By Felix Uroko

From the obstruction of Peter Obi’s convoy in Benue to reported attacks on opposition campaign teams in Edo and Enugu, allegations of political intimidation are raising questions about candidates’ freedom to mobilise voters and the preparedness of security agencies for the 2027 general elections, FELIX UROKO reports.

For residents of Yelwata, a farming community in Guma Local Government Area of Benue State, the visit of Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), was an opportunity to draw renewed attention to the killings, displacement and disruption of livelihoods that have scarred their community.

But the humanitarian visit, scheduled for September 8, was cut short when youths blocked Obi’s convoy along Gboko Road in Makurdi, preventing him from proceeding to the affected community.

Obi said he had travelled to commiserate with families affected by the killings when his convoy was stopped by people shouting that he should leave. He said he chose not to force his way through the blockade to avoid a confrontation that could endanger lives.

The Benue State Government denied responsibility, saying it had not been informed of the visit. The police, however, said they had received notification and deployed officers to provide security. The following day, the police announced the arrest of 46 suspects allegedly linked to the obstruction.

Although the arrests opened the way for further investigation, they did not, by themselves, establish who organised the blockade or whether any political office-holder directed it.

Yet, the incident has acquired significance beyond Benue. Coming as political parties intensify mobilisation ahead of the 2027 general elections, it has raised questions about whether opposition candidates can freely visit communities, meet supporters and present their programmes without obstruction or intimidation.

The concerns have been reinforced by reports of attacks on opposition political activities in Edo and Enugu states, as well as allegations of threats, damaged campaign property and interference with party mobilisation in other parts of the country.

Opposition parties have accused members or supporters of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of involvement in some of the incidents. The APC has rejected suggestions that it pursues a policy of intimidation, insisting that allegations against it should be supported by verifiable evidence.

The competing claims have placed the conduct of political parties, the response of security agencies and the protection of citizens’ democratic rights under scrutiny as the 2027 elections approach.

From Benue to Edo and Enugu
In Edo State, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) reported that its campaign train was attacked in Igueben Local Government Area on October 6.

The party’s chieftain and former governorship aspirant, Kenneth Imasuangbon, its Edo Central senatorial candidate, Herbert Okonofua, and other leaders were in the convoy when suspected attackers allegedly opened fire.

The ADC accused political loyalists of the APC of involvement and alleged that Igueben council chairman, Endurance Azemegbe, led the attackers. It said one of its supporters, identified as Jerry Oliha, sustained gunshot wounds.

Azemegbe denied the allegation, saying he was not in Igueben when the incident occurred. His response leaves the allegation of his involvement to be established or dismissed through investigation.

The reported attack followed controversy over a video circulating online in which Edo APC chairman, Jerett Tenebe, was reported to have threatened to use an AK-47 rifle against people who refused to vote for the party, including President Bola Tinubu.

Opposition parties condemned the reported remarks, arguing that electoral competition should be determined by voters rather than threats. The episode has also drawn attention to the responsibility of party leaders to ensure that political rhetoric does not encourage intimidation or violence.

In Enugu State, the NDC governorship candidate, Chinyeaka Ohaa, alleged that he and his supporters were attacked on October 10 while returning from Akanu Ibiam International Airport, where party members had gathered to welcome him.

Ohaa said several supporters sustained injuries, vehicles were damaged, and mobile phones belonging to journalists and party members were seized. He alleged that the attackers followed his convoy to the party’s campaign office, where another confrontation occurred.

The ADC, NDC and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) subsequently condemned the reported incidents and called on security agencies and the Federal Government to protect opposition politicians and their supporters.

The Enugu State Government denied involvement in the attack. The police said officers responded to a distress report, restored order, took an injured person to hospital and commenced an investigation.

As in Benue and Edo, the allegations and denials have yet to establish responsibility conclusively. But the circumstances surrounding the Enugu incident highlight the importance of protecting candidates, supporters, journalists and party offices during lawful political activities.

The incidents differ in their circumstances and the evidence available. They should not automatically be treated as parts of a coordinated operation. Nevertheless, reports of disruptions across different states have intensified calls for impartial investigations and stronger guarantees for political participation.

Opposition raises the alarm over reported attacks
Beyond the individual incidents, the ADC has raised concerns about what it describes as a pattern of attacks on opposition members and political gatherings.

The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said its records covered reported incidents between July 2025 and September 2026 in Kaduna, Kebbi, Ekiti, Cross River, Rivers, Edo, Osun, Kogi and Enugu states.

