When Politics Becomes a Threat: APC’s Rising Rhetoric of Intimidation and the Dangerous Road to Nigeria’s 2027 Elections -By Muhammad Ibrahim M.

Democracy is built on a simple but powerful principle: the people are free to choose their leaders without fear, coercion or intimidation. Political parties are expected to persuade citizens, present their records, defend their policies and earn votes. They are not expected to threaten citizens into submission.

Yet, as Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 general elections, a disturbing pattern is emerging. Increasingly aggressive and threatening statements by some politicians of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) are raising serious concerns about the safety of voters, the integrity of the electoral process and the shrinking space for political dissent.

The concern is not merely that politicians are using harsh language. It is that some of these statements appear to cross the line from political rhetoric into intimidation, coercion and, in some cases, apparent incitement to violence.

Recent reports have documented several controversial statements attributed to APC figures. These include the Chairman of Kuje Area Council in the Federal Capital Territory, Samuel Shekwolo, who was reported to have told residents that they must support the APC or leave the area council. A Borno State commissioner, Sainna Buba, was also reported to have threatened those unwilling to support the APC, while Senator Francis Fadahunsi of Osun East faced controversy over remarks allegedly threatening opposition supporters. The Nigeria Police Force has commenced investigations into the remarks attributed to the three politicians.

These incidents should not be dismissed as ordinary political banter, they deserve serious national attention.

You cannot threaten citizens into voting for you

There is an uncomfortable question that the APC and indeed every political party in Nigeria must answer: If your record is strong, why threaten the voter?

A government that believes it has delivered should be able to point to its achievements. It should be able to campaign on infrastructure, economic reforms, employment, security, education, healthcare and social protection.

A political party that believes Nigerians are satisfied should be asking citizens for their votes not warning them about what will happen if they vote differently.

Elections are fundamentally about persuasion. The voter does not owe any political party loyalty. The voter does not owe any politician gratitude. And receiving government services does not mean surrendering one’s constitutional right to disagree with the government.

A road built with public funds does not purchase a citizen’s vote. A government appointment does not purchase political loyalty. A constituency project does not give a politician ownership of the people. Public office is a responsibility, not a private fiefdom.

The reported statement from the Chairman of Kuje Council is particularly troubling because it appears to blur the distinction between government and political party. A public official cannot reasonably suggest that a citizen’s right to live in an area depends on supporting a particular political party. The controversy has already attracted condemnation, while the National Human Rights Commission and civil society actors have called for accountability.

From Political Rhetoric to Political Intimidation

Political intimidation rarely begins with violence, It begins with language.

First, opponents are described as enemies then citizens are told that there will be consequences if they refuse to support those in power. Then opposition supporters are portrayed as people who do not belong.

Then political thugs are mobilised, then meetings are disrupted, then campaign materials are destroyed and eventually, violence becomes normalised. This is precisely why recent developments should worry Nigerians.

Days after the controversy surrounding the Kuje chairman’s reported “APC or leave” statement, armed thugs reportedly attacked an Accord Party meeting in Kuje, forcing participants to flee and damaging campaign materials and property. One incident should not automatically be attributed to another without evidence. But the sequence illustrates why inflammatory political language must be taken seriously.

When political leaders use threatening language, their supporters may interpret those words as permission to act. That is where rhetoric becomes dangerous.

The Problem is Bigger than the APC

The criticism of these statements should not be interpreted as opposition politics. The principle is bigger than APC, PDP, ADC, Labour Party or any other political platform.

Any politician who threatens voters should be condemned, any party supporter who attacks political opponents should be held accountable, any security official who looks away when political violence is taking place should answer questions and any government that allows political intimidation to flourish is ultimately weakening the democratic system that gives it legitimacy.

However, the current situation deserves particular scrutiny because the individuals facing recent allegations include serving public officials and elected representatives of the ruling party. The higher the office, the greater the responsibility to protect democratic institutions and citizens’ rights.

A commissioner threatening citizens carries a different weight from an ordinary person making an irresponsible comment. A senator threatening political opponents carries a different weight. An elected area council chairman telling residents that they must support a particular political party carries a different weight.

Public office comes with constitutional and moral responsibilities.

The Frightening History of Electoral Violence

Nigeria does not have the luxury of treating political intimidation casually. Our electoral history is filled with examples of political violence, voter suppression, intimidation, ballot destruction and the mobilisation of young people as political thugs. The danger is that every election cycle can reproduce these patterns unless political leaders deliberately choose a different path. The warning signs are therefore important.

In April 2026, concerns were already being raised about political thuggery and the intimidation of voters, including the use of political touts and hoodlums around elections. Security experts have also warned about the resurgence of political thuggery and the possible mobilisation of armed groups ahead of 2027.

Now, with inflammatory statements being publicly attributed to political actors and security agencies investigating some of them as reported, Nigeria must ask whether it is witnessing the early stages of another cycle of electoral intimidation. The answer cannot be to wait until somebody is killed.

Prevention must come before mourning.

Why would politicians resort to threats? One explanation is Political Insecurity.

Politicians who are confident about their popularity generally have little reason to frighten voters. They campaign, they debate, they publish manifestos, they highlight achievements, they attack their opponents’ records and they ask citizens for another mandate.

Threats suggest something fundamentally different: an attempt to substitute fear for persuasion. This does not necessarily mean that every politician who makes an irresponsible statement believes the party will lose an election. But it raises a legitimate democratic concern: why is intimidation becoming part of the political vocabulary?

Nigeria’s political class must understand that political power is temporary. The politician threatening citizens today may become an opposition politician tomorrow. The governor intimidating opponents today may need the protection of the same democratic institutions tomorrow. The party using state power against its opponents today may find itself outside government in the future. Democracy survives precisely because power changes hands.

