As political parties enter the campaign stage ahead of the 2027 general elections, a deeply troubling political atmosphere is beginning to emerge across the country. It is not merely the increasingly bitter exchanges among politicians or the familiar accusations of political manipulation. It is the emergence of incidents suggesting that some political actors may be uncomfortable with the very presence of opposition parties in territories they regard as their strongholds. That should concern every Nigerian, regardless of political affiliation.
Democracy is not simply about voting on election day. It is about the freedom to campaign, persuade, organize, criticize, mobilize and present alternative visions to the electorate to enable them make informed choices during the election proper. When that freedom begins to shrink, either by reason of intimidation or obstruction, the integrity of the election itself is already under threat.
On September 8, 2026, Obi’s convoy was stopped by youths along the Makurdi-Gboko road while he was on his way to Yelwata, where he had planned to visit families affected by the deadly 2025 attacks. Reports said the youths barricaded the road and chanted that they did not want Obi in the area. That incident deserves more than partisan interpretation.
While Obi accused the suspected hired thugs of blocking his movement, the Benue State Government denied responsibility and said he had not followed the appropriate protocol in notifying the government of his visit. The police, while confirming the incident, said investigations were under way and subsequently announced the arrest of 46 suspects in connection with the incident.
Whatever the ultimate findings of the investigation may be, the fundamental democratic question remains: should a presidential candidate be prevented from moving around the country to meet Nigerians? The answer must be an unequivocal no.
As important as it is not to prejudge the investigation or automatically attribute the Benue incident to the state government or the ruling party without evidence, neither should Nigerians dismiss the incident as just another political quarrel. The circumstances surrounding it deserve transparent investigation because the freedom of political actors to move, organize and campaign is central to credible elections.
And Benue is not an isolated development. In Kaduna State, a solidarity walk organized by supporters of the African Democratic Congress also descended into a confrontation with security personnel as the party commenced activities ahead of the 2027 governorship election. While the ADC alleged that security operatives and political actors were deployed to disrupt its gathering, the police, on the other hand, said they intervened because the protesters had blocked a major road and caused a breakdown of public order.
Earlier in the year, the ADC in Ekiti State alleged that the state government prevented it from using a state-owned pavilion for its campaign grand finale, forcing the event to be moved to the party’s campaign office. The government’s position and the opposition’s account differed, but the episode nevertheless raised the familiar question of how state-controlled facilities and institutions are used during election periods. There have also been isolated cases of political leaders making spurious statements meant to threaten opposition parties in their considered areas of political control.
Although each of these incidents can be individually explained away as a security problem, a failure to follow protocol and/or a disagreement over the use of public facilities, it should be of concern that elections are often damaged not by one spectacular event, but by the accumulation of seemingly small acts of intimidation, obstruction and unequal treatment such as are currently manifesting.
That is why Nigerians must begin asking a very simple question: Who is afraid of the opposition? Why should any political party be afraid of another party entering its territory? Why should a ruling party fear an opposition candidate speaking directly to voters in a state controlled by the ruling party? Why should a governor regard an opposition rally or political visit as a threat rather than as an opportunity to demonstrate the popularity and achievements of his own administration?
In a healthy democracy, the arrival of an opposition candidate should not provoke fear. It should provoke competition. If the ruling party believes it has performed well, it should welcome the opposition into every state and invite its candidates to tell Nigerians what they would do differently. Let the ruling party showcase its roads, hospitals, schools, infrastructure, economic reforms, security achievements and other accomplishments. Let it explain the policies that have produced results and defend those that have generated controversy. Let its candidates stand before the same voters and make the case for continuity. That is politics. And that is precisely how democracy is supposed to work.
The opposition, on the other hand, must have the freedom to present its own alternative. It should be able to tell Nigerians where it believes the government has failed. It should be able to explain its economic policies, security strategy, employment plans, healthcare programme, education agenda and institutional reforms. If it believes it can govern better, it must be allowed to make that argument. The voters, not political thugs, should decide which argument is more convincing.
