NIGERIA’s political landscape is already showing signs of the heated contest that is expected to define the 2027 general elections. Across party rallies, public gatherings, social media platforms and religious forums, political actors and influential voices are increasingly making statements capable of deepening political tension, intimidating opponents and, in some cases, evoking the language of physical violence.
From the reference to “AK-47 fire” by the Edo State Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Jarret Tenebe, over the party’s ambition to secure votes for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to alleged threats attributed to political actors in Borno, the Federal Capital Territory and Osun, the emerging pattern raises a fundamental question: At what point do political words cease to be mere rhetoric and become matters for law enforcement?
In this Sunday Political features, News Point Nigeria dissects and analyses the situation, examining the increasingly aggressive language surrounding the 2027 political contest, the response of the Nigeria Police Force, President Tinubu’s own appeal for peaceful and issue-based politics, and the responsibility of the government and security agencies to ensure that warnings against incitement do not remain mere statements without consequences.
The latest controversy began in Edo State, where APC Chairman Jarret Tenebe threatened to invoke the “power of AK-47” against anyone who might attempt to frustrate the party’s plan to deliver 2.5 million votes for President Tinubu in the 2027 presidential election.
Tenebe made the remarks during one of the campaign rallies held as Governor Monday Okpebholo toured the 18 local government areas of Edo State to mobilise support for President Tinubu ahead of the 2027 general election.
In a video that went viral, the Edo APC chairman was heard speaking about silencing anyone who stood in the way of the party’s ambition to deliver the targeted votes.
According to Tenebe, the number of votes delivered by a state to the Federal Government could influence its development prospects, including possible consideration for the creation of additional local government areas and states.
He contrasted what he described as the “spirit” of “Holy Ghost fire” with the “General Purpose Machine Gun” spirit, before making the more direct reference to the AK-47.
“So anybody who refuses, who wants to stand in our way of not getting the 2.5 million votes we want to give to Mr President, AK-47 fire,” he said.
The remark has generated concern because it moves the language of electoral mobilisation beyond the conventional rhetoric of political competition and into an imagery associated with firearms and force. Reporting on the statement has confirmed that Tenebe was discussing the party’s 2.5-million-vote target for Tinubu.
Tenebe said the controversy began after Governor Okpebholo promised President Tinubu that Edo would deliver 2.5 million votes in 2027. According to him, “our haters, the opposition people and the social media politicians” subsequently began questioning where such a number of votes would come from in Edo State.
He further claimed that the governor and the APC had previously demonstrated their ability to mobilise substantial support, citing the result of the last local government elections in the state as evidence that their critics could be proved wrong.
But beyond the argument over the actual number of votes, the more significant issue is the language being used to pursue those votes.
An election is ultimately a contest for the consent of citizens. Votes are supposed to be obtained through persuasion, organisation, policies, records, promises and the confidence of the electorate. Once political actors begin speaking in the language of guns, punishment, expulsion or physical violence, the political conversation assumes a different and potentially dangerous character.
The Edo incident is not occurring in isolation.
The Nigeria Police Force had earlier disclosed that it was investigating alleged inciting comments attributed to Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba; Chairman of Kuje Area Council in the FCT, Danjuma Shekwolo; and Senator Francis Fadahunsi, representing Osun East.
The police said the comments, particularly those connected with the electoral process, could constitute a criminal offence.
In Borno, Buba was accused of making remarks threatening to flog residents and cut off the hands of those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 election.
In Kuje, Shekwolo was captured in a widely circulated video warning residents that they should either vote for the APC in 2027 or leave the area council. The remarks attracted public criticism, with human rights groups calling for investigation.
In Osun, the case involving Senator Francis Fadahunsi generated even greater controversy.
Ahead of the August 15 governorship election, a viral video allegedly showed Fadahunsi making remarks interpreted as a call for violence against members of the Accord Party. The police subsequently invited and questioned him. Fadahunsi later maintained that the video had been edited to misrepresent his statement and said he had been referring metaphorically to defeating the Accord Party at the ballot box.
The controversy did not end there. The Osun State Government went to court seeking an order compelling the police to investigate the allegations and preserve and authenticate the complete video, while the National Human Rights Commission also called for action over the reported remarks.
