TheIndependent National Electoral Commission and the Nigeria Police Force have vowed to take action against politicians issuing threats against opponents as activities intensify ahead of the 2027 general elections.INEC and the police spoke withSunday PUNCHwhile responding to enquiries on public concerns about rising inflammatory rhetoric by political actors across the country.The commission said the Electoral Act empowers it to take action against indicted political parties and their candidates, while the police insisted that incitement is a criminal offence and anybody found culpable would be arrested and prosecuted.The Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, and human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, among others, also called on law enforcement agencies to move beyond invitations and warnings and prosecute politicians whose statements violated the law.Findings bySunday PUNCHshowed that political threats had continued to feature prominently in mobilisation campaigns, with several politicians making statements that critics described as threatening, provocative or capable of inciting violence.Threats, inflammatory remarksOne of the early statements that drew attention came from Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who, on April 25, warned opposition politicians against being coerced into joining the ruling party.He spoke at the All Opposition Political Party Leaders meeting in Ibadan, where he warned those pushing politicians to defect to remember the violence associated with the political crisis of the First Republic.Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. INEC and the police spoke withSunday PUNCHwhile responding to enquiries on public concerns about rising inflammatory rhetoric by political actors across the country.The commission said the Electoral Act empowers it to take action against indicted political parties and their candidates, while the police insisted that incitement is a criminal offence and anybody found culpable would be arrested and prosecuted.The Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, and human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, among others, also called on law enforcement agencies to move beyond invitations and warnings and prosecute politicians whose statements violated the law.Findings bySunday PUNCHshowed that political threats had continued to feature prominently in mobilisation campaigns, with several politicians making statements that critics described as threatening, provocative or capable of inciting violence.Threats, inflammatory remarksOne of the early statements that drew attention came from Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who, on April 25, warned opposition politicians against being coerced into joining the ruling party.He spoke at the All Opposition Political Party Leaders meeting in Ibadan, where he warned those pushing politicians to defect to remember the violence associated with the political crisis of the First Republic.Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The commission said the Electoral Act empowers it to take action against indicted political parties and their candidates, while the police insisted that incitement is a criminal offence and anybody found culpable would be arrested and prosecuted.The Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, and human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, among others, also called on law enforcement agencies to move beyond invitations and warnings and prosecute politicians whose statements violated the law.Findings bySunday PUNCHshowed that political threats had continued to feature prominently in mobilisation campaigns, with several politicians making statements that critics described as threatening, provocative or capable of inciting violence.Threats, inflammatory remarksOne of the early statements that drew attention came from Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who, on April 25, warned opposition politicians against being coerced into joining the ruling party.He spoke at the All Opposition Political Party Leaders meeting in Ibadan, where he warned those pushing politicians to defect to remember the violence associated with the political crisis of the First Republic.Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, and human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, among others, also called on law enforcement agencies to move beyond invitations and warnings and prosecute politicians whose statements violated the law.Findings bySunday PUNCHshowed that political threats had continued to feature prominently in mobilisation campaigns, with several politicians making statements that critics described as threatening, provocative or capable of inciting violence.Threats, inflammatory remarksOne of the early statements that drew attention came from Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who, on April 25, warned opposition politicians against being coerced into joining the ruling party.He spoke at the All Opposition Political Party Leaders meeting in Ibadan, where he warned those pushing politicians to defect to remember the violence associated with the political crisis of the First Republic.Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Findings bySunday PUNCHshowed that political threats had continued to feature prominently in mobilisation campaigns, with several politicians making statements that critics described as threatening, provocative or capable of inciting violence.Threats, inflammatory remarksOne of the early statements that drew attention came from Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who, on April 25, warned opposition politicians against being coerced into joining the ruling party.He spoke at the All Opposition Political Party Leaders meeting in Ibadan, where he warned those pushing politicians to defect to remember the violence associated with the political crisis of the First Republic.Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Threats, inflammatory remarksOne of the early statements that drew attention came from Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who, on April 25, warned opposition politicians against being coerced into joining the ruling party.He spoke at the All Opposition Political Party Leaders meeting in Ibadan, where he warned those pushing politicians to defect to remember the violence associated with the political crisis of the First Republic.Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. One of the early statements that drew attention came from Oyo State Governor, Seyi Makinde, who, on April 25, warned opposition politicians against being coerced into joining the ruling party.He spoke at the All Opposition Political Party Leaders meeting in Ibadan, where he warned those pushing politicians to defect to remember the violence associated with the political crisis of the First Republic.Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He spoke at the All Opposition Political Party Leaders meeting in Ibadan, where he warned those pushing politicians to defect to remember the violence associated with the political crisis of the First Republic.Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Makinde said those acting “as if there’s no tomorrow” should remember that “Operation Wetie started from here. This is the same Wild Wild West.”“Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “Operation Wetie” refers to the political violence that engulfed Nigeria’s Western Region in the 1960s, with Ibadan becoming a major centre of the unrest.The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The expression, derived from the Yoruba phrase for “wet him” or “soak it,” became associated with attacks in which political opponents, their homes and vehicles were doused with petrol and set ablaze.Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Days later, on May 2, a former Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the New Nigeria Peoples Party, Buba Galadima, made another controversial statement while speaking at a stakeholders’ meeting organised by the Obi-Kwankwaso Movement in Abuja.He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He urged Nigerians to go to polling units with “bottles and jerry cans of kerosene” during the 2027 elections.Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Galadima said, “And during the elections, whether I am alive or dead, go to the polling centres with your bottles and jerrycans of kerosene. Either they do what is right, or we all die there. So, there will be no beneficiary.”On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. On August 3, Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke, declared that the people of the state would not allow the August 15 governorship election to be rigged.“Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “Remember what happened in 1983. It started in Yorubaland when they cheated Bola Ige and Ajasin. Osun will not agree. We want a free and fair election,” he said.The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The senator representing Osun East Senatorial District, Francis Fadahunsi, was also seen in a viral video issuing death threats to members of the Accord Party in the Ilesa area of Osun State.In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Shekwolo, reportedly threatened that anyone who was not a supporter of the All Progressives Congress should leave the council area.Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Similarly, the Borno State Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refused to support the APC in the 2027 elections would be flogged.In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. In Ebonyi State, the newly sworn-in Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government Area, Eze Ituma, warned opposition parties and their supporters against conducting political activities in the council ahead of the 2027 elections.He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He said individuals whose political activities conflicted with his interests could be declared persona non grata.In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. In Yobe State, the APC Chairman, Muhammad Gadaka, made another controversial remark at a campaign rally in Nangere, where he urged married women whose husbands prevented them from voting for the party to seek divorce.“If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “If your husband won’t allow you to vote for APC, stand up to him and seek a divorce. If you leave the marriage, I will pay your dowry and marry you,” he stated.The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The series of statements has renewed concerns about the possible escalation of political tension as parties mobilise supporters ahead of the 2027 elections.The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The PUNCHhad earlier reported that no fewer than 870 people were reportedly killed in election-related violence since the National Peace Committee began its intervention in 2015.Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Electoral Act prohibits threatsUnder the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Under the Electoral Act 2026, threats and the use of force or violence during political campaigns are prohibited.Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Section 97(1) provides that a party, candidate, aspirant, person or group of persons shall not directly or indirectly threaten another person with the use of force or violence during a political campaign in order to compel that person or another person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Section 132 of the Act also criminalises threatening or using force, violence or restraint to influence voting.The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The provision states that anyone who directly or indirectly uses or threatens to use force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss to compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence.A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. A person convicted under the provision is liable to a fine of N2m or imprisonment for three years.Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Despite these provisions, civil society organisations and lawyers argued that politicians continued to make provocative statements because they had not seen sufficient consequences for such conduct.INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. INEC, however, said political rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it involves direct or indirect threats of force or violence against voters, candidates or electoral officials.The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The commission said such threats could include physical harm, economic reprisals or social ostracisation intended to compel or suppress support for a candidate.It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. It warned that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to discourage voter turnout or disenfranchise particular groups.Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Speaking withSunday PUNCH, the Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Mr Adedayo Oketola, said the commission had the power to monitor political campaigns and sanction parties that failed to comply with campaign guidelines.He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He said political campaigns should be “platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war.”Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Oketola said, “Beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. The commission can issue formal queries and sanction non-compliant parties within its administrative limits.“To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “To enforce deterrence, Section 96 (7) of the Electoral Act prescribes severe statutory penalties: ‘Any candidate who commits these offences is liable upon conviction to a maximum fine of N5m or imprisonment for a term of 12 months, while a non-compliant political party is liable to a fine of N10m in the first instance, and N2m for each subsequent offence.’”Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Police vow crackdownThe police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The police vowed to crack down on politicians and other individuals making inciting comments ahead of the 2027 elections.The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The Force Public Relations Officer, Anietie Iniedu, described incitement as a criminal offence and said the police would not spare anyone whose statements threatened public peace.Related NewsStay away from politics, Makinde tells Oyo monarchsOf the apparatchiks in campaign councilsEx-IG Adamu emerges SDP Nasarawa gov candidateHe said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He said the police were preparing media campaigns and communication strategies aimed at sensitising officers and the public ahead of the elections.“One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “One of the things we’re going to do is enlightenment across all commands concerning inciting and inflammatory comments. Incitement is a criminal offence and we will not spare anyone trying to heat up the politics with inciteful comments,” Iniedu said.He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He noted that existing laws would be enforced and suspects arrested over inciting statements would be investigated and charged to court where appropriate.