Citizens do not belong to Political Parties

Perhaps the most dangerous idea contained in some of these statements is the suggestion that citizens somehow belong to whoever controls political power. They do not.

A Nigerian citizen is not the property of a political party. A resident of Kuje does not become an APC supporter simply because the APC controls the government. A civil servant does not lose the right to disagree with the government. A trader does not surrender political freedom because the government constructed a market. A young person does not owe a politician a vote because they received a government intervention.

Citizens are NOT political subjects. They are rights-holders.

They have the right to choose. They have the right to disagree. They have the right to campaign for another candidate. They have the right to join an opposition party. They have the right to change their minds and, critically, they have the right to vote without fear.

The Role of Security Agencies

The response of security agencies will be critical. The Nigeria Police Force has said inciting comments relating to elections constitute a criminal offence and has begun investigating some of the politicians whose statements have generated controversy. That is welcome but investigations must not become public relations exercises. Where evidence establishes that an individual has violated the law, prosecution should follow. And this standard must apply regardless of political affiliation.

The Police, DSS, INEC and other relevant institutions must demonstrate that political connections do not provide immunity from accountability. Nothing undermines public confidence faster than seeing opposition supporters arrested while politicians who make inflammatory statements remain untouched. The law must not have a party card.

INEC and the Protection of the Voter

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) also has an important role to play. Election management is not only about producing ballot papers and announcing results. It is also about creating an environment in which citizens can participate freely. Voter intimidation should therefore be treated as an electoral integrity issue.

INEC should work with security agencies and civil society organisations to identify emerging hotspots, monitor inflammatory campaigns and ensure that citizens understand their rights. Political parties should also be required to take responsibility for the conduct of their candidates, officials and supporters.

A political party cannot publicly distance itself from every inflammatory statement while simultaneously benefiting from the political environment created by intimidation. If a member speaks irresponsibly, the party should condemn it. If a candidate threatens voters, the party should discipline the candidate. If party supporters attack opponents, the party should cooperate with investigations.

Political Parties Must Stop Treating Elections s Warfare

Nigeria’s political parties need a fundamental change in political culture. An election is not a war. An opponent is not an enemy. A voter who chooses another candidate is not a traitor. Political disagreement is not an act of rebellion and losing an election is not the end of one’s existence.

The language of “us versus them” is particularly dangerous in a country already struggling with insecurity, communal tensions and violent conflicts. Political leaders should be reducing tensions, not exploiting them. They should be telling supporters to protect opponents, not attack them. They should be encouraging peaceful competition, not threatening citizens. They should be teaching young people that political participation is about ideas and policies, not fists, machetes and weapons.

The International Community and Civil Society Must Pay Attention

Civil society organisations, human rights groups, religious leaders, traditional institutions, the media and international partners must also remain vigilant. Amnesty International has recently raised concerns about reckless and inflammatory political remarks ahead of the 2027 elections, reinforcing the need for closer monitoring of political rhetoric and its potential consequences.

Documentation is critical. Every threat should be recorded. Every incident of political violence should be documented. Every attack on a political meeting should be investigated. Every attempt to intimidate voters should be reported. The objective is not simply to name and shame politicians. It is to establish patterns early enough to prevent escalation.

2027 Must Not Become An Election of Fear

Nigeria cannot afford an election where citizens stay home because they fear political violence. We cannot afford polling units controlled by political thugs. We cannot afford opposition candidates campaigning under threats. We cannot afford citizens being told where they can live based on how they intend to vote. We cannot afford political leaders normalising violence before election day and then pretending to be shocked when violence erupts during the election. The 2027 election should be a contest of ideas, records and visions.

If the APC believes Nigerians are satisfied with its performance, let it campaign on that record. If the opposition believes it can do better, let it make that case.

Let Nigerians listen. Let Nigerians compare. Let Nigerians decide. And then let everybody respect the outcome. That is democracy.

A Message to the APC

The APC has every right to seek another mandate. It has every right to defend the Tinubu administration. It has every right to campaign across Nigeria. It has every right to tell Nigerians why they should vote for it. But it does not have the right to intimidate Nigerians into supporting it.

Nigerians do not owe the APC their votes. They do not owe any political party their votes. The PVC is not a loyalty card. The ballot is not a reward for political patronage and citizenship does not come with an obligation to support whoever is currently in power.

If you have performed, campaign on your performance. If you have delivered, campaign on your achievements. If Nigerians are convinced, they will vote for you. But if your political strategy requires threats, intimidation and fear, then the problem is not the voter. The problem is the POLITICS.

Democracy Cannot Survive Where Fear Replaces Choice

The most dangerous consequence of political intimidation is not necessarily what happens during the campaign. It is what happens to citizens’ relationship with democracy afterward.

When people repeatedly see politicians threaten opponents without consequences, they learn that power matters more than rights. When citizens believe that voting against those in power could expose them to violence, they begin to withdraw from democratic participation. When opposition supporters are attacked, others become afraid to openly associate with opposition parties. And when fear becomes normal, democracy becomes an empty ritual. Nigeria must reject that path.

The 2027 elections should not be a test of which political party can intimidate more effectively. They should be a test of which political party can persuade Nigerians more convincingly with their records.

The responsibility lies with political parties, security agencies, INEC, the judiciary, civil society, the media and, ultimately, Nigerian citizens. We must draw the line now, not after the first body falls.

No political ambition is worth a Nigerian life. No party is bigger than Nigeria. No politician owns the voter. And no citizen should ever have to choose between exercising their democratic right and protecting their life.

2027 must be an election without fear.

Muhammad Ibrahim M. – Passionate Nigeria and can be reached via muhdmakinta92@gmail.com