2027 AND THE BATTLE FOR POWER 

Nigeria cannot afford another election  poisoned by fear and division, writes

SAMUEL AKPOBOME OROVWUJE                

Nigeria is gradually approaching another defining political season. Campaign posters will soon flood our streets. Party slogans will dominate radio jingles. Social media will become a battleground of accusations, propaganda, and emotional manipulation. Yet, beneath the excitement of democratic participation lies a growing danger that many Nigerians already recognize: the normalization of hate speech in partisan politics.

The danger is not merely that politicians insult one another. Democracy can survive disagreement. What democracy struggles to survive is the deliberate weaponization of ethnicity, religion, region, and identity in pursuit of political victory.

Over the years, Nigerian elections have increasingly reflected this disturbing pattern. Political parties and their supporters often frame elections not as contests of ideas, but as battles for ethnic survival. Opponents are no longer criticized simply for poor policies; they are portrayed as enemies of a tribe, a religion, or an entire region. Once politics reaches that point, voters stop listening with reason and begin reacting with fear.

The tragedy is that Nigeria has walked this road before.

Scholars of Nigerian politics have repeatedly warned about the connection between hate speech and electoral violence. Political scientist Christian Ezeibe argues that hate speech played a significant role in election violence during the 2011, 2015, and 2019 elections. His research showed that inflammatory rhetoric deepened political intolerance and encouraged violence among supporters.

The evidence is visible in our recent history. After the 2011 presidential election, parts of northern Nigeria erupted in violence that claimed hundreds of lives. Churches, homes, and public buildings were destroyed. Many innocent Nigerians paid the price for poisonous political rhetoric spread during campaigns. Politicians moved on; ordinary citizens buried their dead.

The 2015 elections were celebrated globally because an incumbent president conceded defeat peacefully. Yet beneath that success was a deeply divisive campaign atmosphere. Religious and regional sentiments were heavily exploited. Nigerians were pressured to vote not necessarily based on competence, but on where candidates came from and what faith they professed.

Then came the 2023 elections. Social media transformed political communication into something far more aggressive and personal. Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, and X became channels for tribal insults, fake news, and dangerous stereotypes. Entire ethnic groups were profiled because of political preferences. In Lagos, political tensions during the governorship election exposed how quickly ethnic rhetoric could poison public trust. Recent academic studies observed that divisive language significantly shaped voter behaviour and heightened social hostility during the elections.

What makes hate speech particularly dangerous is that it often disguises itself as political passion. Many supporters do not realize when they have crossed the line from advocacy into incitement. They believe they are defending their preferred party, while unknowingly weakening national unity.

History offers sobering lessons. Rwanda’s 1994 genocide did not begin with weapons. It began with words. Radio broadcasts repeatedly portrayed fellow citizens as enemies and threats. Over time, hateful language normalized violence. The same pattern appeared in Nazi Germany, where propaganda systematically dehumanized Jews before persecution escalated into mass murder.

Nigeria is not Rwanda, and Nigerians are not destined for such catastrophe. But societies do not collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when hateful rhetoric becomes acceptable in public life.

One of the greatest disappointments in Nigerian politics is the conduct of many political elites themselves. Rather than calming tensions, some politicians deliberately exploit divisions because they understand the emotional power of identity politics. They know that an unemployed young man can be persuaded more easily through ethnic anger than through economic policy. Fear mobilizes faster than facts.

This is why party structures must bear responsibility for the tone of political discourse. Political parties cannot publicly preach peace while secretly encouraging supporters to spread hostility online. They cannot condemn violence while benefiting from inflammatory propaganda.

The challenge extends beyond politicians. Media organizations also face serious moral questions. Television stations and radio programs increasingly host partisan commentators who thrive on sensationalism. Some presenters amplify unverified claims simply because controversy attracts audiences. Social media influencers, desperate for attention and engagement, spread divisive content without considering its consequences.

A recent study on political communication during the 2023 elections found that hate speech on digital platforms deepened voter fear, mistrust, and political polarization. This is especially dangerous in a country already struggling with insecurity, economic hardship, and weak national cohesion.

At this point, the conversation must move beyond moral appeals into the realm of law and institutional responsibility. Nigeria already possesses fragments of a regulatory framework against hate speech, but enforcement remains weak, inconsistent, and often politicized.

The 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression under Section 39, yet that freedom is not absolute. The same Constitution permits restrictions in the interest of public safety, public order, and national unity. The Electoral Act also prohibits abusive language and inflammatory campaigning capable of provoking violence. Similarly, the Nigerian Broadcasting Code forbids radio and television stations from transmitting content likely to incite hatred or threaten public peace.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has repeatedly introduced peace accords requiring political parties and candidates to reject violence and hate speech during campaigns. The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) occasionally sanctions broadcast stations for inflammatory political content. The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) also monitors digital communication trends during election periods.

Yet these mechanisms have produced limited results because enforcement is often selective and reactive rather than preventive. Politicians with influence frequently escape accountability, while smaller actors become convenient examples. This inconsistency weakens public trust in regulation itself.

Nigeria therefore needs a stronger and more credible framework for controlling hate speech without undermining democratic freedoms.

First, electoral laws should impose direct penalties on political parties whose members or campaign structures repeatedly engage in incitement. Fines alone may not be enough. Persistent violations should attract suspension from campaign activities or disqualification of offending candidates in severe cases.

Second, social media platforms operating in Nigeria must be compelled to cooperate with electoral and security agencies during election periods. False information and inciting material spread online faster than traditional media can respond. Countries such as Germany and the European Union have already adopted stricter digital regulations requiring technology companies to remove harmful content within specific timeframes.

Third, media regulators must operate independently of political influence. A regulatory body perceived as partisan cannot effectively maintain public confidence. Sanctions should apply equally regardless of the political affiliation of offenders.

Fourth, civic education must become central to electoral preparation. Citizens should understand the legal and social consequences of spreading hate speech online or offline. Universities, religious institutions, civil society groups, and traditional rulers all have important roles to play in rebuilding a culture of responsible political engagement.

The burden also belongs to ordinary Nigerians. Many citizens who condemn hate speech when directed at their ethnic group often excuse it when their preferred political side uses it. Too many Nigerians have become willing distributors of dangerous content simply because it supports their political loyalties.

Democracy cannot flourish where truth is sacrificed for tribal loyalty.

The approaching 2027 elections will therefore test not only political parties, but also the maturity of Nigeria’s democracy. Nigerians must decide whether elections will remain opportunities for national conversation or descend further into toxic confrontation.

The country desperately needs issue-based politics. Citizens deserve debates about inflation, insecurity, electricity, education, healthcare, unemployment, and corruption. These are the problems shaping daily life across the federation. Hunger does not ask whether a victim is Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, or Tiv. Poverty respects no religion. Insecurity threatens everyone.

Sadly, conversations about governance are often drowned by emotionally charged identity battles. Politicians understand this distraction well. A divided population asks fewer difficult questions about performance.

As 2027 approaches, Nigerians must remember a simple truth: elections come and go, but the nation remains. Political parties will rise and fall. Alliances will change. Politicians will defect from one platform to another, often without ideological differences. But when hate speech damages national cohesion, ordinary citizens suffer long after campaign seasons end.

Nigeria cannot afford another election poisoned by fear and division. The future of the country may depend not only on who wins power in 2027, but also on how that power is pursued.

Orovwuje is public affairs analyst and founder, Humanitarian Care for Displaced Persons, Lagos. orovwuje50@gmail .com