Lagos, once Nigeria’s capital and still its most populous city and commercial hub, has long been the stronghold of the nation’s democracy and human‑rights struggle. Even after losing its status as the capital, the city has remained a centre of resistance to bad governance and dictatorship. Recent acts of violence against individuals with differing political views, however, have tarnished Lagos’s reputation.
The Lagos State government, led by Governor Babajide Sanwo‑Olu of the All Progressives Congress (APC)—the same party that governs at the federal level—has been accused of intolerance toward opposition parties. Allegations include denying opposition groups access to state facilities and advertising opportunities that are readily granted to the APC. While the state government denies these accusations, the APC presidential candidate, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, has not taken clear, repeated steps to prevent violence in Lagos during the campaign. Tinubu has never publicly instructed his supporters to attack opponents, yet supporters worldwide often read a leader’s body language and act accordingly.
In contrast, former President Goodluck Jonathan’s 2015 campaign demonstrated how explicit, non‑violent rhetoric can curb bloodshed. Jonathan repeatedly declared that his ambition was not worth any Nigerian’s blood, urging his supporters not to rig or fight on his behalf and promising to accept the election result even before the final tally. His words matched his actions, disarming potential agitators among his South‑South kinsmen and preventing violence despite the high stakes.
By comparison, APC candidate Major General Muhammadu Buhari’s 2011 and 2015 campaigns featured more belligerent language. Buhari warned supporters to guard their votes and, in a Hausa speech, suggested they “destroy” anyone who interfered—a phrase that sparked debate over its meaning. His narrative that the election would be rigged fueled unrest; when early results showed Buhari trailing, violence erupted in the North, targeting National Youth Service Corps members and perceived Jonathan supporters. Buhari’s earlier 2012 warning that a rigged 2015 election would “soak the dog and the baboon in blood” further inflamed tensions. Nonetheless, Buhari’s eventual victory helped the election conclude without widespread bloodshed.
Similar patterns emerged elsewhere. In the United States, incumbent President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed the 2020 election would be rigged, a message that motivated his supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021, despite a lack of evidence of fraud. In Brazil, former President Jair Bolsonaro’s refusal to concede after his 2022 defeat led his followers to attack government buildings on January 8.
The ongoing attacks on opposition figures in Lagos persist because Tinubu has remained silent, allowing supporters to believe they are acting on his behalf. Silence can be interpreted as consent; had the attacks targeted Tinubu’s ideology, he would likely have condemned them. Since 2015, however, he has not publicly denounced such violence. Nigeria is already deeply divided along ethnic, religious, and partisan lines, making any effort to reduce violence essential.
Lagos prides itself on being a “Centre for Excellence,” yet recent political intolerance undermines that image. With only a few days left before the election, a sincere appeal from Tinubu urging his supporters to reject violence could still make a difference. Elections are not a life‑or‑death contest but a democratic decision by the people, who expect their leaders to serve them responsibly. Followers look to a leader’s body language for cues; Tinubu, once a victim of federal pressure, was supported by Lagos throughout that struggle, and his party now controls both Lagos and the centre. He should not condone harassment or intimidation of opposing views. A firm, clear directive from Tinubu could turn the tide and restore Lagos’s reputation for peaceful political engagement.
Comments are closed for this story.