That episode illustrates an important principle: controversial political speech must be properly investigated, evidence authenticated and due process followed before guilt is established.
But it also illustrates the danger of waiting until inflammatory language has translated into physical violence before authorities take it seriously.
Against this background, the statement by the Nigeria Police Force that inciting comments relating to the electoral process constitute a criminal offence assumes considerable importance.
At a joint security spokespersons’ briefing in Abuja, Force spokesman CSP Anietie Okokon Iniedu said he was part of the team that questioned Fadahunsi over his alleged comments.
He said: “The law is very clear when it comes to inciting. It is criminal to incite members of the public, especially as you comment on the electoral process.
“The Nigeria Police Force is responsible for maintaining law and order and we will not shy away from this responsibility, no matter whose ox is gored.”
The Force subsequently said the statements attributed to the political actors were under investigation and that the outcomes would be made public. It also cautioned political stakeholders against making such comments. This is where the issue becomes particularly important.
The police cannot simply say that incitement is criminal and then leave the public wondering what happened after the investigation. If evidence establishes that a statement violated the law, Nigerians should be able to see that the law has been allowed to take its course. If the evidence does not establish an offence, the same public should be told that as well.
The credibility of the process lies in both outcomes.
Iniedu also drew attention to one of the longstanding challenges confronting criminal prosecution in Nigeria: witnesses often possess information or evidence but hesitate to come forward when cases reach the courts.
He explained that criminal cases require evidence and witnesses, stressing that those who make allegations must be prepared to prove them.
“One of the challenges I must tell you now that we have, the law states that a case is made when there are two or three witnesses. He who alleges must prove his allegations,” he said.
According to him, many people who have evidence relating to incidents fail to come forward when it becomes necessary to testify.
The Force therefore appealed to members of the public to provide information and evidence without fear, stressing that such cooperation would assist investigators and prosecutors in securing convictions.
This is a critical part of the debate because social media has dramatically changed the nature of political communication. A speech made before a few hundred people can now be recorded on a mobile phone, circulated to millions and interpreted in different ways within hours.
That makes proper investigation even more important.
A viral video should neither automatically become a conviction nor be dismissed simply because the speaker later claims that the words were taken out of context. The appropriate response is to establish what was said, what was meant, who was present, what the circumstances were, whether the recording is authentic and whether the statement crosses the threshold established by law.
The concern over political threats is not merely a question of morality or political etiquette. Nigeria’s Electoral Act contains provisions directly relevant to the conduct of political campaigns.
Section 92 prohibits abusive, intemperate or other language in political campaigns that is likely to provoke violent reactions or injure religious, ethnic, tribal or sectional feelings. Section 93 goes further by prohibiting parties, candidates, aspirants or other persons from threatening people with force or violence during political campaigns in order to compel support or prevent support for a political party or candidate. The law provides penalties upon conviction.
The implication is significant.
Nigeria does not need to invent a new standard every time a politician makes a disturbing statement. The country already has laws governing political conduct. What is required is consistent enforcement.
The Nigeria Police Force has itself stated that electoral offences, including hate speech and incitement to violence, will be dealt with in accordance with the Electoral Act and other applicable laws.
The real test, therefore, is not whether government officials can issue warnings. It is whether those warnings are followed by lawful, transparent and even-handed action.
President Bola Tinubu has already spoken directly to the political class on the kind of campaign he expects ahead of 2027.
At the signing of the National Peace Accord in Abuja, where he was represented by Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, Tinubu warned political actors against using ethnicity, religion and other primordial sentiments as instruments for seeking political power.
He urged political parties to commit themselves to peaceful and transparent elections, stressing that the peace accord represented a solemn pledge to Nigerians that political leaders would place the national interest above personal and partisan ambitions.
Tinubu also acknowledged that Nigerian elections have historically generated anxiety because of the intensity of competition for political power.
He commended the National Peace Committee, particularly former Head of State General Abdulsalami Abubakar, the Sultan of Sokoto and Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah, for sustaining the peace initiative since 2014.
The President noted the progress recorded in election management through technology, including the permanent voters’ card and the biometric voter accreditation system.
