ASABA: There is something profoundly disturbing about the language increasingly being deployed by some Nigerian politicians as the country approaches the 2027 general elections.
Democracy is supposed to be a contest of ideas, programmes, records and competing visions of the future. Yet, increasingly, some political actors appear to be communicating a different message: support us, or face the consequences.
The recent statement attributed to Ebonyi State Governor, Francis Nwifuru, is a sobering example.
Speaking at the swearing-in of newly elected local government chairmen and their deputies in Abakaliki, the Governor reportedly directed the chairmen to ensure that the All Progressives Congress (APC) wins their respective councils in the 2027 elections. He warned that chairmen who failed to deliver their councils to the APC could be removed. More troublingly, he told them that if anyone came into their local government and “mess[ed] up,” they should “deal with that person mercilessly.” Channels Television also reported the Governor as warning the opposition that “they will see real threat at the right time.”
Governor Nwifuru may have intended “deal with” in a political rather than literal sense. Indeed, political leaders are entitled to mobilise their parties, defend their political interests and seek electoral victory.
But words matter.
And words spoken by a Governor matter even more.
A GOVERNOR IS MORE THAN A PARTY LEADER
There is an important distinction that political leaders must never lose sight of.
A Governor may be a partisan politician, but the Governor’s office is not a party office.
Once elected, a Governor becomes the constitutional head of a state government and assumes responsibilities towards every citizen—APC, PDP, LP, ADC, NDC, APGA or no political party at all.
The same principle applies to local government chairmen.
They are elected or appointed to administer local government areas, not to turn those areas into political fiefdoms from which citizens belonging to rival parties can be excluded.
This is where the language of “deal mercilessly” becomes particularly troubling.
It creates room for subordinate political actors to interpret political instructions in ways that the speaker may not have intended. The danger is not necessarily that every listener will understand the words as a command to commit physical violence. The danger is that political intimidation can begin with language long before it manifests itself as physical violence.
Indeed, one report following the Governor’s remarks quoted the Chairman of Ohaukwu Local Government as saying that anyone fighting the Governor was his enemy and that those who were not for APC should stay away from the area.
That is precisely why responsible political language matters.
TYRANTS IN A DEMOCRACY?
This brings us to an uncomfortable question:
Can a person be a democratically elected leader and yet exhibit tyrannical tendencies?
Yes.
Democracy is not merely a mechanism for winning elections.
A politician does not become a democrat simply because he won an election conducted under a democratic system.
The real test of democratic character comes after victory.
How does the victor treat the defeated?
How does the government treat the opposition?
Can journalists criticise it without fear?
Can citizens disagree with it without being branded enemies?
Can opposition parties organise freely?
Can voters change their minds?
Can an incumbent lose an election and peacefully hand over power?
These are among the real tests of democracy.
A person can therefore be a democrat at the polling booth but a tyrant in the exercise of power.
That is why I find the expression “tyrants in a democracy” particularly instructive.
It describes a contradiction that Nigeria must confront.
THE TRUE TEST OF A DEMOCRAT
The true test of a democrat is not how he treats those who support him.
It is how he treats those who oppose him.
It is easy to proclaim tolerance when everyone around you applauds.
The real test comes when somebody says:
“No.”
The opposition says:
“We disagree.”
A journalist says:
“We are investigating.”
A civil society organisation says:
“This policy is wrong.”
A voter says:
“We will vote for somebody else.”
A genuinely democratic leader responds with argument, evidence, persuasion and performance.
The authoritarian responds with threats, intimidation, patronage and punishment.
That is the line we must never allow Nigeria to cross.
ELECTIONS SHOULD BE WON, NOT CAPTURED
Governor Nwifuru’s reported instruction to council chairmen that they must not allow opposition parties to win their councils raises another fundamental question.
What exactly does it mean for an elected local government chairman to be responsible for “delivering” his council to a political party?
In a democracy, voters—not council chairmen, governors, political godfathers or party leaders—should determine electoral outcomes.
A council chairman can campaign.
He can mobilise.
He can present the achievements of his administration.
He can persuade voters to support the APC.
But he cannot legitimately convert the machinery of government into an instrument for suppressing competing political choices.
The distinction is crucial:
Political mobilisation is democratic. Political coercion is not.
Persuasion is democratic. Intimidation is not.
Competition is democratic. Suppression is not.
Let the Scorecard Speak
If the APC has performed exceptionally well in Ebonyi State, then its strongest weapon going into 2027 should not be threats.
It should be its scorecard.
Let the government tell the people:
Here are the roads we built.
Here are the schools we renovated.
Here are the hospitals we improved.
Here are the jobs we created.
Here are the investments we attracted.
Here is what we inherited.
Here is what we promised.
Here is what we delivered.
Then let the people decide.
That is democracy.
If the opposition believes the APC has failed, let it present an alternative programme.
Let it explain how it would govern differently.
Let the electorate compare the records.
Let the ballot box decide.
That is how civilised political competition works.
THE BIGGER NIGERIAN PROBLEM
But this is not only about Ebonyi State.
The language of political combat has become increasingly aggressive across Nigeria.
