2027: Counting votes, not corpses

Last week, I examined the threat that artificial intelligence poses to the credibility of Nigeria’s 2027 elections. My concern was that technology could be deployed to manufacture voters, fabricate statements, clone voices and circulate false election results. I argued that the Independent National Electoral Commission, political parties, the media and Nigerians must prepare for these emerging threats.

This week, I am turning my attention to another threat. Unlike artificial intelligence, it is neither new nor sophisticated. It does not require special software, expensive computers or technological expertise. It requires only desperate politicians, willing thugs and, sometimes, security agencies that look the other way. I am talking about political violence.

While artificial intelligence threatens to manipulate what Nigerians see and believe, political violence threatens their freedom to participate in elections. And unlike a fake photograph or fabricated video, a life lost to political violence cannot be restored by a correction, a fact-check or an apology.

The Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room recently raised concerns over reports of 27 deaths in 20 election-related incidents between January and October 2026. The general elections are still months away, yet allegations of intimidation, attacks and politically motivated violence are already raising concerns.

How many more Nigerians must die before political actors agree that elections are contests, not wars? Why should supporting a candidate or attending a political rally put anybody’s life at risk? What does it say about democracy when citizens must calculate the security risks of expressing their political preferences? Nigeria should not have to count corpses before counting votes.

Of course, election-related violence is not new, but Nigeria has had enough electoral experience to understand its consequences. Politicians must stop treating violence as an acceptable instrument of electoral competition while repeatedly promising peaceful elections.

Whenever election-related violence breaks out, those most likely to suffer are often not the politicians seeking office. The victims are usually ordinary Nigerians: young party supporters recruited for rallies, traders caught in clashes, commercial drivers conveying campaign supporters, journalists covering political events, electoral officials performing their duties and residents unfortunate enough to live near flashpoints.

Politicians may lose elections and return to their comfortable homes to prepare for another electoral contest, but some of their supporters lose their lives and never return home.

The CLEEN Foundation’s Election Security Threat Assessment recorded 70 physical election-related incidents across 19 states and the Federal Capital Territory between January 1 and October 27, 2026, with 27 fatalities recorded in 20 of those incidents. The Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room cited these findings in its November 5 statement.

These figures are already frightening. But violence does not need to occur at every polling unit to undermine an election. Sometimes, the fear of violence is sufficient. A voter who stays at home because of threats has effectively been denied the opportunity to exercise a democratic right.

Political violence has no party loyalty. Supporters of both ruling and opposition parties can become victims. In a healthy democracy, supporting different candidates is normal. A neighbour may support the APC, another the PDP, another the ADC or another political party. They should be able to argue, campaign, vote and return to their normal lives.

I wonder why ordinary Nigerians are willing to fight or die for politicians who may eventually reconcile, defect to another party or form alliances with yesterday’s enemies. Two politicians may exchange insults on Monday, embrace on Friday and announce a political alliance on Sunday. Unfortunately, the young men who fought on their behalf on Tuesday may not live to witness the reconciliation.

Political leaders have a huge role to play in stopping electoral violence. Those who recruit and finance violent political groups do so for a purpose. Leaders who encourage inflammatory statements at rallies must also take responsibility for their actions. Political violence is less likely to thrive where political leaders consistently reject it and perpetrators face consequences.

The National Peace Committee has been organising peace accords during electoral cycles in the country, with commitments to peaceful, issue-based campaigns and the rejection of violence and hate speech. This is an important effort, but signing a document is not enough.

Political leaders often smile for photographs and pledge peaceful campaigns, but what happens when their supporters engage in violence afterwards? Peace accords should not become ceremonies where politicians sign documents with one hand while their supporters threaten opponents with the other.

Security agencies must also protect everybody. Police authorities have reportedly directed commissioners of police to arrest and prosecute those involved in pre-election violence and the destruction of campaign materials. They have also announced threat assessments and preparations to protect electoral personnel.

These are welcome steps, but I hope the directives will be implemented impartially. Security agencies must protect the constitutional rights of all citizens, regardless of political affiliation. The police must not become an extension of any party’s campaign organisation.

Political thugs may be the visible perpetrators, but the financing and encouragement of violence may come from elsewhere. I wonder whether security agencies routinely investigate those who organise, sponsor or benefit from attacks.

A system that arrests only those carrying weapons while ignoring those who finance or direct them cannot permanently address political violence. Investigations should follow the evidence, including financial transactions, communications and other lawful leads, to establish who is responsible.

It goes without saying that INEC cannot conduct credible elections in an atmosphere of fear. The commission can clean the voters’ register, improve BVAS procedures, strengthen cybersecurity and train electoral officials. Those are important steps, but even the best electoral technology cannot compensate for a political environment where candidates cannot campaign freely or voters are too frightened to participate. A voter who is prevented from reaching a polling unit cannot benefit from the efficiency of BVAS.

Last week, I worried about artificial voters finding their way into the register. This week, my concern is that genuine voters may be frightened away from polling units. Elections are not decided only when votes are counted. The conditions under which voters make their choices matter enormously.

Imagine a community where one party’s supporters are repeatedly attacked, its campaign posters destroyed and its candidates prevented from holding rallies. Even if voting on election day is peaceful, can such an election be described as genuinely fair? Some voters may have been frightened into silence. Others may have stayed away entirely. The danger is that violence can distort political competition long before election officials announce results.

The presidential and National Assembly elections are scheduled for January 16, 2027, while governorship and state assembly elections are scheduled for February 6. With little time remaining, security agencies should identify electoral flashpoints, protect campaign activities impartially and investigate attacks promptly. Political parties must publicly condemn violence, discipline members found culpable and discourage inflammatory rhetoric.

For its part, INEC should work closely with security agencies to protect electoral officials, materials and voters. The National Peace Committee should monitor compliance with peace commitments and publicly draw attention to serious violations.

Civil society organisations and the media should document attacks, verify allegations and sustain pressure on relevant institutions to investigate them. Citizens, too, must reject recruitment into political violence and resist politicians who encourage hatred.

Elections are intended to provide a peaceful method of choosing leaders and replacing governments. In societies without credible elections, political competition can become violent because there is no trusted mechanism for transferring power. Democracy is supposed to provide that mechanism. It is therefore a tragic contradiction when elections themselves become occasions for bloodshed.

What is the value of winning an election if people must die to make that victory possible? What kind of mandate is secured through intimidation and violence? Nigeria has conducted enough elections to understand that winning political office is never worth the destruction of human lives. In 2027, Nigerians should be counting votes, not corpses.