He said: “We may exchange occasional political jabs. But as members of the same household, the same national family, we must never resort to divisive or primordial sentiments of ethnicity or religion as tools for seeking power.”
He urged politicians to campaign on ideas and policies and called on political actors to strengthen rather than tear apart the social fabric.
Tinubu also made a particularly significant declaration: elections should not be treated as a do-or-die affair.
The President’s position is therefore already on record.
The question now is what happens when people speaking in support of his party, his administration or his re-election campaign appear to cross the very lines he has publicly warned against.
This is where the Federal Government and the security agencies face a delicate but important responsibility.
It would not be enough for the President to condemn political violence while party officials or political actors associated with the ruling establishment make statements that invoke firearms, threaten punishment or suggest that citizens who refuse to support a political party should be driven away.
Equally, enforcement must not be limited to members of one party or political tendency.
The same standard must apply whether the speaker is a senior APC official, an opposition politician, a government appointee, a legislator, a local government chairman, a religious leader or any other influential public figure.
That is the essence of the rule of law.
The objective should not be to suppress political speech or legitimate disagreement. Democracy thrives on criticism, opposition, debate and even robust political argument. The dividing line is whether political expression becomes a threat, incitement, intimidation or an attempt to use force to determine how citizens vote.
The Electoral Act provides that line. The police have acknowledged that line. The President has spoken about the need to respect it. What Nigerians now need to see is consistent application.
The other dimension of the debate is the increasing religious framing of the 2027 presidential contest.
At a mass wedding organised by the Kano State Government for 1,500 couples, Islamic cleric Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir urged Muslims to vote in a manner that reflects their numerical strength in the country and advocated for a Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket in 2027.
Jingir’s intervention is part of a larger political and religious conversation that has surrounded Nigeria’s presidential elections, particularly since Tinubu selected Kashim Shettima, another Muslim, as his running mate in 2022.
That decision departed from the informal practice of balancing presidential tickets between Muslims and Christians, a convention that had featured prominently in Nigerian politics.
The Muslim-Muslim ticket was not entirely without historical precedent, however, as the arrangement also featured in the 1993 presidential contest involving MKO Abiola and Babagana Kingibe.
Jingir subsequently defended his position in an interview with BBC Hausa, saying he had no regrets and would continue to advocate for a Muslim-Muslim ticket. BBC reported that his comments generated considerable debate.
He said his position was based on his religious beliefs and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of either Tinubu or former President Muhammadu Buhari. “I have absolutely no regrets. I stand firmly by my words and will never apologise. I will continue to advocate for a Muslim-Muslim ticket,” he said.
He added: “I am not campaigning for Bola Tinubu, I am campaigning for my religion. As I have stated before, my advocacy for a Muslim-Muslim leadership structure is not about Tinubu or Muhammadu Buhari; it is strictly for the sake of Allah.”
According to Jingir, political participation is a religious obligation for Muslims and the pulpit is a platform for educating his followers. He said he anticipated criticism and would continue to speak according to his beliefs.
There is an important distinction here.
A citizen, including a religious leader, has the right to express political opinions and advocate a particular political arrangement within the limits of the law. But Nigeria’s political history also demonstrates how easily religious and ethnic rhetoric can become instruments of mobilisation, division and confrontation.
That is precisely why Tinubu’s warning against the exploitation of religion and ethnicity for political power deserves attention.
The challenge is not whether Nigerians should be allowed to discuss religion in politics. They should.
The challenge is whether religious identity is used to encourage citizens to participate peacefully in democracy or to portray political opponents as enemies who must be defeated, punished or excluded because of their identity.
That distinction becomes increasingly important as the 2027 campaign gathers momentum.
For President Tinubu, the emerging controversy presents a test that goes beyond campaign rhetoric.
The President has publicly committed himself and the APC to the National Peace Accord. He has rejected violence, hate speech, misinformation and incitement, and has said that elections must not become do-or-die contests.
That commitment will have greater meaning if it is reflected not only in speeches delivered in Abuja but also in the conduct of party officials and political actors across the country.
When a ruling-party official invokes an AK-47 while discussing votes, Nigerians will naturally ask whether such a statement will be treated with the same seriousness as a similar statement made by an opposition politician.
When a government appointee allegedly threatens citizens over political support, the public will want to know whether office provides protection from investigation.