From presidential rhetoric about political contests being a matter in which “all is fair,” to reported statements by other political actors threatening opponents, Nigerians are witnessing a disturbing normalisation of language that can lower the threshold for political violence.
We must be careful here.
Not every aggressive political statement constitutes incitement to violence, and criticism of politicians should not become an excuse to suppress legitimate political speech.
But the opposite is equally true:
Freedom of political expression does not give political leaders a licence to threaten citizens or encourage violence.
The law must distinguish between robust political rhetoric and genuine incitement. And where credible evidence suggests that a public statement crosses that line, law-enforcement and electoral institutions must act impartially—regardless of the political party involved.
SECTION 14 AND THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT
Nigeria’s constitutional philosophy provides an important reminder.
Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution declares that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.
That principle should be permanently displayed in the offices of every elected official.
Government exists to protect citizens—not to frighten them.
Political office exists to serve the people—not to turn citizens into subjects.
And electoral victory does not confer a licence to intimidate political opponents.
The Constitution also recognises fundamental freedoms—including freedom of expression and association—which are indispensable to a functioning democracy.
Therefore, an opposition politician does not become an enemy of the state merely because he opposes the government.
A journalist does not become an enemy because he asks uncomfortable questions.
A civil society activist does not become an enemy because he demands accountability.
And a citizen does not become an enemy because he intends to vote differently.
THE DANGER OF POLITICAL DEHUMANIZATION
There is another dimension we should not overlook.
Political violence rarely begins with violence.
It often begins with dehumanisation.
First, opponents are described as enemies.
Then they are portrayed as people who should not be allowed to operate.
Then their rights are questioned.
Then their presence becomes “provocation.”
Then intimidation becomes acceptable.
And eventually violence becomes normalised.
This is why political leaders must be extraordinarily careful with their language.
A careless statement from an ordinary citizen is one thing.
A statement from a Governor, Senator, Minister, party leader or other person with a large political following carries a different weight.
Followers listen.
Subordinates interpret.
Supporters act.
And history teaches us that political rhetoric can have consequences far beyond the intentions of the person who uttered it.
WE MUST NOT SET NIGERIA ON FIRE
Nigeria has suffered too much from electoral violence.
Lives have been lost.
Communities have been destroyed.
Businesses have been burnt.
Families have been displaced.
Political relationships have been poisoned.
And after the elections, many of those who encouraged the confrontation simply move on with their lives while ordinary citizens bear the consequences.
We cannot continue this way.
The 2027 elections must not become a contest over who can intimidate the opposition most effectively.
They must be a contest over who can persuade Nigerians most convincingly.
The political class must understand that Nigeria is bigger than APC, PDP, Labour Party, ADC, NDC or any other political organisation.
Parties will come and go.
Politicians will come and go.
Governors will come and go.
Presidents will come and go.
But Nigeria will remain.
A Challenge to Our Political Leaders
My appeal, therefore, is simple.
To President Bola Ahmed Tinubu:
Lead by example. Your words carry enormous weight.
To the Governors:
Remember that you govern citizens, not political parties.
To the National Assembly:
Provide the legislative framework and oversight necessary to protect peaceful political competition.
To INEC and the security agencies:
Apply the law impartially and protect the right of every qualified Nigerian to participate in political activity without intimidation.
To political parties:
Compete fiercely, but compete fairly.
To journalists and civil society:
Continue to scrutinise power without fear or favour.
And to Nigerians:
Do not allow politicians to recruit you into battles that they themselves will not fight.
DEMOCRACY MUST MEAN MORE THAN ELECTIONS
Ultimately, the question before Nigeria is bigger than Governor Nwifuru.
It is about the kind of political culture we are building.
Are we creating a democracy in which political opponents can coexist?
Or are we creating a political system in which victory gives the winner the right to silence the loser?
Are we building institutions strong enough to restrain political power?
Or are we building personalities powerful enough to bend institutions to their will?
Are we teaching our young people that elections are won through ideas and persuasion?
Or are we teaching them that power belongs to whoever can intimidate the other side?
These are not abstract questions.
They go to the heart of Nigeria’s democratic future.
THE FINAL WORD
I do not believe the answer to political intolerance is another form of political intolerance.
We must resist the temptation to answer inflammatory rhetoric with equally inflammatory rhetoric.
Instead, we must insist on a higher standard.
Political opponents are not enemies.
Elections are not wars.
Government is not a private estate.
Public office is not a licence for intimidation.
And electoral victory is not a certificate of ownership over the people.
The real strength of a political leader is not demonstrated by how mercilessly he can crush his opponents.
It is demonstrated by how confidently he can persuade them—and the electorate—that his ideas, policies and record deserve support.
That is democracy.
Anything else may look like democracy from the outside while increasingly behaving like authoritarianism from within.
And that is why Nigeria must confront, before it is too late, the uncomfortable phenomenon of tyrants in a Democracy.
We must not set our country on fire in the pursuit of political power.
Frank Odion Apokwu is a Public Affairs Analyst Democratic Reforms and Inclusive Development Advocate. He writes from Asaba.
