm and all laws of the land, without exception.

“Chapter Four of the Constitution preserves the fundamental rights of citizens, and such rights cannot be tampered with, except in accordance with the provisions of the law. No party member or government official has any right whatsoever to infringe on the guaranteed rights to freedom of association, freedom of movement, etc and, more especially, the right to life of a fellow citizen, under the guise of politics.

“The various criminal laws make provision for offences and the punishments therefore, and it is the duty of the relevant law enforcement agencies to carry out their statutory functions in preserving public order. Furthermore, the Independent National Electoral Commission should, as a matter of urgency, read the riot act to political office holders, regardless of their party leanings and affiliations, on the importance of desisting from inflammatory rhetoric as we approach the general elections, so as not to overheat the polity and destabilise the upcoming elections.

“As for the issue of imposing huge sums of money as fees for the erection of campaign billboards, I do not see the necessity of imposing a prohibitive sum different from what is generally applicable to other advertisements. This is a deeply tense period in our national life, and if political actors don’t

comply with the laws of the land, doomsday beckons”.

Political intimidation transforms elections into marketplace of fear — Evans Ufeli

Another lawyer, Evans Ufeli said, “Threats by public officials against citizens, workers, traders, civil servants, or businesses because they support opposition parties strike at the foundation of constitutional democracy. Under the 1999 Constitution, Nigerians enjoy rights to freedom of expression, peaceful association, political choice, and protection from discriminatory treatment.

“These rights are not gifts bestowed by office holders; they are guarantees that restrain the power of the state and its agents. From an electoral law perspective, intimidation is especially grave where it is intended to compel a person to vote, abstain from voting, abandon a political party, or support a preferred candidate. The Electoral Act 2026 criminalises undue influence and conduct involving threats, coercion, violence, or the threat of injury, loss, and harm designed to distort a voter’s free choice. A threat to terminate employment, withdraw government services, close a business, deny contracts, or unleash security agencies against perceived opposition supporters may therefore amount to more than reckless political speech.

“Where evidence establishes intent and action, it may trigger electoral offences, abuse of office allegations, civil claims for fundamental-rights enforcement, disciplinary sanctions, and in appropriate cases criminal liability. Political intimidation transforms elections from a contest of ideas into a marketplace of fear. A voter who fears losing a job, a licence, personal safety, or access to public services cannot be said to be exercising an entirely free franchise.

“Such a climate suppresses turnout, entrenches incumbency, weakens opposition mobilisation, and erodes public confidence in election outcomes. A public office is a trust, not a weapon. The survival of credible elections depends on ensuring that no Nigerian must choose between political conscience and personal survival.

Credibility of the electoral process at risk — Femi Aborisade

Mr Femi Aborisade argued that; “These developments are a very dangerous sign for our democracy. They amount to an unacceptable attempt to constrict the democratic space and intimidate citizens into political conformity. Democracy is founded on the freedom of citizens to make political choices without fear, coercion or intimidation.

“Nobody should be threatened or punished simply because he or she chooses to support a political party different from the party in government. What we are witnessing is particularly disturbing because some of these threats are reportedly coming from public officials who ought to be protecting the rights of citizens, irrespective of their political affiliations. A public office must never be used as an instrument of political coercion.

“Government officials have a constitutional duty to protect citizens, not to dictate their political choices or threaten them with reprisals for exercising their democratic rights. Political competition should be about ideas, policies, programmes and the records of those seeking public office. Where intimidation replaces persuasion, democracy is inevitably weakened.

“If this pattern continues unchecked, it could create an atmosphere of fear in which citizens become reluctant to participate openly in political activities or express their genuine preferences. That would have serious consequences for the credibility of the electoral process.”

Threats against opposition anti-democratic — Dr Omare

Dr Eric Omare, former President, Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) worldwide contended that: “The verbal threats by members of the ruling APC against opposition party members pose a threat to peace and security going into the 2027 general elections. There is no legal basis for those threats.

“In a multi-party democracy, people have the right to support the political party and candidates of their choice; hence, the threats are anti-democratic. I would advise the security agencies to take proactive steps to nip such threats in the bud and address their potential effect on the peaceful conduct of the 2027 general elections.”

APC’s strong-arm posture, recipe for anarchy ahead 2027 elections — Clarkson

On his part, Amaebi Clarkson, argued that: “It is disheartening when public officials and supposedly elected representatives speak in such an unbridled manner. It reveals how far we have descended into lawlessness. Their unguarded utterances give the impression that the country is governed by the rule of men rather than the Constitution.

“Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, is clear on the unfettered rights of the people. Section 40 specifically echoes the freedom of association and the right to peaceful assembly. This is an inalienable right that cannot be circumvented by anybody, including the President.

“Our democracy is anchored on a multi-party system which gives the people a wide spectrum to choose their political party and who to vote for. The ruling APC, which came to power in 2015, benefited from these democratic tenets when the people voted out the then ruling PDP government. The APC’s strong-arm posture is a recipe for anarchy in the forthcoming elections. But this government should be reminded that Nigeria is not a banana republic but a country steeped in the rule of law.”

