Presidential candidates, party chairpersons, election managers, security chiefs, clerics, diplomats and elder politicians gather in a hall. Cameras click. Hands are shaken. Smiles are exchanged. Then comes the defining moment: the candidates put pen to paper and pledge to pursue power without violence, hate speech, ethnic or religious incitement, misinformation, or conduct capable of plunging the country into crisis.
Last Tuesday, Nigeria witnessed another such moment as presidential candidates and political parties signed the first National Peace Accord ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The accord, facilitated by the National Peace Committee in partnership with The Kukah Centre, committed the candidates and their parties to peaceful and issue-based campaigns as electioneering formally commenced. The message was clear: campaigns should be a contest of ideas, not a declaration of war.
But Nigeria has travelled this road before. Since the historic 2015 presidential election, peace accords have become an important feature of the country’s electoral calendar. The National Peace Committee says it has facilitated dozens of such agreements, including national and subnational accords. The 2015 accord, signed by then President Goodluck Jonathan and opposition candidate Muhammadu Buhari, remains the most celebrated example, particularly because the election produced a peaceful transfer of power and Jonathan accepted defeat.
Yet, subsequent elections have also exposed the fundamental weakness of the process: signing an accord is easier than living by it.
The 2023 election cycle offers the clearest illustration. Presidential candidates signed an initial peace accord in September 2022 and returned to sign the substantive agreement just days before the February 25 presidential election. Yet, even before the polls, the National Peace Committee was compelled to raise concerns about breaches.
The statistics were revealing. According to the committee, 44 per cent of the violations recorded after the first accord were attributed to party spokespersons, 26 per cent to party members, 19 per cent to the presidential candidates themselves, 11 per cent to hardcore supporters and four per cent to party chairpersons. Political rallies were attacked, campaign rhetoric became increasingly toxic, and social media turned into another battlefield.
The European Union Election Observation Mission also reported inadequate adherence to peace pledges during the 2023 elections, citing widespread impunity and uncertainty about whether arrests for election-related offences ultimately led to sanctions.
This raises an uncomfortable question: Why do Nigerian politicians sign peace accords if many of them, their parties, and supporters later appear unwilling or unable to comply with them?
One reason is that an accord often creates a moral obligation without an equally effective enforcement mechanism.
A candidate may publicly commit to peaceful conduct, but the political structure around him is far larger than the individual standing before the cameras. There are party executives, campaign directors, spokespersons, candidates at other levels, political associates, hired supporters, and millions of online followers. A single inflammatory statement by a spokesperson or a reckless post by a prominent supporter can undermine the spirit of an agreement signed at the highest level.
The 2023 figures themselves suggest that the problem is not restricted to presidential candidates. In fact, party spokespersons and members accounted for a greater proportion of the reported violations than the candidates.
There is also the familiar problem of political desperation. For many politicians, elections are not merely competitions for public office; they are high-stakes battles in which defeat can mean the loss of influence, patronage, and political relevance. Under such pressure, the temptation to weaponise ethnicity, religion, personal attacks, and unverified information can become stronger than the commitment made in a conference hall.
That is why the 2027 peace accord must be treated differently. The understanding should not end with the candidates. Every participant in the electoral process must know exactly what the agreement means and what conduct is prohibited. Political parties should formally transmit its provisions to their state and local structures. Campaign councils should make compliance a condition of participation. Spokespersons, social media teams, and prominent supporters should understand that the candidate’s signature is also a commitment to the candidate’s conduct.
There must also be consequences. An accord without accountability risks becoming a ceremonial document-important for photographs and opening speeches but forgotten once campaigns become heated. Political actors who repeatedly violate the terms should be publicly identified, while existing electoral, criminal, and party disciplinary mechanisms should be invoked where applicable.
This is particularly important in an age in which political communication travels faster than ever. A provocative message can move from a campaign rally in one part of Nigeria to millions of mobile phones within minutes. False claims can inflame communities before corrections arrive. The National Peace Committee itself has identified fake news, insults, character assassination, and inflammatory campaign messaging as recurring threats to peaceful elections.
The responsibility, therefore, cannot rest solely on the candidates. INEC, security agencies, political parties, traditional and religious leaders, civil society organisations, and the media all have roles to play. The police and other security agencies must act impartially and decisively against political violence. Parties must discipline their members rather than defend every excess as partisan loyalty. The media must resist becoming amplifiers of dangerous rhetoric, while citizens must reject the idea that supporting a candidate requires attacking or dehumanising another Nigerian.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who was represented at the ceremony by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, described the accord as a solemn pledge to the Nigerian people and urged political parties and candidates to place national interest above personal and partisan ambitions.
He warned that the struggle for political power must not become a do-or-die affair.
He also advised political actors against exploiting ethnic and religious sentiments to mobilise voters, insisting that the 2027 campaign should be based on competing ideas, policies and programmes.
‘Signing this peace accord is a solemn pledge to the Nigerian people that we, as leaders, will put the nation’s interests above personal or partisan ambitions,’ Tinubu said.
The president acknowledged that political campaigns naturally generate disagreements and intense competition but insisted that such disagreements should not threaten national unity.
‘It is natural during campaigns to disagree as opponents and advocate competing governing missions for our country. We may exchange occasional political jabs, but as members of the same household, the same national family, we must never resort to divisive and primordial sentiments of ethnicity or religion as tools for seeking power,’ he said.
Tinubu urged the candidates to concentrate on the issues affecting Nigerians and offer competing solutions to the country’s challenges.
‘Let us campaign on superior ideas. Let us debate issues and promote the best policies to expand opportunities for our people,’ he told his opponents.
The president said the APC remained committed to the provisions of the accord and would reject violence, hate speech, misinformation, incitement, and digital manipulation.
‘Our party rejects violence, hate speech, the spread of misinformation, including through artificial intelligence, and all forms of incitement, especially via social media.
‘We are committed to peaceful, transparent elections that will strengthen political stability, social harmony, economic progress, and our nation’s prosperity. I encourage other political parties and political actors to do the same,’ he said.
Tinubu also commended the National Peace Committee for sustaining its interventions in the electoral process since 2014, noting that the initiative had helped bring political actors together to commit to peaceful elections publicly.
Peter Obi captured one of the central contradictions of the exercise when he argued at the signing that politicians seeking high office should not need a peace accord before behaving responsibly. His point was simple: those aspiring to lead should already possess the character expected of the office they seek to hold.
That observation should not, however, diminish the importance of the accord. Nigeria still needs it-not because a signature can magically end violence, but because democracy requires a common understanding of the rules of engagement.
The agreement establishes a public benchmark against which Nigerians can measure candidates and parties. It provides a basis for calling out those who promote violence and division. More importantly, it reminds political actors that their ambition must have limits.
As campaigns gather momentum ahead of the 2027 elections, the true value of last week’s peace accord will not be measured by how many dignitaries witnessed the signing or how many candidates appended their signatures.
It will be measured at campaign rallies, on television screens, in newspaper headlines, on social media platforms and, ultimately, at the polling units.
Nigeria does not need another peace accord that survives only on paper. It needs an understanding that every signatory-and every person acting in the name of a political party-will respect even when the campaign becomes difficult, the contest becomes tense, and the prospect of defeat becomes real. Only then will the signature become more than a symbol. Only then will the peace accord become what it was intended to be: a genuine covenant with the Nigerian people.