By Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, SAN
Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu

As Nigeria approaches another intense election cycle, the political landscape is becoming increasingly charged with political theatrics and inflammatory rhetoric. At rallies, on campaign podiums and across social media platforms, politicians and party loyalists are trading words that sometimes descend into threats, intimidation and incitement to violence.

In the high-stakes theatre of political campaigns, it is not uncommon to hear politicians declare that they will crush their opponents or warn voters that they will face dire consequences for supporting rival parties.

Statements such as “If you vote for the other party, expect to be driven out of town,” “We will flush certain tribes out of this constituency before election day,” “Vote for Party X and see what happens,” and “This is a do-or-die affair” illustrate how political rhetoric can become dangerously hostile.

In the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the chairman of an area council was reportedly accused of warning residents who did not support his political party to relocate ahead of the 2027 general elections. The reported remarks prompted Amnesty International Nigeria to condemn the statement as a call to violence.

Another prominent case involved a senator who was reportedly invited and questioned by the Nigeria Police Force over a viral video in which he was allegedly heard telling supporters in Ilesa: “Until the day of election, when you see any Accord Party member here in Ilesa, kill them.”

In Borno State, a commissioner reportedly threatened that residents who refused to support his party in 2027 would be flogged. He was also reported to have warned that anyone who opposed his party would have a finger broken.

In Yobe State, the chairman of a political party sparked widespread condemnation after reportedly urging married women to leave their husbands if the men attempted to prevent them from voting for his party in the forthcoming general elections. He subsequently withdrew the remark following public outrage.

These incidents raise a fundamental question as political hostility intensifies across the country: Where does passionate political expression end, and where does criminal conduct begin under Nigerian law?

When Political Rhetoric Becomes Criminal

Political campaigns inevitably involve heated exchanges, criticism and passionate appeals for public support. However, campaign rhetoric crosses the legal threshold when it moves beyond legitimate political expression into intimidation, coercion, incitement to violence or threats against individuals and communities.

Nigerian law recognises the importance of freedom of expression and robust political debate. Nevertheless, that freedom is not unlimited, particularly where statements threaten the safety of others or undermine their constitutional rights.

The courts generally distinguish between political insults, exaggerated boasts and genuine threats of violence. Not every offensive or irresponsible statement automatically constitutes a criminal offence. The circumstances in which the statement was made, its content, the intention behind it and the applicable legal provisions are relevant considerations.

In Uzoukwu v. Ezeonu (1991), the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to fundamental rights under the Constitution. However, the case should not be interpreted as establishing a blanket exemption for political threats or suggesting that threatening language is always legally harmless.

The law does not criminalise every expression of political anger. Equally, however, the freedom to speak does not confer a licence to threaten, intimidate or incite others to commit violence.

The distinction becomes particularly important when a politician moves from generalised campaign bravado to a specific threat against an opponent, a family member, a supporter or an electoral official.

For instance, a statement such as, “We know where the opposition candidate’s children go to school, and they will pay the price,” could attract serious legal scrutiny depending on its context, meaning and the circumstances in which it was communicated.

At that point, the question is no longer simply whether the speaker was engaging in political theatrics. It is whether the statement satisfies the elements of an offence under the relevant law.

Criminal Law and the Consequences of Threats

Nigeria’s criminal justice framework contains provisions addressing threats, intimidation and other conduct capable of endangering individuals or public order.

The Criminal Code applies in relevant southern jurisdictions, while the Penal Code operates in the northern jurisdictions, subject to the applicable state legislation and other relevant laws.

Under the Penal Code provisions addressing criminal intimidation, threatening another person with injury to their person, reputation or property may constitute an offence where the statutory requirements are satisfied. The applicable punishment depends on the nature of the threat and the particular provision in force.

Similarly, provisions of the Criminal Code address threats and attempts to intimidate people into doing, or refraining from doing, certain acts.

Where a political threat is intended to prevent a citizen from exercising a lawful right, such as voting, campaigning or supporting a political party, the circumstances may also engage provisions of electoral law and other applicable criminal legislation.

