2027: The warning signs are already here — Will Nigeria act before it is too late?
By Okechukwu Nwanguma
I was on radio recently to discuss a question that will become increasingly important as Nigeria moves towards the 2027 general elections: Can Nigeria guarantee safe elections?
My answer was that Nigeria has the institutional capacity to conduct safer elections. But election security cannot be guaranteed simply by flooding polling units with armed police officers and other security personnel on election day.
The security of an election is determined long before the first ballot is cast.
It is determined by whether political opponents can campaign freely; whether citizens can attend political meetings without fear; whether campaign materials can be displayed without discriminatory interference; whether candidates can travel freely across the country; whether public officials can threaten opponents without consequences; whether security agencies enforce the law impartially; and whether those who organise violence and intimidation are identified and held accountable.
Recent developments should therefore concern every Nigerian – not because citizens should be frightened away from politics, but because the warning signs demand vigilance and timely institutional action.
The question before us is this: Will President Bola Tinubu, INEC, the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies act early, decisively, transparently and impartially to rein in political actors who may seek to undermine peaceful political competition?
Election violence begins before election day
There is a dangerous tendency to think about election security mainly in terms of what happens at polling units. That is a mistake.
Election violence does not begin when somebody snatches a ballot box. It may begin when a political leader threatens opponents and nothing happens. It progresses when opposition meetings are disrupted and nobody is prosecuted; when campaign materials are selectively destroyed or removed; when candidates cannot move freely; when armed or politically mobilised groups are allowed to intimidate citizens; and when public institutions appear to apply different standards depending on political affiliation.
These are early-warning indicators. And some of them are already visible.
In Ebonyi State, Governor Francis Nwifuru’s remarks during the inauguration of local government chairmen generated serious concern. He warned chairmen against allowing opposition parties to defeat the APC in their local government areas and said they could be removed if they failed politically. Responding to allegations of intimidation, he also said opposition figures would see a “real threat at the right time.”
The concern deepened when the Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Paul Ituma, subsequently warned political opponents to stay away from the council area unless they were prepared to “submit” to the APC and the governor.
The response of the Ebonyi State Police Command deserves acknowledgement. The police publicly warned against threats and subsequently convened political stakeholders on September 9. According to the Command, participants agreed to tone down inflammatory rhetoric.
That is a useful preventive intervention. But dialogue should not become a substitute for the law where statements or conduct cross legal boundaries. Security agencies must consistently distinguish between legitimate partisan rhetoric – which politicians are entitled to use – and credible threats, incitement or conduct capable of restricting the lawful political activity of others.
In Lagos, NDC House of Representatives candidate Dr Adefolaseye Adebayo alleged that the Lagos State Signage and Advertisement Agency selectively removed her campaign banners in Surulere while leaving those belonging to APC candidates. The allegation remains an allegation and should be independently established. But that is precisely the point: institutions exercising regulatory authority during elections must act – and be seen to act – according to transparent and politically neutral rules.
Benue presents a different warning. Peter Obi’s convoy was obstructed along the Makurdi-Gboko road during a visit to the state. The Benue State Government denied involvement, while the police confirmed the obstruction and subsequently announced the arrest of 46 suspects. Police said their initial decision not to force the convoy through was intended to prevent an escalation that could have resulted in loss of lives and destruction of property.
Again, investigation is essential, including establishing who organised or instigated the obstruction. The freedom of movement of political actors cannot depend on which party controls a particular state.
There are also troubling reports from Borno State. A state commissioner was reported as threatening people who opposed the APC with physical violence, including language about flogging and breaking or cutting fingers. Such reported statements warrant proper investigation rather than dismissal as ordinary political banter.
And now Enugu provides another warning.
On September 12, separate political meetings involving the NDC and PDP were reportedly disrupted by gunmen. The police said two people were injured during the attack on the NDC meeting and announced an investigation into both incidents. The NDC separately alleged that politically sponsored thugs were responsible, an allegation that requires investigation rather than assumption.
The importance of these examples is not that every allegation against a government, ruling party or security agency should automatically be accepted as true. It should not.
The point is that credible allegations of politically motivated threats, obstruction and violence must trigger timely, impartial and transparent investigation irrespective of the political identities involved.
Impunity is itself an early-warning indicator
Political violence rarely erupts from nowhere. There is usually a progression.
Threatening rhetoric becomes normalised. Intimidation follows. Political thugs test the limits of state tolerance. Opponents discover that certain areas have effectively become “no-go” zones. Security agencies respond selectively – or are perceived to do so. Perpetrators conclude that political connections provide immunity.
At that point, violence becomes a rational electoral strategy.
This is why the security of the 2027 elections is being determined now, not on election morning.
You cannot secure an election on election day if you have allowed impunity, political intimidation and violence to flourish for six months before the election.
The President has a particular responsibility
President Tinubu carries a responsibility beyond his position as a candidate or leader of the ruling party. As President, he heads a government whose institutions have a constitutional responsibility to protect every candidate and every citizen, regardless of political affiliation.
The administration therefore has an opportunity to send an unmistakable message: no governor, minister, local government chairman, party official, opposition politician or political supporter is above the law.
The President’s representatives joined other political actors in signing the National Peace Accord on August 18. The accord commits political actors to peaceful and issue-based campaigns. INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan called for the campaign to become a “marketplace of ideas” rather than a “theatre of war.”
