A key attraction democracy presents across the globe is how the voice and will of the people culminate into votes that translate into leadership emergence. Democracy, practiced in its true spirit, has been known to provide a more credible and inclusive option for communities and nations over the ages. Integral to its key socio-political tenets are the culture of dialogue, peaceful resolution of issues and civic governance which are dialectically opposed to the culture of violence, destruction and armed conflict. What happened in Osun State at the weekend can in a number of ways be described as a pseudo democratic process that was allowed to degenerate to violence bordering on war as a result of political desperation on the part of political elites. The build-up to the election gave no room for peaceful persuasion instead it elevated tensions and escalated divisions. The fact that external forces were desperate to foist a political choice and position on the people of the State became more glaring with every build-up to the election day.
The height was when a serving senator in the state called for the killing of supporters in the opposing political party. The display of federal might, the flooding of the state with police presence, the military and the issuing of death threat did portray Nigeria’s democracy in a negative light of power hijack that erodes public confidence in the electoral institutions and process. At the end of the day the political space had been so tensed up and militarised that only about 44% of the registered voters managed to pass through the countless security blockades to cast their votes.
Democracy should be about jaw-jaw which is generally believed to be better than war-war. Bayard Rustin, an American political activist and prominent leader in social movements for civil rights once noted that ‘If we desire a society of peace, then we cannot achieve such through violence. It therefore follows that democracy must become a means as well as an end’. Whereas democratic systems should rely on ballots, debates and persuasion with respect to strengths of party manifestoes, Osun, at the weekend presented more of threats, tough talks and display of what role money can play in influencing or out rightly derailing a political process. Talking about democracy and development, the question is how come that the political actors had to wait for the election to flood the state with cash. What is the place of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in a process so heavily monetised amongst an electorate so acutely pauperized?
Democracy is said to be the government of the people, by the people and for the people. Why was it so difficult for the political elites to allow the people of Osun State to freely express their franchise. Why were the federal authorities and agencies, from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to Police and military so frantically involved in an election of who becomes the governor of a state? What then happens when the drumbeat of war so resonates with such intensity that it scares the people away from coming out to cast their votes as was the case on Saturday? The very essence of democracy would have been defeated. The standard-bearers were expected to have taken their messages to voters to outline their plans and priorities for the state.
With 14 candidates on the ballot, the race eventually narrowed to three frontrunners: incumbent governor Ademola Adeleke of the Accord Party, seeking a second term; Bola Oyebamiji of the All Progressives Congress (APC), former Commissioner for Finance; and Dr. Najeem Salaam of the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Adeleke who evidently had the support of the grassroots including youths and women population anchored his campaign on infrastructure delivery and the ₦75,000 minimum wage implementation, telling voters at town halls and rallies across the state to convert their support into votes. The contest turned out to be one of the most competitive in the state’s history carrying with it weight beyond the state itself — as the last off-cycle governorship poll before the 2027 general elections, it became widely seen as a political barometer, some form of referendum for President Bola Tinubu and the ruling APC.
The phrase ‘Osun: When Democracy Wears the Toga of War’ perfectly captured the dangerous, highly militarised political landscape as witnessed in the state at the weekend. What should have been a peaceful, civil celebration of democratic choice was instead transformed into an institutional and physical battlefield. Intense political rivalry reverberating from the state became palpable across other States in distant parts of the country. Tensions boiled over into ideological and structural war that traced back to bitter disputes over local government control following the previous election cycle. Adeleke was said to have maintained his ground with a stand-off by proceeding with local government elections despite stiff oppositions from the Attorney General of the Federation and federal security agencies.
The buildup to the poll was significantly marred by physical conflict. The Police revealed it is actively investigating 30 political killings directly tied to pre-election violence in the state. As the election day drew closer, rhetoric turned to explicit hostility with a viral video showing Senator Francis Fadahunsi (Osun East) allegedly inciting APC supporters to target opposition Accord Party members on sight. This forced the police to summon the lawmaker and triggered a formal petition for arrest by Governor Adeleke and some right groups.
We also witnessed the weaponisation of federal agencies. A major flashpoint occurred when the EFCC ordered the bank to frozen Osun State’s federal statutory allocation accounts just days before the election. The move sparked widespread condemnation from political commentators and opposition leaders, who tagged it a ‘dangerous assault on democracy’ and an attempt to squeeze the state into political submission. The move was so volatile that President Tinubu, professing to be ‘deeply embarrassed’ by the timing, ordered the EFCC to vacate the freeze.
Nigerians also witnessed an over militarisation of the state and unleashing of atmosphere of fear and terror that kept many indoors all through the election day. The Speaker of the State Assembly had his residence under siege by armed military men while the election lasted.
In very practical terms Osun was turned into an active ‘war zone’. Heavy deployments of mobile police and military personnel set up barricades, leading to civil society complaints of voter suppression tactics and artificial insecurity. Nigerians questioned why such an overwhelming military apparatus should be deployed for a civic election rather than for fighting bandits and terrorists nationwide. For Nigeria’s democracy to survive, ballots must replace bullets, and the ultimate outcome must reflect the uncoerced will of the Osun electorate.
On paper, Saturday’s election was a contest over who will run a state of about 4.7 million people for the next four years. But for the Nigerian political class, it carried a broader significance: Osun became a pointer to the alliances, voter loyalties and political machinery that could shape the 2027 presidential election.
A victory by APC would, therefore, be more than a routine change of governor as it would allow the party to reclaim a state it lost in 2022 and reinforce its position in southwest region ,understandably so central to the president’s political power.
The APC had also expanded its reach across Nigeria through a series of political defections with governors and senior politicians moving towards the ruling party.
Osun offered a different test, in which the APC needed to win votes rather than simply gain politicians.
Governorship elections often turn on local issues, such as roads, public services, jobs, agriculture, infrastructure and the performance of the state government.
While Adeleke sought to defend his record, Oyebamiji promised change while Salaam presented the ADC as an alternative.
One of the most revealing questions from Saturday’s election is whether political influence follows politicians when they change parties. The Adeleke family is a politically entrenched family and moving from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the Accord Party required to be tested if his leadership charisma was able to sway the voters to remain by him.
Nigeria’s party system is highly fluid with personalities, patronage networks and local political structures often proving more important than ideology. As the PDP has struggled with internal divisions, politicians have moved to other platforms while the APC has continued to attract defectors.
The election may have offered a useful test of whether those politicians can move their voters with them if through their performance they remained connected to the grassroots.
Nigeria’s presidential elections are strongly shaped by regional alliances. President Tinubu has already faced friction in parts of the north, including the departure from the APC of a former Kaduna Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, once an important northern ally.
If the southwest, President Tinubu’s most dependable region, delivers a mixed or losing result in Osun, his campaign strategists have less room to compensate for northern defections.
An APC victory would give the ruling party a powerful momentum narrative while an Accord victory would allow opposition elements to argue that President Tinubu can be challenged even in the southwest. 2027 then becomes an election between government economic policies and the masses.
As the last major off-cycle poll before 2027, Osun offered a critical test of INEC’s preparedness, a litmus test for the ruling APC’s momentum and a gauge of voter sentiment in the strategic southwest.
