As political activities gather momentum ahead of the 2027 general elections, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, has warned politicians and their supporters against making threatening statements capable of inciting violence, intimidating voters or undermining the electoral process.
Kalejaye, who spoke on the growing trend of aggressive political rhetoric across the country, explained that campaign statements could attract criminal sanctions when they cross the boundary of political expression and become threats, coercion or intimidation.
He noted that political campaigns should serve as platforms for presenting competing ideas and policies rather than becoming arenas for threats, violence and political persecution.
The legal practitioner raised concerns over several controversial statements allegedly made by politicians and political officeholders ahead of the 2027 elections.
Among the incidents he referenced was the reported warning by a chairman of an Area Council in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), who allegedly told residents opposed to his political party to relocate ahead of the elections. Amnesty International Nigeria reportedly condemned the statement as a call to violence.
He also cited the case of a senator who was reportedly invited and questioned by the Nigeria Police Force following a viral video in which he allegedly urged supporters in Ilesa to kill members of the Accord Party.
Similarly, a commissioner in Borno State reportedly threatened that residents who refused to support his party in 2027 would be flogged, while another statement allegedly warned that anyone who opposed the party would have a finger broken.
Kalejaye further referenced the controversy in Yobe State, where a political party chairman reportedly urged married women to leave their husbands if the men attempted to stop them from voting for his party. The chairman later withdrew the statement following public condemnation.
According to the SAN, although Nigerian courts recognise the importance of freedom of expression and robust political debate, such protection does not extend to threats capable of causing genuine fear or preventing citizens from exercising their democratic rights.
He explained that political insults, spontaneous outbursts and generalised campaign boasts do not automatically amount to criminal offences, citing the landmark case of Uzoukwu v. Ezeonu (1991).
However, he stressed that the legal position changes when political statements become specific threats against individuals, their families or their property, particularly where such threats are intended to compel political support or discourage participation in the electoral process.
Kalejaye identified provisions of the Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code Act as some of the laws that could be invoked against individuals who issue criminal threats.
He explained that Section 396 of the Penal Code provides punishment for certain forms of criminal intimidation, while Section 86 of the Criminal Code addresses threats of injury or violence intended to compel another person to act or refrain from acting.
He also highlighted provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, particularly Sections 92, 93 and 128, which regulate campaign conduct and prohibit threats, violence and other forms of intimidation during elections.
According to him, political parties and their candidates risk prosecution when they use threats or violence to force citizens to support a particular candidate or discourage them from exercising their voting rights.
The SAN further warned that the increasing use of social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok and X to circulate threatening messages does not place offenders beyond the reach of the law.
He pointed to Section 24 of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, explaining that electronic communications containing criminal threats or intimidation could attract legal consequences.
Kalejaye maintained that politicians, party loyalists and online supporters must understand that the internet is not a lawless environment and that threatening messages circulated electronically can constitute evidence in criminal investigations.
He warned that describing threatening statements as political jokes, campaign banter or electioneering theatrics would not automatically provide protection where the circumstances establish criminal intimidation or an intention to suppress voter participation.
The legal practitioner therefore urged political actors to exercise restraint in their public statements and online engagements as preparations for the 2027 general elections intensify.
He concluded that political campaigns must remain a contest of ideas rather than an arena of terror, stressing that safeguarding democratic participation requires responsible conduct from candidates, political parties and their supporters.