According to the party, the incidents included attacks on political meetings, destruction of party property, assaults on participants and threats against citizens because of their political preferences. It called on the Inspector-General of Police to provide public updates on investigations into the reported cases.

Abdullahi argued that citizens should be free to support political parties of their choice and that registered parties should be able to organise meetings and conduct lawful activities without intimidation.

The ADC also questioned the response of security agencies in some of the cases it cited, calling for greater transparency and accountability.

The party’s claims broaden the debate from the safety of individual candidates to the conditions under which political competition will take place nationally. However, establishing whether the incidents constitute a wider pattern requires verification of individual cases, including their circumstances, available evidence and the findings of investigations.

A Lagos-based NDC member, Silvester Adah, also called on security agencies to strengthen their presence before, during and after the elections. He alleged that the APC had plans to intimidate voters in areas where opposition parties enjoyed support.

The allegation reflects the concerns of some opposition members but requires independent substantiation. Its wider implication is the need for security agencies to demonstrate their impartiality through their conduct and handling of complaints from all political parties.

As the 2027 campaign season approaches, the central issue is whether parties can compete under conditions that allow voters to hear competing arguments and make independent choices.

Political mobilisation involves rallies, community visits, meetings with interest groups, distribution of campaign materials and public engagement by candidates. Disputes over venues, routes, supporters and local political influence can become more pronounced as competition intensifies.

Where credible allegations of intimidation are not investigated transparently, distrust can deepen.

Opposition parties may question the willingness of security agencies to protect them, while supporters may become suspicious of rival groups. Such perceptions can undermine confidence in the electoral process even where allegations have not been established.

The reported incidents have generated reactions from political actors across party lines, many of whom have argued that opposition candidates must be allowed to campaign freely.

Presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, Omoyele Sowore, condemned the intimidation of opposition parties. The Obidient Movement also accused the ruling APC of involvement in the reported incidents, describing them as evidence of what it considered the ruling party’s desperation. The accusation remains the movement’s position and has not, by itself, established responsibility for the incidents.

A stalwart of the NDC, Tanko Yunusa, said no amount of intimidation would prevent the party from campaigning across the country. He condemned the incidents in Benue, Edo, Delta and Enugu, arguing that failure to investigate such cases could deepen distrust ahead of the 2027 elections.

The PDP governorship candidate in Cross River State, Sir Arthur Jarvis Archibong, also alleged that the ruling party disrupted his attempt to visit a royal palace for political mobilisation.

The allegations from different states have reinforced opposition calls for security agencies to protect candidates regardless of party affiliation. They have also increased pressure on political parties to distance themselves from violence and ensure that their supporters respect the rights of opponents.

The APC, however, has rejected suggestions that it is pursuing a policy of restricting opposition activities.

Abimbola Tooki, spokesman for the APC National Chairman, said allegations of political intimidation should be supported by verifiable evidence rather than broad accusations against the ruling party.

The APC’s position is that political competition must be conducted within the law and that responsibility for individual incidents should be established through evidence.

The party’s denial does not settle the allegations against individuals or groups in particular cases. Equally, accusations against APC members or supporters should not be treated as established facts without the findings of credible investigations.

The challenge for the authorities is to investigate complaints impartially, publish findings where appropriate and prosecute those found culpable, irrespective of their political affiliations.

Beyond party rivalry
The debate over political intimidation raises a broader question about the quality of democratic participation in Nigeria.

The ability of a candidate to travel to a community, meet residents and explain a programme is a basic element of electoral competition. When a visit is obstructed or a political gathering is disrupted, the immediate effect extends beyond the candidate and party involved. Residents may lose an opportunity to question those seeking their votes, while supporters may become reluctant to participate in subsequent activities.

This concern is particularly relevant in communities affected by insecurity, displacement and economic hardship. In Yelwata, for instance, the intended purpose of Obi’s visit was to draw attention to the experiences of residents affected by killings and displacement. The obstruction therefore raised questions not only about political access but also about the ability of affected communities to engage public figures seeking elective office.

Yunusa said the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) also had a role in promoting peaceful electoral participation through engagement with political parties and relevant institutions. He, however, maintained that the primary responsibility for preventing and investigating criminal attacks rested with the police and other security agencies.

With the 2027 elections approaching, the incidents reported in Benue, Edo and Enugu have brought the issue of campaign security into sharper focus. Whether they prove to be isolated episodes or part of a wider problem will depend on the evidence emerging from investigations. What is clear is that the credibility of the electoral process requires political competition in which voters, rather than intimidation, determine the outcome.