‘How to stop electoral violence’

In this interview with Weekend Trust, a security expert and the Executive Director, Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC), Okechukwu Nwanguma, traced the root causes of electoral violence.   What exactly are the  causes of electoral violence in Nigeria? The root causes of electoral violence in Nigeria are both structural and behavioural. First […]

In this interview with Weekend Trust, a security expert and the Executive Director, Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC), Okechukwu Nwanguma, traced the root causes of electoral violence.

 

What exactly are the  causes of electoral violence in Nigeria?

The root causes of electoral violence in Nigeria are both structural and behavioural.

First is the high-stakes nature of political power. Public office in Nigeria is often seen not as a platform for service but as access to state resources and patronage. This creates a “winner-takes-all” environment where political actors are willing to deploy violence to secure or retain power.

• Inside Nigeria’s goldmines turned sanctuaries of criminals
• Tinubu used Muslim-Muslim ticket to win election – Sokoto cleric

Second is weak institutional accountability, particularly within security agencies and the justice system. When perpetrators of electoral violence are rarely investigated, prosecuted, or punished, it fosters a culture of impunity.

Third is the politicisation of security institutions, especially the Nigeria Police Force. Security agencies are sometimes perceived as partisan or susceptible to political influence, which undermines public trust and emboldens political actors.

Fourth is youth unemployment and poverty, which provide a ready pool of recruits for political thuggery.

Finally, there is the issue of weak internal democracy within political parties, where candidates emerge through manipulation rather than transparent processes, leading to grievances that often escalate into violence.

 

Why is it increasing?

Electoral violence is growing because the underlying drivers are worsening rather than improving. We are seeing: Increasing desperation among political actors due to economic pressures and shrinking opportunities outside political office; decline in deterrence, as past electoral offenders are rarely held accountable; spread of dangerous rhetoric, including hate speech and threats, which normalise violence; greater use of non-state actors, including armed groups and political thugs

Additionally, the normalization of security-based justifications for restricting civic and political activities has created an environment where repression is rationalised rather than challenged.

 

Can it be attributed to recent threats by political actors to block opposition campaigns?

Yes, such threats are extremely dangerous and contribute significantly to the escalation of electoral violence.

When elected officials openly declare that opposition parties will not be allowed to campaign, they:undermine the rule of law and constitutional rights; signal to supporters and security agencies that unlawful actions are acceptable; create a hostile and volatile political environment.

This directly contradicts the constitutional mandate of institutions like the Independent National Electoral Commission, which is responsible for ensuring a level playing field.

Such rhetoric often translates into harassment of opposition supporters; disruption of political rallies; use of state machinery to suppress dissent. In effect, it institutionalises electoral violence even before voting begins.

 

What can be done to address this?

Addressing electoral violence requires a multi-layered approach. Strong enforcement of the law; Security agencies must act impartially and decisively against all perpetrators, regardless of political affiliation and clear rules of engagement for security forces.

The Nigeria Police Force and other agencies must operate under strict professional standards, with oversight to prevent abuse while bodies such as the Police Service Commission and the National Human Rights Commission must be proactive in monitoring and addressing violations.

Party leaders must rein in their members, sanction incitement, and commit to peaceful conduct. There is a need for structured mechanisms to detect and respond to threats before they escalate and citizens must reject violence and demand accountability from political actors.

 

Do politicians and authorities have the capacity to reduce or eradicate electoral violence?

Yes, they do – but the real issue is not capacity; it is political will.

Nigeria has adequate legal frameworks; established security institutions and electoral guidelines and regulations. However, these are often undermined by selective enforcement and political interference.

If political leaders commit to respecting the rule of law, allowing security agencies to operate independently, holding perpetrators accountable, then electoral violence can be significantly reduced, if not eliminated.

But as long as violence is seen as a viable political tool, and perpetrators face no consequences, the cycle will persist.

In the final analysis, electoral violence is not inevitable – it is a product of choices made by political actors and tolerated by institutions. Changing this trajectory requires a shift from impunity to accountability, and from political desperation to democratic responsibility.