The refusal by the PDP to sign the peace accord ahead of the Edo State governorship election reflects deeper issues within our electoral system. These peace accords, led by respected figures like General Abdulsalami Abubakar, are intended to foster peaceful elections by encouraging political parties to commit to non-violent conduct. However, these agreements are not legally binding; they hold power only in the realm of moral persuasion, depending entirely on the goodwill of the participants.
The PDP’s refusal to sign is not unique to Nigeria; it mirrors similar scenarios worldwide, where peace accords serve as symbolic gestures rather than enforceable commitments. In Kenya, political leaders routinely sign peace agreements to prevent electoral violence, yet these accords often face skepticism, especially in highly charged electoral environments. In 2007, despite a signed peace agreement, Kenya experienced post-election violence that left over a thousand people dead and displaced hundreds of thousands. In Pakistan, parties have signed similar pacts in volatile regions, but accusations of security bias and election manipulation persist, and electoral violence remains a recurrent issue. Even in established democracies like the United States and the United Kingdom, public commitments to peaceful conduct are vital, yet their impact depends on the impartiality of the institutions upholding them.
In Ghana, during the 2020 elections, the two major parties, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), both signed a peace accord. Despite this, isolated incidents of violence still occurred, resulting in deaths and injuries. Similarly, in Nigeria’s 2019 elections, peace accords were signed by major political players, but reports of violence, ballot box snatching, and voter intimidation surfaced in several states, illustrating the limitations of these agreements.
Refusal to sign a peace accord, as seen in Edo State, raises important questions about the perceived integrity of the electoral process. The PDP has highlighted alleged bias by security agencies, claiming that the police are acting as tools of the APC, harassing their supporters while ignoring the misconduct of their opponents. Such allegations, if substantiated, can seriously undermine the credibility of an election. However, one must also consider whether this refusal and the allegations it is based on could be a strategic ploy to discredit the electoral outcome, particularly if a party anticipates a potential loss.
Stopping an election due to such a refusal would be an overreach. Elections should only be delayed or halted under extreme circumstances defined by law, such as widespread violence or legal rulings that directly threaten the integrity of the process. What is essential, instead, is a strong response from electoral bodies to address these concerns transparently and impartially. Ensuring neutral security arrangements, maintaining a level playing field, and promptly investigating allegations of bias are critical steps to safeguarding public trust.
That the Edo governorship election is being declared as a do-or-die affair by certain political actors comes across as both desperate and irresponsible. Such rhetoric only heightens tensions, undermining the very purpose of peace accords, and threatens to destabilize the electoral process further, drawing attention away from the real issues at stake.
While peace accords can help promote peaceful behavior, they cannot substitute for strong, impartial institutions and legal frameworks that guarantee free and fair elections. As history has shown, the signing of peace accords alone does not guarantee violence-free elections. Addressing systemic flaws, ensuring institutional neutrality, and holding parties accountable for their actions are key to preventing any party from using refusal as a tactic to delegitimize results and ensuring that elections truly reflect the will of the people, free from manipulation and undue influence.