“The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “The extant law is already there, and we are going to follow. The moment you are arrested, we will take your statement and charge you to court,” Iniedu said.He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He, however, explained that investigations into individual cases could take different forms and that some cases might require additional processes before prosecution.CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. CSOs demand prosecutionAlso, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Also, the Executive Secretary of Yiaga Africa, Samson Itodo, condemned the spread of inflammatory statements and called on the police to take stronger action against indicted politicians.He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He said law enforcement agencies must arrest and prosecute politicians making statements capable of undermining public safety and the electoral process.Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Itodo also criticised what he described as the unequal treatment of political actors and ordinary citizens by security agencies.“It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “It is as if there are two separate justice systems in the country: one for the elites and the other for the masses,” he said.Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Itodo cited the case of Fadahunsi, saying the senator was invited by the police and issued a warning, while the authorities had not adequately communicated the action taken against other political actors accused of making inflammatory statements.He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He argued that security agencies needed to communicate their actions more effectively in order to build public confidence and deter others from making similar statements.According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. According to him, the consequences of political threats could go beyond heated rhetoric, as a tense political environment could lead to pre-election violence, suppress voter participation and undermine the credibility of the electoral process.“When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “When you have a very tense political environment, the chances that it could lead to violence, pre-election violence, become very high. When there’s violence, people are stripped of the opportunity to freely exercise their choice. So, you would see low turnout,” he said.Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Itodo added that attacks or threats targeted at particular political actors could make it impossible to describe an election as free and fair because affected citizens might be denied the opportunity to participate.The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The President of the Centre for Change, Dr Joe Odumakin, attributed the growing threats to desperation for power, intolerance, weak accountability and the politicisation of ethnic and religious sentiments.She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. She urged politicians to stop treating opponents as enemies and instead make elections about ideas, policies and leadership.“Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “Security agencies and political parties must act firmly against hate speech and incitement, while Nigerians should demand issue-based campaigns. The 2027 election must be about ideas and leadership, not threats, violence and intimidation,” Odumakin said.She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. She also urged civil society groups, the media, religious leaders and traditional institutions to promote political tolerance and resist attempts to divide Nigerians along ethnic, religious or political lines.Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Lawyers seek prosecutionA human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. A human rights lawyer, Jiti Ogunye, described the development as a manifestation of political desperation and argued that politicians seeking public office should persuade voters rather than threaten them.He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He said threats were criminal offences under the Electoral Act and other laws and should attract appropriate sanctions.“Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “Using threats is a crime in the Electoral Act and Criminal Laws, but despite these statutory provisions, politicians continue to do this because violence, threats and inflammatory statements have become part and parcel of their armoury to attain or forcibly retain power,” Ogunye said.He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He urged the police to step up enforcement, prevent crimes and prosecute suspects.Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Ogunye, however, expressed reservations about the independence and impartiality of law enforcement agencies, saying the police were part of the executive arm of government.A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. A constitutional lawyer, Victor Opatola, also said political parties should sanction members who make inflammatory statements.According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. According to him, the failure of political parties and law enforcement agencies to take decisive action was contributing to the spread of threatening rhetoric.“Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “Natural­ly, when individuals within a party come out to make such inflammatory statements, the party ought to sanction them. But parties, for political reasons, fail to take the bull by the horns in such circumstances,” he said.Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Opatola said the responsibility ultimately rested with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who violated the law faced the consequences.He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He also raised concerns about the neutrality of law enforcement agencies during elections, saying citizens might have to rely on the courts to test the provisions of the Electoral Act where the authorities failed to act.CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. CUPP alleges suppressionThe Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The Coalition of United Political Parties described the matter as part of what it called “state-capturing agenda”.The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The National Secretary of the CUPP, Peter Ameh, said inflammatory statements were undemocratic and could undermine democratic participation and political pluralism.Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Ameh alleged that political threats were being used to suppress opposition voices and warned that continued intimidation could damage the country’s democratic system.He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He called on the police to take decisive action against politicians making inflammatory statements.“Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “Our police are supposed to protect all political parties because they belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But they are not taking any action to stop the political threats,” Ameh said.He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. He accused the police of failing to act decisively because of their relationship with those in power.APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. APC denies violenceHowever, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. However, the ruling All Progressives Congress rejected suggestions that it encouraged political violence or inflammatory campaigning.The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. The National Secretary of the APC, Ajibola Basiru, said the party did not engage in or encourage political violence.“Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. “Our party does not engage in violent campaigns or use threats or inflammatory language. We believe in campaigning on the achievements of our party in government at all levels,” he said.Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes. Basiru also condemned attempts to weaponise religious or ethnic affiliations for political purposes.