Those commitments must now be reflected in conduct and enforcement. Peace accords are valuable. But peace accords cannot substitute for law enforcement.
Where conduct amounts to an offence, the appropriate response is not merely another meeting at which politicians are asked to behave themselves. Evidence should be gathered, suspects investigated and, where the evidence warrants it, prosecuted through due process.
The Police must pass the neutrality test
For the Nigeria Police Force, impartiality will be perhaps the most important test of election security.
Citizens must believe that the same law applies whether an alleged offender belongs to the ruling party or the opposition.
The relevant question for every police commander should be simple:
Would we take the same action if the political affiliation of the people involved were reversed?
Selective arrests, unequal protection of rallies, partisan enforcement of regulations, intimidation of opposition figures or failure to investigate politically connected offenders undermine public confidence.
An election can take place without widespread shooting and still fail the test of genuine political freedom if intimidation has already suppressed participation.
Security agencies must therefore move from a predominantly deployment-driven approach towards intelligence-led prevention.
They should already be identifying hotspots; monitoring credible threats; tracing illegal weapons; identifying groups mobilising for political violence; protecting vulnerable candidates, communities and election officials; and investigating those who finance political thugs.
Civil society organisations and community networks should be integrated into credible early-warning systems. They often see tensions developing before those tensions appear in official security reports.
Election policing must not become election militarisation
Large deployments may sometimes be necessary. But the presence of guns does not automatically produce security. Excessive militarisation can itself intimidate voters.
The responsibility of security personnel is to protect voters, candidates, election officials, journalists, observers and electoral materials – not to become participants in the political contest.
Officers deployed for elections should be identifiable, properly trained and subject to clear rules of engagement. There should be accessible mechanisms for reporting misconduct and rapid investigation of allegations involving partisan behaviour, excessive force, intimidation, extortion or collaboration with political actors.
Police welfare also matters.
An officer deployed without proper accommodation, transportation, feeding or timely payment of allowances is more vulnerable to inducement and compromise. Election-security planning must therefore include transparent logistical arrangements and adequate welfare for personnel.
Protect the entire electoral chain
Security planning cannot stop at polling units. It must cover campaigns, movement of sensitive materials, voting, election officials, journalists, observers, electronic infrastructure, result transmission and especially collation centres. Some of the greatest tensions arise after voting has ended.
Security personnel must protect collation without preventing lawful access by accredited party agents, observers and journalists.
Vote buying, organised voter suppression and coercion must also be understood as election-security issues. An election does not need spectacular violence to be fundamentally compromised.
The Southeast requires a different kind of security thinking
The Southeast presents additional challenges. Separatist-linked violence, organised criminality, kidnapping and public fear can suppress participation. But the answer cannot be to treat entire communities as security threats.
Indiscriminate militarisation can deepen distrust and discourage citizens from exercising their franchise.
The region requires intelligence-led, community-sensitive policing capable of distinguishing criminals from peaceful citizens while protecting political activity and responding decisively to genuine threats.
State police adds another dimension
The debate about state police also has profound implications for future elections.
Decentralised policing could improve local knowledge and responsiveness. But without strong safeguards, it could also place coercive power closer to governors and dominant local political interests.
Nigeria should therefore be extremely cautious about deploying newly created state police structures for elections without minimum national professional standards, transparent recruitment and financing, independent oversight, operational safeguards and effective mechanisms against partisan control.
Citizens must not surrender the political space
Perhaps the most damaging consequence of political intimidation would be for Nigerians to withdraw from politics out of fear. That would reward those who use intimidation.
The appropriate citizen response to early warning signs is not panic. It is vigilance, documentation, lawful civic engagement and peaceful democratic resistance to impunity.
Citizens should document threats and violence, report them, demand investigations, insist on equal application of the law, protect the civic space and refuse to accept the proposition that any street, community, local government or state belongs exclusively to one political party.
Political parties come and go. Public institutions belong to Nigerians.
Democracy depends not only on institutions but also on citizens who insist – peacefully, courageously and within the law – that institutions perform their constitutional responsibilities.
The first test of election security is therefore not how many policemen Nigeria deploys on election day. It is whether a candidate can campaign in Ebonyi, display lawful campaign materials in Lagos, travel through Benue, hold a political meeting in Enugu or address citizens in Borno with the same protection of the law as any candidate of the governing party – and vice versa.
The security of the 2027 elections is being determined today.
If Nigeria tolerates threats today, intimidation tomorrow and political attacks the next day, deploying tens of thousands of security personnel on election day will not suddenly manufacture a free electoral environment.
No government can credibly guarantee that an isolated violent incident will never occur. What the Nigerian state can – and must – guarantee is something more fundamental: that its institutions will not facilitate violence, tolerate intimidation or become instruments of partisan advantage; that credible threats will be investigated; and that those who break the law will face consequences regardless of political status.
A safe election is not one surrounded by the largest number of guns. It is one in which citizens have enough confidence to leave their homes, participate in politics, vote according to conscience, have their votes protected, and return home safely – without fear of political thugs and without fear of the security agencies themselves.
That is the test before President Tinubu, INEC, the Police, the DSS, political leaders – and ultimately all Nigerians – as 2027 approaches.
Nwanguma is the Executive Director, Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC)