When a legislator is accused of threatening political opponents, the public will expect due process rather than selective outrage.
And when a local government chairman tells residents to support a party or leave an area, the question is whether citizenship and political rights are being treated as constitutional entitlements or as privileges controlled by political office holders.
These questions should not be answered through political arguments. They should be answered through law.
The Nigeria Police Force has already demonstrated awareness of the danger.
It has investigated some of the controversial remarks, questioned Fadahunsi and warned political stakeholders that inciting comments connected with the electoral process can constitute criminal conduct.
The Force has also said that the outcomes of investigations will be made public. That promise matters.
If investigators establish that an alleged statement constitutes an offence, the appropriate next step should be prosecution in accordance with the law. If investigators establish that the statement does not amount to a criminal offence, that should equally be communicated clearly. If evidence is manipulated, edited or taken out of context, that should be established transparently.
The public should not be left with a situation in which political actors make provocative statements, the police announce investigations, the headlines disappear and nobody hears what became of the cases.
Such a pattern can gradually weaken public confidence in law enforcement.
The greatest danger is that provocative words can sometimes become instructions in the minds of supporters. Political violence rarely begins with the first person being attacked. It can begin with language that gradually normalises intimidation, dehumanisation and threats.
A supporter hears that an opponent should be “dealt with”. Another hears that people who refuse to support a party should be driven away. Another hears a reference to firearms.
A fourth hears religious mobilisation framed as a battle for survival.
Over time, such statements can create an atmosphere in which political opponents are no longer viewed as fellow citizens with different opinions but as enemies.
That is why prevention is better than waiting for violence before acting.
Security agencies do not need to wait for an election-day confrontation before responding to credible evidence of threats made during political campaigns. The law provides mechanisms for investigation and prosecution, and the police themselves have acknowledged the importance of acting against incitement.
Ultimately, the fundamental issue is simple.
President Tinubu and every other political actor seeking votes in 2027 must be able to campaign, persuade and mobilise Nigerians without turning the election into a contest of intimidation. Political parties can set ambitious vote targets. Governors can mobilise their states. Religious leaders can express their views. Opposition politicians can criticise the government. Citizens can reject or support any candidate.
But none of these activities should require threats of violence, intimidation or punishment for exercising a constitutional political choice.
The Electoral Act already prohibits threats of force or violence during political campaigns. The President has already called for peaceful, transparent and issue-based elections. The police have already declared that incitement is a criminal matter. The National Peace Committee has already provided the platform for political actors to make a solemn commitment to peaceful elections. What remains is implementation.
Nigeria has reached the stage where political leaders must understand that every word carries consequences.
The country has seen too many instances in which inflammatory remarks generate headlines, condemnation follows, security agencies announce investigations and then public attention moves on without Nigerians knowing the final outcome. That cycle must change.
The President does not need to personally determine the guilt or innocence of anyone. That is the job of the relevant institutions and, ultimately, the courts. But the President can insist that his administration’s commitment to peaceful elections applies to everyone.
The security agencies do not need to decide political questions. Their responsibility is to investigate credible allegations impartially, preserve evidence, protect citizens and prosecute where the law has been breached.
Political parties, too, have a responsibility to discipline members whose public conduct threatens the peace or undermines the democratic process.
And Nigerians have a responsibility to reject political violence, document credible threats, cooperate with investigations and resist the temptation to turn inflammatory political language into street-level confrontation.
The message from government and security agencies must therefore be unmistakable: political competition is legitimate; threats, intimidation and incitement are not.
The 2027 election will produce winners and losers at the ballot box. That is the normal rhythm of democracy. What must not become normal is the idea that political victory can be pursued through fear.
If President Tinubu’s warning that elections are not a do-or-die affair is to mean anything beyond the walls of the peace-accord ceremony, then the same principle must be visible in the conduct of those campaigning for him, those campaigning against him and everyone exercising political influence across the country.
And if the police say incitement is a criminal offence, Nigerians should be able to see the law take its course — fairly, transparently and without regard to party, position, religion or political connection.
That is how words become action. That is how warnings acquire credibility.
And that is how a political season that is already becoming heated can remain a democratic contest rather than descend into a contest of threats.