A threat to prevent voters from entering a polling unit, for example, is fundamentally different from an ordinary exchange of political insults. It potentially interferes with the electoral process and the constitutional right of citizens to participate in public affairs.

However, the precise offence, applicable section and possible punishment must be determined by reference to the relevant statute, jurisdiction and facts of the particular case.

What the Electoral Act Says

The Electoral Act 2022 establishes specific rules governing political campaigns and electoral conduct.

Section 92 addresses campaign conduct, including the prohibition of abusive, intemperate or inflammatory language likely to provoke violence or undermine public order. It also contains restrictions relating to the use of force and the organisation of groups for the purpose of displaying physical force or coercion.

Section 93 prohibits the use of force or violence, or threats of force or violence, to compel or induce a person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.

A politician who tells voters, “Support our candidate or your safety cannot be guaranteed at the polling booth,” could therefore face legal scrutiny under the applicable provisions if the facts establish the elements of an offence.

The Act also addresses electoral violence and voter coercion. Section 128 deals with the use of force or violence, or restraint or the threat of such conduct, to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, or to prevent the free exercise of electoral rights.

These provisions demonstrate that the law does not regard voter intimidation as an acceptable component of political competition.

Nevertheless, the precise penalties applicable to candidates, individuals and political parties must be established from the relevant statutory provisions as in force. A prosecution must also prove the necessary elements of the alleged offence.

The Digital Dimension of Political Intimidation

Political campaigns are no longer confined to public squares, town halls and conventional campaign rallies. WhatsApp, Facebook, X, TikTok and other digital platforms have become important arenas for political mobilisation and communication.

Unfortunately, they can also be used to spread threats, intimidate opponents and circulate messages intended to frighten voters into supporting a particular candidate.

Those who assume that threatening voice notes, videos or messages are legally harmless simply because they are distributed electronically may be mistaken.

The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as amended, contains provisions addressing certain forms of harmful electronic communication and cyber-related offences.

However, not every offensive or threatening message automatically constitutes an offence under the Act. The precise wording of the communication, the intention of the sender, the applicable statutory provision and the surrounding circumstances must be considered.

A message threatening violence against political opponents, for instance, may warrant investigation under the relevant criminal and electoral laws, depending on the facts.

Digital communications may also provide evidence that investigators can examine, including message records, recordings and other electronic material, subject to applicable legal and evidential requirements.

The internet is not a lawless environment. Political actors must understand that conduct prohibited offline may also attract legal consequences when carried out through digital platforms.

Political Freedom Must Not Become a Licence for Terror

The central issue is the distinction between legitimate political expression and conduct intended to intimidate, threaten or suppress the rights of others.

Democracy depends on the ability of citizens to disagree, criticise political leaders, challenge government policies and support candidates of their choice without fear of retaliation.

A political environment in which voters are threatened with violence, expulsion from their communities or physical punishment for supporting an opposing party cannot be regarded as a healthy democratic system.

At the same time, the law must be applied carefully. Political statements should be assessed objectively, without criminalising legitimate criticism or treating every heated exchange as a criminal offence.

The relevant questions include whether the statement amounts to a threat, whether it satisfies the elements of an offence, whether it was intended to intimidate or incite violence, and whether the available evidence supports prosecution.

Claims that a statement was merely political banter cannot automatically excuse conduct that satisfies the requirements of a criminal offence. Equally, the mere fact that a statement is offensive does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.

Law enforcement agencies, electoral authorities and the courts therefore have important responsibilities in distinguishing protected political expression from unlawful intimidation.

Conclusion

Political campaigns should be platforms for competing ideas, policy alternatives and democratic persuasion, not theatres of war.

Candidates and party supporters must understand that the right to campaign does not include the right to threaten voters, intimidate opponents or incite violence against people who hold different political views.

As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, political leaders must exercise restraint in their public statements, while law enforcement agencies must respond appropriately to credible threats and alleged electoral offences.

Democracy cannot flourish where citizens are afraid to vote according to their conscience.

Ultimately, political power must be pursued through persuasion, not terror; through ideas, not intimidation; and through the ballot, not threats of violence.