As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, several critical issues threaten the health of its democracy. These include a narrowing political space, alleged intimidation of opposition politicians, internal party disputes and the increasing role of litigation in shaping political contests. In an interview with Weekend Trust, Samson Itodo, Executive Director of Yiaga Africa, examined how these developments could affect the country's democratic process.
How will you define the political climate at the moment ahead of the 2027 general election?
I would describe the current political climate as one characterised by heightened political anxiety, deepening public distrust, intense political realignments and growing concerns about the shrinking space for democratic competition. Nigeria is already in full election mode, but what worries me is the nature of the political contest. Rather than seeing robust competition around ideas, policies and solutions to the country's pressing challenges, we are witnessing a stifling of the political space and abuse of the power of incumbency at all levels. Democracy thrives on competition, and where political competition is weakened, the electorate is denied meaningful choices. Worst still is the attempt by political actors to capture the election management body at all cost. Unlike like 2023 where there was enthusiasm and excitement, this electoral cycle has the least interest from the public because of the political climate ahead of the election. My greatest concern is that we may be approaching an election in which the struggle to determine who can compete becomes as intense as the struggle to win the votes of Nigerians. That is not a healthy development for our democracy.
Some opposition politicians have accused the ruling party of deliberately weakening opposition parties. What do you say about this?
These allegations are serious and should not be dismissed as ordinary political rhetoric. However, they must also be subjected to proper scrutiny and investigation. We should distinguish between legitimate political competition, internal weaknesses within opposition parties and deliberate actions designed to undermine political opponents. The ruling party has a constitutional right to mobilize support, recruit members and expand its political influence. Equally, opposition parties have a right to organize, mobilize and challenge theрупную party without intimidation or interference. The concern arises when the enormous powers and resources of the state are allegedly deployed to advance partisan interests. There is a fundamental difference between using political influence to win elections and using state power to weaken political competition. Nevertheless, where there is credible evidence of state institutions being used to intimidate opposition politicians, interfere in party affairs or restrict political participation, such conduct must be investigated and sanctioned.
Opposition parties recently raised concerns about restrictions on campaign activities, attacks on their members, arrests and intimidation in different states…
These developments are deeply concerning because they strike at the foundation of democratic participation. The right to participate in politics is not a privilege granted by the ruling party or a state governor. It is a constitutional right. Sections 39 and 40 of the Nigerian Constitution protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, while Section 221 recognizes the central role of political parties in political participation. When opposition parties are prevented from holding meetings, denied access to public facilities, or subjected to arbitrary arrests and intimidation, the consequences extend beyond the affected politicians. Citizens are also denied the opportunity to hear alternative viewpoints, engage with candidates and make informed electoral choices. A governor cannot treat a state as the private political estate of the ruling party. An election cannot be described as free simply because citizens are allowed to cast their ballots if political parties were not free to campaign and citizens were not free to engage with them.
To what extent can the use of security agencies, law enforcement institutions and regulatory authorities against political opponents undermine an election?
It can fundamentally compromise the credibility of an election long before the first ballot is cast. Electoral integrity is not limited to voting, counting and collation. It encompasses the entire electoral cycle, including political party organization, candidate nomination, campaigning, access to the media, freedom of assembly and the protection of political rights. When security agencies are perceived as instruments of partisan intimidation, they create fear among candidates, party members and voters. That fear can discourage participation, suppress political mobilization and distort electoral competition. The danger is particularly serious because security institutions possess coercive powers. They can arrest, investigate, restrict movement and, within the law, use force. These powers must be exercised professionally and impartially. Similarly, regulatory authorities must not selectively enforce rules against political opponents while overlooking comparable violations by those in power. You do not need to manipulate election results on election day to undermine an election. You can compromise its integrity months earlier by restricting who can compete, who can campaign and who can mobilise voters.
Do you think the current political environment provides a level playing field for all political parties?
I do not think we can confidently say that there is a level playing field at the moment. There are serious structural inequalities in our political system, and recent developments raise additional concerns about whether all political parties can compete on fair terms. We must acknowledge that incumbency naturally provides certain political advantages. A ruling party may have stronger political structures, greater visibility and access to more resources. These advantages are not necessarily unlawful. However, incumbency becomes problematic when the distinction between the ruling party and the state begins to disappear. For instance, where opposition parties face discriminatory restrictions on access to campaign venues, public advertising spaces or security protection, the playing field is no longer level.
We have witnessed several legal battles involving opposition parties, including leadership disputes, party registration controversies and court orders affecting their political status. How does Yiaga Africa feel about this?
We are deeply concerned about the growing judicialisation of political competition and the possibility that legal disputes could determine political participation before voters have an opportunity to make their choices. Let me be clear, the judiciary has a legitimate and indispensable role in resolving electoral disputes, interpreting the law and protecting constitutional rights. Political parties and candidates must retain their right to seek judicial remedies. However, there is a difference between the legitimate exercise of judicial authority and the strategic use of litigation to frustrate political competition. A case in point is the recent ruling by Justice Lifu on ADC leadership.
The controversies surrounding the registration and recognition of parties, including the NDC and litigation affecting several existing parties, illustrate how legal uncertainty can disrupt electoral preparations and create questions about participation. We must also guard against forum shopping, abuse of court processes and the misuse of interim orders to achieve political objectives that should ordinarily be determined through democratic competition.
You previously warned about the possibility of weaponizing the party registration process to restrict opposition participation. Do you still have that concern?
Absolutely. I remain concerned, and recent controversies make it even more important to safeguard the integrity, transparency and independence of the party registration process. Political party registration is a constitutional and statutory responsibility of INEC. It must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law, free from political interference, selective application of requirements or arbitrary administrative decisions. I am equally concerned about the potential misuse of party deregistration powers, recognition disputes and litigation to prevent political parties from participating in elections. INEC must provide clear reasons for its registration decisions, apply the same standards to all applicants and ensure that affected parties have access to effective legal remedies. The power to regulate political parties must never become the power to decide which political opponents are allowed to compete.
What are the implications of depriving a political party or parties from campaigning freely and access to facilities?
The implications could be far-reaching, not only for the credibility of the elections but also for political stability and public confidence in democratic governance. Elections derive legitimacy from more than the declaration of results. Their legitimacy rests on the belief that the process was fair, competitive, inclusive and conducted according to the law. If political parties are intimidated, candidates are prevented from campaigning, supporters are attacked and participation is restricted through questionable administrative or legal processes, the legitimacy of the eventual outcome may be seriously contested. We should be particularly concerned about three consequences. First, voter disengagement. Second, political violence and instability. Third, a crisis of electoral legitimacy.
What specific safeguards should INEC, the police, the judiciary and other relevant institutions put in place to ensure that no political party enjoys an unfair advantage?
I believe we need urgent and coordinated institutional action. The responsibility for credible elections cannot rest on INEC alone. Every institution exercising public authority has an obligation to protect democratic competition. I would propose seven immediate safeguards. First, INEC must assert its independence and enforce electoral rules impartially. Second, the Nigeria Police Force must guarantee equal protection for all political actors. Third, the judiciary must safeguard the integrity of electoral adjudication. Fourth, government authorities must guarantee equal access to public facilities and campaign spaces. Fifth, there must be effective accountability for electoral violence and intimidation. Sixth, civil society and the media must intensify monitoring of the pre-election environment. Seventh, there is need for a Code of Conduct for Independent Election Results Tabulation.
The most important safeguard is political leadership. President Bola Tinubu, state governors and leaders of all political parties must demonstrate through their actions that political power is exercised within constitutional limits.