A citizen should not have to calculate the risk of being shot, assaulted or intimidated before attending a political meeting. A political party should be able to book a venue, gather its supporters and present its ideas without fearing interference. These are basic conditions of democratic government.
Recent developments in Enugu State raise serious concerns about whether those conditions are being adequately protected.
Dr. Sam Amadi’s criticism of Governor Peter Mbah over alleged suppression of opposition deserves consideration against this wider background. The issue extends beyond a disagreement between a governor and a public commentator. It concerns the freedom of Enugu residents to organise, express political preferences and participate in public affairs.
In September, the police acknowledged reported attacks on separate opposition gatherings in Nkanu West Local Government Area. An NDC meeting reportedly came under gunfire, leaving people injured, while canopies and chairs prepared for a PDP gathering were destroyed. The Commissioner of Police ordered investigations. These incidents give concerns about political intimidation a foundation beyond partisan accusation.
October brought another disturbing report. A police statement acknowledged an alleged shooting outside the NDC secretariat, an injured person and damage to vehicles. The police also provided their account of a separate confrontation involving party supporters at the airport. Those accounts must be investigated fairly, including where they differ from opposition testimony.
Now there is controversy over the withdrawal of a private venue booked for a town hall involving Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso. Opposition representatives alleged government pressure. Governor Mbah expressly denied ordering the withdrawal. His denial must be fairly recorded, and the allegation must be tested against evidence from the venue management, booking records and relevant communications.
I am reluctant to pronounce the governor guilty of directing these incidents without sufficient evidence. It would be equally irresponsible to dismiss their cumulative implications simply because responsibility remains disputed.
Repeated attacks and disruptions can suppress participation through fear. A supporter who witnesses violence may avoid the next meeting. A venue owner may decline future bookings. A community organiser may decide that political involvement is too dangerous. Families may discourage their members from publicly identifying with an opposition party.
Democracy suffers when citizens begin to conceal their political choices for their own safety.
The controversy surrounding the proposed crowd-control legislation belongs within this discussion, but accuracy is essential. The proposal was a private member’s bill sponsored by Chima Obieze. Reports described approval requirements for gatherings exceeding 100 people and substantial penalties. Its sponsor defended its public-safety purpose and subsequently announced its withdrawal for wider consultation. It was not an enacted government prohibition on assembly.
The withdrawal was welcome. Preventing stampedes and ensuring emergency preparedness are legitimate objectives. Yet any future proposal must explain why particular restrictions are necessary and ensure that officials cannot use safety regulation to decide whose political meetings may proceed.
A government permit system with broad discretion can turn a constitutional freedom into a favour granted by those in power. The danger becomes more acute where political gatherings already face violence and allegations of interference.
Nigeria’s constitutional protections for expression, peaceful assembly and association provide the starting point. Public-safety restrictions must satisfy democratic standards of justification. The National Human Rights Commission has emphasised the importance of these freedoms to collective participation.
Governor Mbah therefore has an opportunity – and a responsibility – to demonstrate that opposition politics is safe in Enugu.
He should publicly affirm that residents may support any lawful political party without intimidation or adverse treatment by state institutions. His administration should cooperate fully with investigations into alleged interference and make clear that no official or supporter enjoys protection from accountability.
The police must also provide credible updates. Reported arrests over the September attack are relevant and should be acknowledged. But arrests must lead to evidence-based decisions, fair proceedings and public confidence that perpetrators and sponsors, wherever identified, will face the law.
Political parties, for their part, must reject violence and ensure that their supporters conduct themselves peacefully. That obligation applies equally across party lines.
The present evidence supports serious concern about an intimidating environment for opposition participation. The purpose of raising the alarm is to prevent a dangerous pattern from becoming entrenched and to secure accountability for what has already happened.
Enugu’s democratic health will be measured partly by how freely those who oppose its government can speak, organise and assemble.
A governor confident in his record should welcome that test.
Okechukwu Nwanguma is the Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC).