The point must be made here that a state does not belong to the political party controlling its government. It belongs to the people. A governor elected on the platform of one party is governor of the entire state, including members and supporters of opposing parties. The same principle applies to the President of the Federal Republic. Public institutions, security agencies, roads and other government resources cannot become instruments for determining which political party is permitted to operate freely.
There is also an important distinction between security and political obstruction. Every political rally must comply with reasonable security requirements. Political parties cannot simply occupy highways, disrupt traffic indefinitely or put citizens at risk. Security agencies have a legitimate duty to maintain public order. But that responsibility must be exercised impartially. Security cannot become a convenient excuse for selectively restricting opposition activities while ruling-party events receive preferential treatment.
If an opposition rally violates traffic regulations, the same standards should apply to the ruling party. If notification is required for one party’s event, it should be required for every party. If security concerns justify changing the location of one political gathering, the same principle must apply across the political divide. The greatest danger is not necessarily that one opposition candidate is blocked today. It is that such conduct could become normalized. Once political actors discover that they can prevent opponents from reaching certain communities, deny them venues, mobilize hostile crowds against them or manipulate administrative requirements to frustrate their activities, the electoral contest ceases to be a competition of ideas. It becomes a contest of access and coercion. And the consequences could be devastating.
Nigeria has experienced enough political violence to understand where such a culture can lead. Political thuggery, intimidation and the manipulation of state institutions have historically contributed to disputed elections, violence and a loss of public confidence in democratic institutions. The 2027 elections therefore require a higher standard. The Independent National Electoral Commission must insist on a level playing field. Security agencies must protect every legitimate political actor irrespective of party affiliation. State governments must resist the temptation to regard opposition activities as acts of hostility. Political parties themselves must instruct their supporters to exercise restraint and respect the law.
Most importantly, the Federal Government must send a clear message that Nigeria’s political space belongs to everybody. The ruling party should not fear the opposition. It should defeat the opposition politically by convincing Nigerians that it deserves another mandate. That is the real test of incumbency.
Concerning the electorates, they must be given the opportunity to make informed choices during the election proper by allowing all contesting political parties free access to every state in the country. If the government has performed well, let it campaign on its record. If the opposition believes it can do better, let it campaign on its manifesto. Let both sides travel across the country. Let them face hostile questions. Let them defend their records. Let Nigerians compare their programmes and personalities. Let the electorate decide. That is far more legitimate than preventing opponents from entering particular states.
On the side of the opposition parties, while not interpreting every administrative restriction or security intervention as evidence of a conspiracy, they must also respect lawful procedures, coordinate properly with security agencies and ensure that their own activities do not endanger citizens or disrupt public order unnecessarily.
But those responsibilities cannot become a pretext for denying them political space. The true test of Nigeria’s democracy is not whether the ruling party can hold rallies in areas where it is popular. It is whether an opposition candidate can walk into the same territory, stand before the same people and say: “Give us a chance. We believe we can do better.” If the people reject that message, so be it. If they embrace it, so be it. That is the sovereignty of the people.
In 2011, when the then Governor of Lagos State, Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, like other governors across the 36 states of the Federation, was seeking a second term in office, Lagos State was the only state where campaigns were held by all parties without any disruptions or obstructions. In fact, it is on record that the major opposition party and the ruling party campaigned, one after the other, at the same venue with on the same day. To the governor then, it was an opportunity to showcase his achievement. At the end of the day, the message was clear. No other party had the boldness to fly its flag in thed state throughout the campaign period.
That is how it should be. The forthcoming election should be a contest between records and promises, experience and alternatives, policies and programmes—not a contest between political muscle and the ability to control territory. The ruling party has an opportunity to show Nigerians why it deserves their votes. The opposition has an equal right to show Nigerians why it should replace the government. For democracy to survive, Nigerians must be free to hear both sides.
So, as the country moves closer to 2027, the question deserves to be asked loudly and repeatedly: Who is afraid of the opposition? Because if the opposition cannot freely enter a state, address its people and present its alternative, then the real casualty is not the opposition. It is democracy itself.
