In recent days, a disturbing surge of political violence has swept through some northern states, casting a long shadow over the nation’s democratic aspirations. Incidents in Kaduna, Jigawa, Kogi, Kebbi, and Katsina – where thugs have brazenly attacked political gatherings perceived as oppositional to President Tinubu and his anticipated bid for re-election in 2027 – are symptomatic of a deeper malaise threatening the very fabric of Nigeria’s democracy.
The tapestry of Nigeria’s political life has always been intricate, woven with threads of ethnic, religious, and regional divisions. Northern Nigeria, a region historically marked by its own complexities, has been the epicentre of persistent instability for nearly two decades. From the rise of Boko Haram and banditry to farmer-herder conflicts, the north has endured a constant barrage of insecurity. The recent escalation of violence, however, is distinct: it is political, targeted, and alarmingly systematic.
The attacks on opposition gatherings are not isolated events. In Kaduna, the inauguration of new executive members of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) descended into chaos, even as the presence of former state governor Mallam Nasiru El-Rufa’i should have signalled stability. In Kebbi, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General Abubakar Malami was not spared. The ADC secretariat in Kogi was vandalized, and in Katsina, elders convened only to have their assembly violently disrupted by assailants branding them adversaries of President Tinubu. In each case, the message was unequivocal – dissent will be met with force.
Political violence in Nigeria is not new, but its current manifestation is particularly insidious. What distinguishes these recent events is their clear objective to stifle opposition, undermine political pluralism, and create an atmosphere of fear. The synchronization of attacks across multiple states signals the possibility of coordination, suggesting either complicity or, at minimum, tacit approval from influential actors. The perpetrators appear emboldened by an implicit narrative – loyalty to power must be enforced, and challenges to the status quo must be crushed.
The consequences of this approach are dire. When political contestation is replaced by intimidation, the foundational values of democracy – debate, compromise, and peaceful transfer of power – are subverted. Instead of serving as a forum for competing visions of Nigeria’s future, the political space morphs into a battlefield where might triumphs over right.
Democracy, in its truest sense, thrives on the ability of citizens to organize, express dissent, and choose their leaders free from fear. The recent incidents in Northern Nigeria point to a shrinking democratic space where opposition parties, civil society, and ordinary citizens are increasingly cowed into silence. The spectre of violence looms over every gathering, every debate, every attempt at political mobilization. The chilling effect is real: many are now wary of participating in political activities, fearing reprisal.
This erosion of democratic norms is not merely theoretical. History is replete with examples of nations where political violence became institutionalized, leading to cycles of repression, instability, and eventual collapse. Nigeria’s current trajectory, if unchecked, risks replicating these grim precedents.
The choice of Northern Nigeria as the theatre for these violent acts is not accidental. The region’s long-standing instability provides a fertile ground for political actors seeking to manipulate conflict for their own ends. Decades of underdevelopment, unemployment, and disenfranchisement have created a pool of young people susceptible to recruitment for violent activity. Moreover, the legacy of ethno-religious tensions amplifies the volatility, making it easier for violence to take root and spread.
The north’s strategic importance in Nigeria’s political calculus cannot be overstated. With a significant proportion of the nation’s population and a history of political influence, control over the north is often seen as pivotal to national power. As the 2027 elections draw nearer, the stakes intensify, and the temptation to deploy violence as a tool of political domination grows ever stronger.
The ramifications of political violence extend far beyond the immediate victims. Local economies suffer as businesses close, and investments dry up. Social trust – already frayed by years of insecurity – erodes further, deepening divisions. Education, healthcare, and other essential services are disrupted as fear permeates daily life. The psychological toll is immense; communities live in constant anxiety, uncertain when and where the next attack will occur.
For women, children, and marginalized groups, the impact is particularly severe. Political gatherings often serve as platforms for advocacy on issues affecting these populations. When such spaces are violently dismantled, their voices are silenced, and their grievances remain unaddressed.
The pattern emerging in northern Nigeria poses a grave threat to the nation’s fragile unity. Nigeria’s history has been marked by tensions among its diverse regions, with periodic flare-ups leading to conflict and division. Political violence, especially when targeted and widespread, accelerates this fragmentation. The sense of exclusion and victimization felt by communities in the north could metastasize, fuelling separatist sentiments and undermining the idea of Nigeria as a united, pluralistic state.
Nigeria’s stability is of immense concern not only to its citizens but to the international community. As Africa’s most populous country and largest economy, Nigeria’s fortunes reverberate across the continent. The escalation of political violence risks tarnishing its global reputation, deterring investment, and complicating diplomatic relations.
The escalation of political violence in Northern Nigeria is not merely a crisis of security – it is a test of the nation’s commitment to democracy. The choices made in the coming months and years will determine not only the outcome of the 2027 elections but the future shape of Nigeria itself. At stake is nothing less than the principle that power must be won at the ballot box, not through intimidation or bloodshed.
Nigeria’s story is one of resilience and hope. Time and again, its people have overcome adversity, forging unity from diversity. Now, confronted with the spectre of political violence, that spirit must be rekindled. Every Nigerian, regardless of region, ethnicity, or political affiliation, has a stake in the country’s democratic destiny.
The hour is indeed late, but it is not too late. By reaffirming the principles of openness, inclusion, and peaceful contestation, Nigeria can yet chart a course toward stability and prosperity. The world watches, but ultimately, it is Nigerians who must decide: will their country be ruled by the force of fear, or by the power of the people?