Nigeria’s 2027 general election campaign has barely begun, but politicians and political appointees have already begun testing the limits of acceptable political speech.
In the space of a few days, Nigerians have been confronted with a succession of extraordinary statements: a Borno State commissioner threatening to cut off the fingers of political opponents; the Yobe State chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) telling women to leave husbands who prevent them from voting for the party; and the chairman of Kuje Area Council in the Federal Capital Territory saying residents should either support the APC or leave the council.
All three episodes were captured on video and circulated widely on social media. Curiously, no arrests were made, not even ceremonial invitations to security agencies for questioning. Many wonder if it is because all those who made the comments were of the ruling party.
And all three officials subsequently attempted to retreat from their original words.
But the apologies and clarifications have done little to extinguish the bigger question now confronting Nigeria’s political class:
What happens when campaign rhetoric crosses the line from persuasion into intimidation?
The question is particularly urgent because Nigeria is still several months away from the 2027 polls.
The presidential and National Assembly campaigns officially commenced on August 19, while campaigns for governorship and State Houses of Assembly seats are due to begin on September 9. The presidential and National Assembly elections are scheduled for January 16, 2027, with governorship and State Assembly elections scheduled for February 6.
The political temperature is therefore likely to rise considerably in the months ahead.
‘We will cut off his fingers’
The most disturbing of the recent episodes emerged from Borno State.
Sainna Buba, the state’s Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, was speaking at the inauguration of a campaign organised by the Tinubu City Boy Movement when he warned people who opposed the APC administration.
“Whoever shows us a finger, we are ready to cut off his fingers,” Buba said in the widely circulated video.
He also warned that those who supported the government would “enjoy the honey”, while those who refused to support it would be “flogged”.
The Defence Minister’s Bombshell: “El-Rufai Deliberately Planned Southern Kaduna Killings”
A Blast from the Past – Part 1(African Missionary Story Series)
The statement immediately generated outrage, not least because Buba was not speaking merely as a private party supporter. He is a serving member of the Borno State government.
The reference to fingers was particularly striking in an electoral context. A finger is, symbolically and literally, part of the physical act by which voters participate in elections.
A political official threatening the fingers of those who oppose his party therefore carries a meaning that goes beyond ordinary campaign bravado.
Buba initially attempted to explain the remark as figurative. He subsequently retracted the statement and apologised to Borno residents and the wider public, saying his intention was not to violate citizens’ democratic rights or cause harm.
But by then, the video had already travelled far beyond the original audience.
That is one of the defining characteristics of Nigeria’s 2027 campaign: political speeches are no longer confined to campaign grounds. A few seconds of video recorded on a mobile phone can become national news within hours.
Then came the bride-price controversy
Before the uproar over Buba had settled, another controversy emerged in Yobe State.
Mohammed Gadaka, chairman of the APC in Yobe, was addressing supporters in Nangere while receiving political defectors when he turned his attention to married women whose husbands might oppose their support for the ruling party.
His message was extraordinary.
“If your husband won’t allow you to vote APC, leave the marriage. I will pay your bride price and marry you,” he said.
Gadaka reportedly also offered to pay the bride price of women who ended their marriages because of political disagreements with their husbands.
The statement triggered criticism, with opponents accusing the party chairman of trivialising marriage and using a deeply personal institution as a tool of political mobilisation.
Gadaka later apologised and withdrew the remark. He said it had been misunderstood and described it as a joke or banter associated with interactions between the Ngamo and Kare-Kare communities.
The explanation, however, raises another uncomfortable question.
Can political leaders rely on the defence of “jokes” after controversial comments have generated public outrage?
Political humour is hardly new. Neither is campaign banter.
But when such language comes from a senior party official addressing a political gathering – particularly in a highly competitive election season – the consequences can extend far beyond the intention of the speaker.
‘APC or leave Kuje’
Then there was Kuje.
Danjuma Shekwolo, chairman of Kuje Area Council in the FCT, was shown in another widely circulated video telling residents that they either had to support the APC or leave the council.
“I have said in my area council, it’s either you are doing APC or leave the area council,” he said.
The statement attracted condemnation from political opponents and civil society actors.
