INEC’s threats against campaign misconduct

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)’s warning that abusive, inflammatory and threatening campaign language will attract severe sanctions under the Electoral Act 2026 is timely, but hardly novel. At the beginning of virtually every election season, INEC issues similar warnings to political parties, candidates and their supporters. The recurrence of such vices raises the question: how many of those warned are actually punished when they cross the line? The Electoral Act is unequivocal. Section 96(7) prohibits abusive, intemperate, slanderous or base language, as well as insinuations and innuendoes capable of provoking violent reactions. Campaign messages that injure religious, ethnic, tribal or sectional sentiments are equally prohibited. Section 97(1) further prohibits the use of force or violence designed to compel or prevent electoral support, while Section 132 criminalises the use or threat of force, violence, restraint, injury, damage or harm to influence voting.

These provisions are not mere legal technicalities. They are safeguards for a fragile democracy in which careless words from influential politicians can inflame passions far beyond the campaign platform. Hate speech, ethnic profiling, religious vilification, threats and intimidation deepen social divisions, frighten voters and can turn political contests into battlefields. They undermine the right of citizens to make electoral choices freely and peacefully. Political competition is legitimate; political warfare is not. Candidates may criticise opponents, expose failures and vigorously argue for votes. But disagreement does not confer a licence to dehumanise opponents, threaten dissenters or portray entire ethnic or religious communities as enemies. Such conduct violates not only the law but also the minimum standards of decency expected of people seeking public office.

The real test, however, is enforcement. INEC has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to issue warnings. What Nigerians desperately want to see is the commission’s willingness to act when the offenders are politically powerful. Too often, the impression is created that politicians aligned with the ruling party, including the President’s henchmen and women, enjoy an invisible shield against consequences. Some appear emboldened to deploy the most poisonous rhetoric, engage in dangerous ethnic profiling and threaten political opponents because they believe sanctions will never reach them.

Worse, some political leaders appear enamoured of aides who are willing to fight dirty on their behalf, mistaking aggression and abuse for political loyalty. That culture must end. The Electoral Umpire cannot demand obedience from opposition parties while looking away when allies of those in power breach the same rules. The law must be blind to party affiliation, office, influence and proximity to power. INEC must therefore summon the courage to enforce its warning. It should investigate credible complaints promptly, apply sanctions transparently and ensure that offenders face the full weight of the law. Otherwise, this latest warning will become just another hollow verbal ritual at the beginning of an election season.

The post INEC’s threats against campaign misconduct appeared first on Vanguard News.