Why Law-Abiding Electioneering Matters in Nigeria

Democratic elections are not judged only by what happens on polling day. Their credibility is shaped throughout the campaign: by the language candidates use, the conduct of supporters, the fairness of access to public space, the behaviour of security agencies and the freedom of citizens to make political choices without fear.

As Nigeria moves through another electioneering season, obedience to electoral law should not be treated as a technical burden imposed on political actors. It is a democratic safeguard. Law-abiding campaigning protects lives, preserves political participation and gives the eventual result a stronger claim to legitimacy.

Campaign freedom is protected—but it has boundaries

Political parties and candidates must be able to organise, criticise public policy, hold rallies and persuade voters. Without those freedoms, elections become ceremonial rather than competitive.

The Electoral Act 2026 recognises the importance of lawful political activity. Section 95 requires adequate security for political rallies and processions and limits the role of the police and other federal security agencies at such events to the provision of security. It also protects registered parties, aspirants and candidates from being prevented from holding meetings for constitutional political purposes, while requiring conflicts over time and venue to be resolved consultatively.

That protection is important. Incumbency must not determine who is allowed to campaign. Yet the right to campaign is not a licence to intimidate opponents, incite hostility or endanger the public.

Words can prepare the ground for violence

Election violence rarely begins with the first physical attack. It is often preceded by dehumanising labels, fabricated allegations, ethnic stereotyping, religious suspicion and repeated suggestions that political opponents are enemies who must be silenced.

Section 96 of the Electoral Act prohibits campaigns or slogans tainted by abusive language likely to injure religious, ethnic, tribal or sectional feelings. It also prohibits abusive, intemperate, slanderous or base language, insinuations and innuendoes designed or likely to provoke violent reactions or emotions.

This is not an instruction to avoid robust disagreement. Candidates should be questioned vigorously about competence, integrity, policy and public record. The distinction is between criticism directed at ideas and conduct, and rhetoric designed to inflame hatred or make violence appear acceptable.

Coercion destroys the voter’s freedom

A meaningful election requires more than access to a ballot. Voters must be free to listen, associate, attend meetings, express support or remain undecided without being threatened.

Section 97 prohibits parties, candidates, aspirants and other persons from directly or indirectly threatening force or violence to compel anyone to support—or refrain from supporting—a political party or candidate. Section 96 also prohibits organising, training or equipping groups for the display of force or coercion in pursuit of a political objective.

These provisions address a central democratic principle: a political choice extracted by fear is not a free choice. Armed escorts used for intimidation, unofficial enforcement groups, attacks on rival meetings and threats against community leaders do not merely breach public order. They corrupt the electoral process itself.

Religion and ethnicity must not become political weapons

Nigeria’s diversity should enrich public debate, not provide raw material for division. Section 101 of the Electoral Act criminalises campaigning or broadcasting based on religious, tribal or sectional reasons for the purpose of promoting or opposing a party or candidate.

Political actors may properly discuss how public policy affects different communities. What the law rejects is the deliberate conversion of identity into a weapon: asking citizens to fear, exclude or oppose others simply because of religion, ethnicity or section.

Identity-based mobilisation may produce short-term political advantage, but it leaves lasting damage. Neighbours must continue living together after campaign vehicles have departed and results have been declared.

Orderly meetings protect political equality

Section 120 makes it an offence to act—or incite another to act—in a disorderly manner to prevent a political meeting from conducting its business. Possessing an offensive weapon or missiles at such a meeting is also prohibited.

This matters because democracy requires more than freedom for the strongest party. Opposition parties, smaller movements and unpopular speakers must also be able to assemble peacefully. Disrupting a rival’s meeting is not a legitimate answer to disagreement; it is an attempt to remove political choice from the voter.

Digital campaigning carries the same responsibility

Campaign activity now moves continuously between rallies, broadcast media, messaging platforms and social networks. The speed of online communication can widen political participation, but it can also amplify falsehood, targeted harassment and inflammatory content before correction is possible.

Parties and candidates should therefore establish clear internal standards for official accounts, campaign volunteers and digital supporters. Claims should be verified before publication; manipulated material should not be circulated; personal information should not be exposed to invite harassment; and threats should be reported rather than celebrated as political enthusiasm.

The fact that a message is typed rather than shouted does not make its consequences less real.

Why legal compliance benefits every participant

Law-abiding electioneering produces practical democratic benefits:

• It protects life and public safety. Preventing escalation is far less costly than responding after violence occurs.
• It widens participation. Women, young people, persons with disabilities and minority groups are more likely to engage where campaigning is peaceful and respectful.
• It improves the quality of political choice. Issue-based debate allows voters to compare programmes instead of reacting to fear and hostility.
• It strengthens legitimacy. Winners emerging from a lawful process assume office with greater public confidence.
• It protects candidates and parties. Compliance reduces criminal exposure, reputational harm and disputes that distract from policy messages.
• It preserves social cohesion. Elections pass; communities remain.

Responsibility is shared

Candidates and party leaders must set the tone and discipline their organisations. Supporters should reject the idea that loyalty is proved through aggression. Media organisations and online commentators should distinguish public-interest scrutiny from sensational amplification. Security agencies must protect all lawful campaigners impartially. INEC and relevant authorities must communicate rules clearly and enforce them consistently.

Citizens also have agency. They can refuse to forward inflammatory content, challenge false claims, document violations lawfully, demand issue-based debate and deny political reward to those who trade in threats or division.

Enforcement must itself respect the law

Campaign regulation loses credibility when enforcement is selective. The same legal standards should apply to governing parties, opposition parties, prominent candidates and local supporters. Security intervention must be necessary, proportionate and politically neutral.

A system that suppresses lawful opposition activity while ignoring misconduct by powerful actors does not promote order; it weakens trust in both law and elections.

A simple standard for responsible campaigning

Before a speech, rally, broadcast or online post is released, campaign actors should ask:

• Is it lawful and factually supportable?
• Does it criticise policy or conduct without attacking people because of identity?
• Could it reasonably provoke violence, intimidation or retaliation?
• Does it respect the voter’s freedom to disagree?
• Would we defend the same conduct if used by an opposing party?

These questions do not weaken political advocacy. They make it more credible.

Final reflection

The rule of law is not separate from democratic competition; it is what makes fair competition possible. A campaign that wins attention through intimidation, falsehood or division may gain a temporary advantage, but it diminishes the authority of the office being sought.

Legal sources: National Assembly, Electoral Act 2026 ↗, especially sections 95–97, 101 and 120; and INEC, Election Regulations and Guidelines ↗.

Important: This commentary is for research and general information. It is not legal advice and should not replace the official statutory text, applicable regulations or advice from a qualified legal practitioner.