It portends a great danger for our democracy — Oviawe

A Port Harcourt based lawyer, Amarachi Owhoeli also said: “This portends a great danger for our democracy. Sadly, this is a recurrent phenomenon during electioneering periods. We have seen similar threats like this in Lagos State and other states in Nigeria during the 2023 general elections. It is sad that these politicians and their thugs will still go ahead to carry out their threats and the security agencies will not do anything about it.

“Every Nigerian citizen is free to campaign and vote for a candidate of their choice; if anybody threatens or coerces them from freely doing so, then that person ought to be arrested and prosecuted accordingly, no matter his position or qualifications.

“Threats of violence like this and actual violence can plunge the country into a state of chaos, because nobody has a monopoly on violence. I will advise the security agencies to swiftly move in and invite the culprits responsible for these threats, make them sign an undertaking not to carry out those threats, so that if these threats later materialize, they will be held responsible for their unguarded utterances.”

INEC must create a level playing field — Akiki

George Akiki, Ex Chairman of the NBA Young Lawyers Forum, Calabar Branch, stated that “one of the features of democracy is a free, fair and violence-free election, devoid of duress, vote buying, threats, and ballot snatching. Nigeria has been a democracy for over 27 years and should by now have moved past situations where voters are threatened by political thugs.

“During the 2023 elections a woman was harassed, molested, and beaten by thugs at her polling unit, as reported in the media. The country’s constitution guarantees freedom of choice of political affiliation and membership under Sections 39 and 40, while Section 77 guarantees the freedom to vote and choose representatives. Furthermore, such actions amount to electoral offences punishable by law.

“Therefore, INEC, as the election umpire, has a duty to put up modalities that will encourage a level playing ground for all political parties to participate in elections, while security agencies have a role to ensure that voters and election participants do not suffer any elements of coercion, threat, or duress.”

On his part, John Ola Mafo said: “The combined reading of all the threats, barking, howling and vituperations from Edo to Ebonyi, Abuja to Bornu, gives a picture of APC as a political family at the breaking point, weighed down by desperation, frustration and the fear of the unknown.

“Nigeria is not a Banana Republic and certain inalienable rights are granted by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended), which includes Section 34 on Dignity of Human Person, 35 on Right to Personal Liberty, 38 on Freedom of Thoughts, Conscience and Religion, 39 on Right to Freedom of Expression and the Press, 40 on Right to Peaceful Assembly and Association, and 41 on Freedom of Movement”.

Mr Tajudeen Olutop, former Chairman, Nigeria Bar Association, Owo Branch

“No citizen should be intimidated, assaulted, denied access to public facilities or forced to relocate merely because of his or her political preference. Nevertheless, such inflammatory statements are not entirely new in Nigerian politics. At different times, politicians belonging to various parties have employed similar language when their parties controlled the machinery of government.

“They are often part of political manoeuvring, propaganda and attempts to create an exaggerated impression of dominance rather than policies capable of lawful implementation. However, these statements should not be treated lightly. Even when the speakers have no genuine intention or legal capacity to carry them out, such rhetoric can embolden overzealous supporters, heighten political tension and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

“Public office holders must therefore exercise restraint and remember that government institutions and public spaces belong to all Nigerians, irrespective of political affiliation. Ultimately, elections are determined by the freely expressed will of the electorate not by threats, intimidation or coercion”.

Similarly, Chief Ola Amure said: “The reported threats from some government officials reveal a dangerous attempt to turn political competition into an exercise of power, intimidation and coercion. A government has a responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, not to threaten them for belonging to, supporting, or voting for another political party.

“The right to vote, freedom of association, freedom of expression and the right to participate in political activities are not privileges granted by the ruling party. They are fundamental democratic rights. What happens when a commercial driver is denied access to his livelihood because of the political cap he wears? What happens when a hotel owner is threatened because he provides a venue for a lawful political meeting? What happens when an elected council chairman is pressured to deliver votes for a particular party under threat of removal? These are not merely political disagreements. They raise questions about the use of public authority, the protection of livelihoods, electoral fairness and the rule of law. The 2027 elections must not become a contest of intimidation, coercion and the abuse of state power. They must be an opportunity for Nigerians to freely choose their leaders based on policies, performance, character and their vision for the future.

“The opposition must not be denied the right to campaign. Citizens must not be forced to support a political party. Public resources and government institutions must not be used as instruments of political punishment. A democracy is measured not only by the ability of the ruling party to win elections, but also by its willingness to respect the rights of those who disagree with it.

Moruff Balogun, Former Vice Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association, Ijebu Ode Branch

“The more important question is what happens to an election when those who control public institutions begin to communicate to citizens that their political choices may have consequences.

Politicians have always used strong language during election campaigns. The more serious concern is that some of these statements are coming from people who occupy public offices and therefore have access to governmental authority and resources. One may dismiss some of these statements as political rhetoric. But when similar statements begin to emerge from different jurisdictions, the issue becomes more fundamental. It creates the possibility of a political environment in which citizens do not merely ask, “Who do I want to vote for?” but also, “What will happen to me if I vote differently?

