APC and the dangerous politics of intolerance and violence

The level of political intolerance in Nigeria in 2026 has become embarrassing. It is sad that at a time when our democracy should be maturing, politicians are openly threatening opponents with death, warning citizens against supporting rival parties and treating entire states as their private property. What makes it worse is that most of these threats are coming from members of the All Progressives Congress, a party that once claimed to be fighting for democratic freedoms.

In October, the chairman of the APC in Edo State, Jarrett Tenebe, threatened those who might obstruct the party’s plan to deliver 2.5 million votes to President Bola Tinubu in 2027 with “AK-47 fire”. This was the chairman of the ruling party in Edo State openly threatening political opponents with AK-47 fire.

Before that, in August, Senator Francis Fadahunsi, representing Osun East, was recorded urging APC supporters to kill members of the opposition Accord Party. When his comment was roundly condemned by the public, he gave the lame explanation that he meant defeating the party with votes rather than physically killing its members. The police merely invited him for questioning. Nothing serious was done to him.

In September, Ebonyi State Governor Francis Nwifuru responded to allegations that the APC was intimidating opposition members by declaring that they would see a “real threat at the right time”. He was quoted as instructing newly elected local government chairmen to deal mercilessly with people who caused trouble in their areas. His comments were condemned by the opposition. But no word came from the presidency or the APC leadership.

Similar incidents have also occurred in other states. In Borno, Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development Sainna Buba threatened that critics who raised their fingers against the administration of Governor Babagana Zulum would have them cut off. In the Federal Capital Territory, Kuje Area Council Chairman Danjuma Shekwolo told residents to support the APC or leave the area. Are Nigerians now expected to support the ruling party to be safe in their own country?

Even freedom of movement has been threatened in recent years. In July 2025, Edo State Governor Monday Okpebholo warned presidential candidate Peter Obi against visiting the state without informing him. He declared that Obi’s security would not be guaranteed and that he would have himself to blame if anything happened to him. The President kept mute.

Earlier, Benue State Governor Hyacinth Alia had issued a similar warning when Obi planned to visit internally displaced persons in the state. His administration insisted that visits to displacement camps required official clearance. It is understandable if security arrangements are made for the camps of displaced persons. But since when did a governor become the owner of a state, deciding who can enter and who cannot? It was not surprising that on September 8, 2026, a stick-wielding mob blocked the convoy of the NDC presidential candidate in Makurdi, Benue State.

Section 41 of Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees freedom of movement. Sections 39 and 40 protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. No governor has the power to grant them to APC supporters and deny them to members of other parties.

Yet opposition politicians continue to complain of attacks, obstruction and intimidation. In October, PDP state chairmen raised allegations of threats, abductions and attacks against opposition members in Ebonyi. In November, opposition figures alleged attacks on supporters in Kaduna, Ibadan, Sokoto and Cross River, alongside the removal of opposition billboards in Edo.

The irony is that the APC was once the party crying out against political intolerance. Before it came to power in 2015, the party criticised the PDP fiercely. Its leaders organised protests, condemned government policies and challenged the conduct of elections. In November 2014, the APC, through its national publicity secretary, Lai Mohammed, defended its threat to form a parallel government if the PDP rigged the 2015 election.

Many Nigerians assumed that a party that had experienced life in opposition would show more tolerance for dissent once it assumed power. But since coming to power, the APC has behaved as if belonging to an opposition party is a crime. It denies the opposition the freedom and rights it demanded for itself.

But the warning signs were there even before the APC was formed in 2013. Before the announcement of the results of the 2011 presidential election, supporters of Muhammadu Buhari, who was then the candidate of the Congress for Progressive Change, unleashed violence in some states. Human Rights Watch documented more than 800 deaths across 12 northern states. Ten National Youth Service Corps members serving as election workers were killed in Bauchi State. Homes, churches, mosques and other properties were destroyed.

• Police arrest two over Kano APC chairman’s 68-day abduction
• Lifu: When sentiments becloud our sense of judgement
• Son flees after allegedly killing Edo APC chieftain father

In 2012, Buhari warned that if the alleged electoral irregularities of 2011 were repeated in 2015, the dog and the baboon would be soaked in blood. His party gave an unconvincing explanation that the expression was a Hausa idiom, not an invitation to violence. But coming after the bloodshed of 2011, there was no justification for such words from a presidential candidate.

During the 2023 elections in Lagos, the threats became even more brazen. Bayo Onanuga, a spokesman for Tinubu’s presidential campaign, warned Igbo residents against interfering in Lagos politics – meaning that they should not vote for their preferred candidates. Musiliu Akinsanya, popularly known as MC Oluomo, was recorded making threatening remarks towards Igbo voters. During the governorship election, groups of thugs attacked and intimidated voters in areas perceived to favour the opposition.

The United States Department of State subsequently documented intimidation of voters in Igbo-dominated areas, attacks on journalists and incidents in which security officers reportedly failed to intervene. Some Yoruba voters who were mistaken for Igbo people were also attacked. Tinubu failed to provide the clear, forceful public condemnation that such ethnic intimidation demanded.

Compare this with Goodluck Jonathan’s communication style. While Buhari spoke of dogs and baboons being soaked in blood, Jonathan repeatedly declared that his political ambition was not worth the blood of any Nigerian. He warned against electoral violence and urged Nigerians to resolve disputes through lawful means.

When Jonathan lost the 2015 presidential election, he congratulated Buhari before the final announcement of results and asked his supporters to accept the outcome peacefully. His words and attitude defused tension. If Jonathan had encouraged his supporters to reject the results, who knows what would have happened?

Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar adopted a similarly peaceful approach after the disputed 2023 presidential election. Despite complaints about the failure of electronic result transmission and allegations of irregularities, they pursued legal challenges rather than using inciting words.

Meanwhile, Nigerians who peacefully protested economic hardship during the August 2024 #EndBadGovernance demonstrations faced arrests, detention and charges including treason. Amnesty International reported that more than 1,200 people were detained, including minors. Yet, when APC politicians openly threaten their opponents with violence, the same authorities look the other way.

The PDP was not innocent of electoral violence and political intolerance during its 16 years in power. But the APC was expected to show that it was better.  How can Nigeria’s democracy grow when the party in power wants to enjoy rights it denies to the opposition?

President Tinubu cannot pretend not to know about these threats. He should publicly condemn threats from members of his party, insist on impartial investigations and ensure that security agencies protect opposition supporters as firmly as they protect APC members.

Silence in the face of repeated threats and attacks sends a message of approval. The body language of the President passes a message to party leaders and supporters. If the president does not condemn these threats and ensure that offenders are punished, what will stop other APC leaders from doing the same?

Nigeria should not be debating in 2026 whether a presidential candidate needs a governor’s permission to visit a state or whether citizens may display opposition posters without being attacked. These are freedoms that should have been settled long ago.

If Tinubu wants the threats and violence to stop, he has the power and influence to change the atmosphere through his words and actions. But is Tinubu prepared to call his own party members to order and ensure that those who threaten or attack political opponents face the law?