BY IBRAHIM LOT
A peace accord is a formal agreement between opposing parties to stop fighting, ease political tensions or commit themselves to peaceful and democratic processes. Against the backdrop of Nigeria’s long history of electoral violence and inflammatory rhetoric, presidential candidates recently signed a peace pact pledging to promote free and fair elections and issue-based campaigns.
The peace pact, also known as the Abuja Accord, has the potential to discourage candidates and political parties from making public statements, pronouncements or speeches capable of inciting violence, including religious, ethnic or tribal sentiments, before, during and after elections. It also seeks to discourage government institutions, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and security agencies, from acting in ways that could undermine peaceful elections.
The initiative has been welcomed in some quarters as an innovative attempt to curb electoral violence by encouraging political candidates to recognise the interests of the electorate and moderate their campaigns accordingly. However, critics regard the move as largely symbolic and arguably too late, given the inflammatory statements that have already been made by some candidates and members of their parties.
There is also concern that the peace pact places too much emphasis on politicians and government institutions while paying insufficient attention to the influence of religious and traditional leaders, who can either promote peaceful coexistence or aggravate tensions within their communities.
The accord comes at a time when concerns are mounting that the 2027 general elections could be characterised by violence, given the high political stakes and increasingly intense political competition.
With the elections less than a year away, the hope of all well-meaning Nigerians is that political actors will respect the commitments they have made and allow peace to prevail before, during and after the polls.
However, the refusal of the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), Atiku Abubakar, to attend the signing of the Peace Accord has raised questions about the inclusiveness and credibility of the initiative.
Atiku reportedly declined to attend, arguing that the process had historically been one-sided. He made the position known when the Council of the Wise of the Savannah Centre for Democracy, Diplomacy and Development (SCDDD), led by former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, visited him in Abuja as part of its engagement with political stakeholders ahead of the elections.
The organisation said the visit was intended to encourage Atiku and other presidential contenders to promote peaceful, issue-based and credible campaigns.
Similarly, Social Democratic Party (SDP) presidential candidate, Adewole Adebayo, criticised President Tinubu for failing to attend the 2027 election Peace Accord signing in person. Adebayo said Tinubu’s decision to send the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), George Akume, as his representative raised questions about the President’s commitment to the peace process.
Adebayo said he remained committed to issue-based campaigns, peaceful elections and compliance with electoral laws, but criticised the government’s handling of INEC and called for the commission to be fully independent and adequately funded.
He also described Tinubu’s absence from the ceremony as an unfortunate signal, arguing that the President’s failure to attend personally could send the wrong message to law enforcement agencies and other government officials involved in the electoral process.
The snatching of ballot boxes, assaulting voters and electoral officials, tampering with election materials, and the unlawful possession of firearms and other dangerous weapons are already offences under Nigerian law.
This is why some critics question the necessity of a separate peace accord, arguing that the Constitution and electoral laws already provide the legal framework for peaceful and credible elections.
More importantly, the existence of a peace agreement has not, by itself, made Nigeria’s electoral process entirely credible or acceptable to citizens. Many voters continue to express doubts about whether their votes truly count, particularly when allegations of vote-buying, intimidation, manipulation and other irregularities persist.
Peace agreements can undoubtedly serve an important symbolic purpose. They provide an opportunity for political actors to publicly commit themselves to non-violence, democratic competition and respect for the electorate. But their real value lies in whether those commitments are translated into action.
Nigeria continues to grapple with voter intimidation, electoral violence and other irregularities despite previous peace agreements. This inevitably raises questions about the extent to which political actors actually honour the commitments they make.
The effectiveness of such agreements is further complicated by the prevalence of ethno-religious tensions, economic hardship and intense competition for political power. These underlying structural problems cannot be resolved merely by signing documents at public ceremonies.
The timing and circumstances surrounding peace agreements also matter. Too often, such initiatives appear to be reactive measures introduced when tensions are already rising, rather than proactive efforts designed to promote reconciliation, tolerance and political stability from the outset.
Nigeria’s experience with electoral peace accords therefore offers important lessons about the broader challenges of democratisation and conflict resolution.
Politics in Nigeria is widely regarded as a winner-takes-all contest, in which victory brings enormous political and economic advantages while defeat can mean the loss of access to power and influence. Consequently, political actors may employ virtually every tactic available to secure electoral victory.
These tactics have included vote-buying, intimidation, bribery, electoral manipulation, thuggery, ballot-box snatching, prolonged legal battles over election results and, in some cases, reluctance to accept defeat.
Yet, democracy cannot thrive where political competition becomes a struggle in which the end is deemed to justify the means.
A genuinely free and fair electoral process gives citizens confidence that their votes will determine the outcome of elections. Conversely, when voters believe that electoral results can be manipulated to favour particular individuals or political parties, their confidence in democracy diminishes and voter participation may suffer.
Nigeria has witnessed several occasions in recent history when agreements intended to end political hostilities and guarantee peaceful elections failed to prevent violence or other electoral abuses.
The Abuja Peace Accord, which brought presidential candidates together to pledge non-violence and respect for the outcome of the polls, was signed ahead of the 2015 general elections. Similar National Peace Accords were adopted in 2019 and 2023, reflecting a continuing recognition of the importance of peaceful electoral processes.
However, the persistence of voter intimidation, electoral violence and other irregularities despite these agreements demonstrates that signing a peace pact is only the beginning.
Political parties and candidates must demonstrate their commitment through their conduct before, during and after elections. Security agencies must remain professional and impartial, while electoral institutions must be sufficiently independent and transparent to command public confidence.
Religious and traditional leaders also have a crucial role to play. Rather than becoming instruments for political mobilisation along ethnic or religious lines, they should use their influence to discourage inflammatory rhetoric, promote tolerance and urge their followers to resolve political disagreements peacefully.
The media, too, must exercise responsibility by refusing to amplify provocative statements merely for political or commercial advantage.
Ultimately, Nigeria does not need peace accords merely as ceremonial documents. What the country needs is a political culture in which the commitments contained in such agreements become part of everyday democratic practice.
The 2027 elections present another opportunity for Nigeria to demonstrate that political differences can be managed without violence and that electoral competition does not have to destroy national cohesion.
Peace is not secured by signatures alone. It requires political will, institutional independence, responsible leadership, an informed electorate and the willingness of all contenders to accept that democracy is not only about winning elections but also about respecting the rights and choices of those who may lose.
The success of the 2027 elections will, therefore, depend not simply on the words contained in the Peace Accord, but on whether Nigeria’s political actors are prepared to live by them.