“That is where the concern for democratic freedom arises. A democracy is not defined merely by holding an election on a particular day. It requires citizens to be able to make political choices freely. If a trader fears that his business may be affected because he supports the opposition, if a transport worker believes that displaying the wrong political symbol could cost him access to his livelihood, if a public servant thinks that his position depends on delivering votes for a particular party, or if an ordinary resident feels that supporting the opposition could make him unwelcome in his own community, then the ballot may remain secret while the political environment itself becomes coercive.

“The 2027 election should not only answer the question of who will govern Nigeria. It should also test whether our political institutions are mature enough to permit citizens to disagree with those in power without being treated as enemies of the State.

In his own submission, Mr Bukola Onifade said: “The problem with our democracy is the lack of respect for the rule of law. Public office holders and politicians generally are not giving enough regard to the constitution which is very dangerous for the development of our democracy and allowing such to continue without check can truncate democracy in the country.

“It is unlawful for anyone to resort to threat as a means of campaigning or canvassing votes or to even threaten others from canvassing for votes in any part of the country. The moment we allow the threat to become part of our democracy, we are heading for anarchy and we must use legal means to stop the country from falling into that ditch.

We need to preach political tolerance – Bewaji

Dr Wunmi Bewaji, a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and former Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, described the threat as excessive enthusiasm, stressing the need for tolerance in the country. He said, “I rather see this as an isolated manifestation of excessive enthusiasm and that is not to be confused for illegality.

“Every now and then you find over-zealous officials making statements, which when you look at it, is not really more than an over-zealous pursuit of a legitimate political objective, which is not a crime. I think the focus should be on how to promote political tolerance by all sides, because we will be missing the point if the focus is only on the ruling party, because every government official within their terrain would want to implement one policy or the other that will not be favourable to the other party. So, even within the same party, you can have evidence of intolerance.

“For instance, you find a situation where after people have pasted their posters all over the place, exuberant party supporters would go about to pull down billboards to tear posters belonging to the opposition. So, I think we need to preach political tolerance.”

Mr Chika Eze, said “The Electoral Act 2026 is quite explicit. Section 97 prohibits a political party, candidate, aspirant or any person or group from directly or indirectly threatening another person with force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel support or prevent support for a candidate. Section 130 also addresses conduct around polling units, including possession of offensive weapons or conduct calculated to intimidate voters.

“More importantly, Section 132 criminalises the use or threat of force, violence or restraint, as well as threats of injury, damage or harm intended to influence how a person votes or whether that person votes at all. It also covers conduct that prevents a political aspirant from freely campaigning or mobilising support. Therefore, incidents involving alleged threats or intimidation should not simply be viewed as political rhetoric. Where the facts establish the elements of an offence under the Act, the appropriate authorities have a legal basis to investigate and prosecute.

“The real issue is enforcement. The law must be applied consistently, evidence must be properly preserved, and investigators must establish who made the threat, what was threatened, the electoral context and whether the conduct was intended to influence voting or political participation. Where there is evidence of sponsorship or direction by others, investigators should also examine that chain of responsibility rather than stopping with the person who physically carried out the act.”

Election law expert, Mr Emeka Nwosu said, “The problem is not necessarily the absence of laws; it is the failure to consistently move cases from allegation to investigation, investigation to prosecution and prosecution to conviction. In many instances, evidence is not properly preserved, investigations are delayed and cases lose momentum before they reach a decisive stage.

“A functioning enforcement chain requires specialised investigators who understand electoral offences, proper documentation and preservation of evidence, timely legal advice, dedicated prosecutors and courts or tribunals capable of handling electoral cases expeditiously. There must also be clear institutional responsibility for tracking each case from the point of complaint to its final determination. Most importantly, prosecution must not be selective. Whether the offender is a political heavyweight, a party operative or an ordinary voter, the law should apply equally. Without credible enforcement and consequences, electoral offences will continue to be viewed by some actors as risks worth taking.”

According to Mr Chinedu Okafor, “The 2027 election must not become another contest where violence, intimidation and misinformation determine the outcome. Security agencies must be professional, neutral and firm in dealing with anyone who attempts to disrupt the process, irrespective of political affiliation. Political parties and their candidates must also understand that elections are not a do-or-die affair. They must campaign on issues, respect the rules and accept the outcome where due process has been followed.

“Citizens, too, have a critical role to play by refusing to participate in violence, vote buying, hate speech or the spread of unverified information. A credible and peaceful election is a collective responsibility. If the security agencies do their job, political actors play by the rules and citizens protect the integrity of their votes, Nigeria can have an election that strengthens rather than weakens public confidence in democracy.”

Dapo Akinrefon; Samuel Oyadongha; Rotimi Ojomoyela; Ikechukwu Nnochiri; Shina Abubakar; Ozioruva Aliu; Ike Uchechukwu; Davies Iheamnachor; James Ogunnnaike; Adeola Badru; Juliet Umeh & Gift Chapi-Odekina also contributed to this report.

Vanguard News

The post 2027 Polls: Lawyers raise alarm over threats, intimidation appeared first on Vanguard News.