The National Human Rights Commission subsequently called for action over the remarks, with the commission describing the alleged threat as inconsistent with constitutional rights. Other political groups also demanded an investigation.
Shekwolo later clarified his statement, saying it had been taken out of context and was made during a meeting with APC youths and loyalists. Crucially, he acknowledged that he had no authority to disenfranchise or deprive residents of their fundamental rights.
He said his administration remained committed to inclusive governance regardless of residents’ political, religious or ethnic affiliations.
Again, the original video had already gone viral.
Three statements. One pattern.
The three incidents are different.
One involved an alleged threat of physical harm.
Another invoked divorce and marriage.
The third suggested that political allegiance should determine whether citizens could remain in a local government area.
Yet they share a common thread:political loyalty was presented as something that could have consequences for people who chose differently.
That is where the issue becomes bigger than three controversial speeches.
In a democracy, political parties are supposed to persuade citizens.
They can campaign on infrastructure, employment, security, education, healthcare, economic growth and other policies.
They can defend their records.
They can attack the records of their opponents.
They can ask voters to reject rival candidates.
But the voter must retain the freedom to say no.
That freedom is the foundation of the ballot.
‘Enjoy the honey’ – and the danger of political patronage
Perhaps the most revealing phrase in the Borno controversy was not the reference to fingers but the promise that supporters would “enjoy the honey”.
It captures a long-standing problem in Nigerian politics: the tendency to portray government benefits as rewards for political loyalty.
Government, however, belongs to the public.
A road constructed with public money is not an APC road.
A government hospital is not a reward for party membership.
A public school does not belong to the party in power.
Neither should access to public services depend on whether a citizen voted for the ruling party.
When public officials speak as though government development is conditional upon political allegiance, the distinction between party and state becomes dangerously blurred.
And that distinction matters enormously during elections.
A political party seeks power.
The state is supposed to serve citizens regardless of who they vote for.
The law is already ahead of the rhetoric
Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026 provides a significant legal backdrop to the controversies.
The law prohibits threats involving force or violence during political campaigns where the purpose is to compel a person to support or refrain from supporting a political party or candidate.
It also criminalises threats intended to influence how a person votes or whether that person votes.
That means inflammatory electoral language is not necessarily just a matter for political commentators or social-media debate.
Depending on the precise circumstances, evidence and intent, threats made to influence voting behaviour can raise legal questions under the electoral framework.
The distinction between political rhetoric and an actionable threat will ultimately depend on the facts of each case. But the law makes one principle clear: Nigerian citizens are not supposed to be coerced into political choices through threats of violence.
The irony of the peace accord
The recent incidents are even more striking because they came almost immediately after Nigeria’s major political actors publicly committed themselves to peaceful and issue-based campaigns.
On August 18, political parties and presidential candidates signed the National Peace Accord ahead of the 2027 elections.
The agreement, brokered under the National Peace Committee led by former Head of State General Abdulsalami Abubakar, called for peaceful campaigns and rejection of violence, hate speech, personal attacks, misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric.
President Bola Tinubu also urged politicians to avoid treating the election as a “do-or-die” affair.
Yet almost immediately after the formal campaign period began, Nigerians started seeing videos of officials making remarks that critics considered threatening or provocative.
The contradiction is difficult to miss.
On paper, the political class has promised restraint.
On campaign platforms, some politicians appear to be testing how far they can go.
The ghosts of previous elections
Nigeria’s concern about political intimidation is not theoretical.
The country’s recent electoral history contains numerous examples of threats, violence, voter intimidation and attacks on political actors.
The European Union Election Observation Mission’s assessment of the 2023 general elections documented violence and attacks involving political actors and reported intimidation and the involvement of informal security structures in some areas.
The lesson from previous elections is straightforward: inflammatory words can acquire a dangerous life of their own when combined with political structures, economic grievances, ethnic or religious tensions and groups willing to use violence.
That is why the language of politicians matters.
A senior political figure does not speak into a vacuum.
1. Supporters listen.
2. Local party structures listen.
3. Youth groups listen.
4. Political opponents listen.
5. Security agencies listen.
6. And increasingly, millions of Nigerians watch the speech later on their phones.