By Chinedu Echianu
More than a decade after the 2011 post-election violence left hundreds dead and thousands displaced, Nigeria’s Peace Accord has become a regular feature of the country’s electoral process. But with the 2027 general election approaching, political analysts are questioning whether the agreement has meaningfully changed political behaviour or whether its commitments remain largely on paper.
A Promise of Peace, A Persistent Challenge
As Nigeria inches closer to the 2027 general elections, the familiar ritual of political leaders pledging to conduct peaceful campaigns and respect the outcome of elections is once again coming into focus.
At the centre of this commitment is the Peace Accord, an initiative designed to encourage political parties and candidates to embrace non-violence, promote tolerance and protect the integrity of the electoral process.
For many Nigerians, however, the significance of the agreement lies not in the ceremonies that accompany its signing, but in whether its commitments can be translated into peaceful political conduct before, during and after elections.
The question has become particularly relevant as concerns about political intimidation, inflammatory rhetoric and violence continue to feature in discussions about the country’s democratic process.
While the Peace Accord has remained a fixture of successive election cycles since 2015, its effectiveness is increasingly being assessed against the conduct of political actors and the capacity of institutions to respond to electoral offences.
The 2011 Violence That Changed the Conversation
Nigeria’s contemporary efforts to promote peaceful elections cannot be fully understood without revisiting the violence that followed the 2011 presidential election.
The violence erupted after the April 16 election, following the announcement of Goodluck Jonathan as the winner over Muhammadu Buhari.
Protests in parts of northern Nigeria escalated into riots and sectarian clashes, affecting communities across several states.
According to Human Rights Watch, the violence spread across 12 northern states, killing more than 800 people and displacing about 65,000 others.
Beyond the loss of lives and destruction of property, the crisis exposed the devastating consequences of political tension when it spills into communities and becomes intertwined with religious and ethnic divisions.
It also reinforced concerns about the vulnerability of Nigeria’s electoral process to violence, particularly when political competition is accompanied by distrust, inflammatory statements and weak enforcement of the law.
With another general election approaching in 2015, political actors, government officials and international partners began consultations aimed at reducing the risk of violence and encouraging a peaceful electoral process.
The discussions eventually culminated in the Abuja Peace Accord, signed in January 2015 by presidential candidates, including Jonathan and Buhari.
The agreement committed candidates to peaceful campaigns and respect for the outcome of the election.
It was an attempt to establish a common understanding among political leaders that electoral competition should not threaten the safety of citizens or undermine the country’s democratic institutions.
From Political Agreement to the National Peace Committee
The Peace Accord also gave rise to the National Peace Committee, led by former Head of State General Abdulsalami Abubakar (retired), with Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah serving as convener and key members including the Sultan of Sokoto (Muhammadu Sa’ad III) and other prominent civic, religious, and business leaders, with the aim of promoting peaceful elections and help mediate political disputes.
The committee has since played a visible role in Nigeria’s electoral process, particularly through engagements with political parties and candidates, public appeals for restraint and the facilitation of peace commitments.
Its emergence reflected the recognition that peaceful elections require more than the formal conduct of voting and the announcement of results.
They also depend on the willingness of political leaders to restrain supporters, discourage violence and accept the rules governing electoral competition.
Over the years, the signing of the Peace Accord has become a familiar feature of election preparations.
Yet, the regularity of the exercise has also raised a fundamental question: does the signing of an agreement necessarily translate into compliance?
For some analysts, the gap between the promises made by political actors and their conduct during election periods suggests that the accord has not sufficiently altered the incentives and behaviour that contribute to electoral tensions.
Has the Accord Delivered on Its Promise?
The Director of the Abuja School of Political and Social Thought, Sam Amadi, is among those questioning the impact of the Peace Accord.
Amadi argues that the persistence of reported political violence and alleged restrictions on opposition campaigns raises concerns about the effectiveness of the initiative.
He cited the reported obstruction of opposition presidential candidate Peter Obi from entering Benue State, alongside other incidents of political intimidation and campaign-related challenges, as examples of developments that warrant closer scrutiny.
According to him, the problem extends beyond physical violence to include actions that may limit the ability of political candidates to campaign freely.
Amadi also pointed to reported increases in billboard costs and rhetoric by government officials against political opponents, arguing that such practices could undermine the spirit of political competition.
He questioned whether the Peace Committee has been able to address these concerns effectively, suggesting that the initiative risks becoming a distraction if its commitments are not matched by meaningful action.
His position highlights a broader debate about the scope of the accord: whether it should focus primarily on preventing physical violence or also address other forms of political conduct that could restrict participation and heighten tensions.
A Routine Ceremony or a Meaningful Commitment?
A lecturer in Political Economy and Development Studies at the University of Abuja, Bibi Farouk, also expressed concern about the limited impact of the Peace Accord.
Farouk said the agreement had largely become a routine exercise, despite the involvement of respected Nigerians in the peace initiative.
He warned that the conduct of leading political actors could gradually weaken the moral significance of the signing process if the commitments were not reflected in their actions.
For Farouk, the concern is not simply whether candidates sign the document, but whether they demonstrate a willingness to uphold its principles throughout the electoral process.
The criticism raises questions about the extent to which voluntary agreements can influence political behaviour in an environment where electoral competition can be intense.
The challenge, therefore, is to ensure that the Peace Accord remains more than a symbolic declaration made at the beginning of an election cycle.
The Limits of Moral Persuasion
Electoral and Political Process Specialist Paul James believes the Peace Accord should be understood primarily as a mechanism for moral persuasion.
According to James, the signing of the agreement can encourage political leaders to embrace peaceful conduct, but it cannot replace the responsibility of relevant institutions to enforce the law.
He said warning signs ahead of the 2027 elections should be addressed early, rather than allowing tensions to escalate before authorities intervene.
James expressed concern that institutions could identify threats, issue warnings and still fail to take timely action, only responding after violence has occurred.
He stressed the need for political leaders to take greater responsibility for their conduct and for the actions of their supporters.
His position underscores a critical distinction between voluntary commitments and legally enforceable obligations.
While the Peace Accord can encourage restraint and provide a framework for political engagement, the prevention and punishment of electoral offences ultimately require effective institutions and the consistent application of the law.
The implication is that peaceful elections cannot depend solely on the goodwill of candidates or the influence of respected individuals serving on peace initiatives.
They also require a system in which threats, intimidation and violence attract timely and appropriate responses.
Beyond Signing: What Must Change?
As preparations for the 2027 elections gather momentum, the debate surrounding the Peace Accord is shifting towards implementation.
The concerns raised by analysts point to several areas that could shape the effectiveness of the initiative.
First is the responsibility of political leaders to ensure that their public statements and campaign activities do not encourage hostility or intimidation.
Political parties and candidates have a role in communicating clearly to their supporters that disagreements should be resolved through lawful and democratic means.
Second is the need for relevant institutions to respond promptly to threats and reported electoral offences.
Warnings and public appeals may help reduce tensions, but they are unlikely to be sufficient where individuals believe that violations will go unpunished.
Third is the importance of protecting the ability of candidates and political parties to participate in the electoral process without intimidation or unlawful obstruction.
The credibility of a peaceful election depends not only on the absence of violence on election day, but also on whether political competition is conducted in an environment that allows citizens and candidates to participate freely.
Finally, the peace process requires sustained engagement beyond the signing ceremony.
Dialogue, early intervention and mediation can help address disputes before they escalate, while clear channels for reporting threats and seeking assistance may strengthen confidence in the process.
The 2027 Test
The approaching 2027 general elections present another opportunity to assess the place of the Peace Accord in Nigeria’s democratic development.
The agreement has established a recurring platform through which political candidates publicly commit themselves to peaceful elections.
But the concerns raised by analysts suggest that the existence of the accord alone cannot guarantee compliance or prevent electoral violence.
Its impact will depend on whether political actors demonstrate restraint, whether political parties take responsibility for their supporters and whether institutions act promptly when threats or violations occur.
The experience of previous elections also highlights the importance of addressing tensions before they escalate into violence, rather than relying exclusively on interventions after lives have been lost.
Ultimately, the measure of the Peace Accord will not be the number of times it is signed, but the extent to which its commitments are reflected in the conduct of political leaders, the protection of citizens and the peaceful resolution of electoral disputes.
As Nigeria approaches another critical electoral cycle, the challenge is to ensure that the promise of peaceful elections becomes a practical commitment shared by political actors and supported by institutions capable of enforcing the law.
