Election Security and Voter Participation in Nigeria: Examining Intimidation and Harassment in the 2023 General Elections

Election Security and Voter Participation in Nigeria: Examining Intimidation and Harassment in the 2023 General Elections  

¹Roberts, Anya Nkata Ph. D., ¹Ekot, Basil Akpan, Ph. D., ²Okpan, Samuel Okpanocha, Ph.D

¹Department of Political Science & Diplomacy, Veritas University, Abuja

²Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Evangel University, Akaeze, Ebonyi State

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300038

Received: 23 February 2025; Accepted: 22 February 2025; Published: 27 March 2025

ABSTRACT

The 2023 elections in Nigeria remain one of the most contested since the return of democracy in 1999. Filled with assurances and reawakening the need for everyone’s participation, especially the youth, voters believed that the permanent voter’s card (PVC) and the Bimodal Voters Accreditation Systems (BVAS) guaranteed their votes would count. However, the election was marred by insecurity, intimidation, and harassment of voters, resulting in the distrust of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), widening of the ethnic/tribal, religious faultiness and exposure of voters, and electoral materials to insecurity. This study, therefore, explores election insecurity, voter intimidation/harassment, and participation in the 2023 presidential and Governorship elections. Data for this study was collected using the documentary method and Structural Functionalism theory applied as the theoretical framework of analysis. This paper identifies various incidents of voter intimidation/harassment, insecurity, and voters’ participation in the elections. This paper concludes that voters, electoral materials, and results were not adequately protected; voters were harassed and intimidated in many states during and after the election. It, therefore, recommends the reconstruction of the national security apparatus for the protection of voters, electoral materials, and results during elections in Nigeria.

Keywords: Elections, Security, Electoral Violence, Intimidation

INTRODUCTION

Historically, electoral misconduct has plagued political systems and economic development levels across the globe, including advanced democracies of the present day. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, when the Electoral Reform Act of 1832 was passed, electoral insecurity, manipulation, and fraud were widespread in the United Kingdom, where political corruption was institutionalized and justified. Before the reforms, many aspects of British electoral corruption were comparable to the most egregious electoral frauds in developing nations (Onapajo & Uzodike, 2014). Elections in the United Kingdom have recorded violence, intimidation, and harassment, including “the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016 while campaigning to remain in the European Union” (Collignon & Rüdig, 2020, p. 422).

Similarities exist between the British and American situations. Indeed, various types of political shenanigans have been so ingrained in the American political system that the system’s integrity has always been a significant concern and has been periodically questioned after close elections. Beyond issues such as the elitist Electoral College, which occasionally undermines the will of the people by making nonsense of the popular vote, or the tendency of ruling parties to manipulate geographic lines to ensure the right mix of voters in specific areas for themselves, political processes in the United States have always been susceptible to various forms of abuse, which degrades the quality of the elections (Collier, 2012). Beyond the United States and the United Kingdom, electoral fraud (whether legal or not) and intrigues have marred electoral processes and deprived hundreds of millions of people of their democratic franchises.

There have been numerous instances of election insecurity, voter harassment, and voter intimidation in Africa. Existing research indicates that Africa has an abundance of violent elections (Burchard, 2020). In December 2007 in Kenya, for instance, Raila Odinga’s supporters accused incumbent Mwai Kibaki of electoral fraud, resulting in violent protests and an estimated death toll of 1,500 (Salehyan & Linebarger, 2014). The 2016 Ugandan presidential election was characterized by harassment, and, in some cases, physical violence perpetrated by forces loyal to the incumbent government. Former prime minister and opposition candidate Amama Mbabazi was placed under house arrest prior to the election. Kizza Besigye, a four-time presidential opposition candidate, was repeatedly detained by the police. Besigye was placed under temporary house arrest several months before the election to prevent him from organizing illegal campaign rallies (Burchard, 2020). There have been additional incidents of voter harassment and intimidation involving electoral violence in Africa. To maintain power, Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi resorted to political violence. Kibaki, his successor, was also responsible for ‘daylight robbery and a civilian coup’ (Bamgbose, 2008). Tsvangirai withdrew from the 2008 Zimbabwe runoff election in protest of political violence that resulted in over 120 deaths and the displacement of thousands (Bracking, 2010). The April 24, 2005, Togo presidential election sparked political violence exodus of Togolese refugees to Ghana and Benin (Bamgbose, 2009).

In 2019, President Olusegun Obasanjo was elected as the democratically elected president of Nigeria following several years of coups that disrupted the Nigerian democratic system. This election followed several years of coups that disrupted the Nigerian democratic system. Political behaviour in Nigeria is characterized using incendiary and abusive language by both candidates and voters (Sule et al., 2017). Combining Nigerian political behaviors with existential ethnic, tribal, and religious tensions creates a recipe for political disaster in Nigeria. One of these obstacles has been the consistent and regular occurrence of electoral violence in every election. Democracy in Nigeria has not been devoid of severe and recurrent obstacles antithetical to democratic values and principles. Violence of varying degrees has been an unfortunate feature of Nigerian elections (Onwudiwe & Berwind-Dart, 2010). Human Rights Watch (HRW) (2007) concluded in its report preceding the 2007 elections that Nigeria has not held a free and fair election (free of harassment and intimidation) since its return to democracy and that elections have been marred by widespread violence, intimidation, bribery, and vote rigging.

Considering these factors, it is evident that there is an immediate need for a reassessment of the preparedness of the agencies responsible for providing security before, during, and after elections. Therefore, it is necessary to state that insecurity, voter intimidation, and harassment will always negatively impact election results and participation by both candidates and voters and will invariably affect Nigeria’s political and economic stability.

Clarification of Concepts

Election

Ighodalo (2012) described elections as essential components of the democratic structure for governing contemporary political societies. Elections serve as tools for political selection, mobilization, and accountability. According to Gasset in 1930 (cited in Dannin 2021), “The health of any democracy, no matter its type or status, depends on a small technical detail; the conduct of elections, everything else is secondary.” Ighodalo maintained that in the context of liberal democracy, which has become the predominant form of democracy in a unipolar world, elections are intended to facilitate the transition from one civilian administration to the next and legitimize sitting governments (Gasset 1930, cited in Dannin, 2021).

According to Olutola (2019, p. 2), “the legitimate power of a government is sourced solely from the consent of the electorates”, hence the assertion that:

Election worldwide has come to be seen as a popular and vital instrument for selecting public and political officeholders through voting. Indeed, it is regarded as a vital political right of expression of choice of leaders by the generality of the electorates where democracy thrives. In fact, a functioning democracy renews itself through credible elections. In all democratic societies, the conduct of elections is regarded as the most appropriate way of establishing the necessary link between the leaders and the led.

According to Osumah and Aghemelo (2010), election is the process by which the people choose their leaders and express their policy and program preferences, thereby granting the government the authority to rule. They view elections as one of the ways a society can organize itself and make formal decisions.

Security

The enforcement of the laws of every state, and the protection of lives and properties are the primary assignment of the police and other security agencies. Therefore, a society can be considered secure if the laws are properly enforced and the people and their properties are safe, including respect for the fundamental human rights of people and animals alike living in such societies.

Fischer and Green (2004, p. 21) defined security as “a stable, relatively predictable environment in which an individual or group may pursue its ends without disruption or harm and without fear of such disturbance or injury.” However, security can be expanded to include national security and the defense of a nation through the use of armed force or the control of a state’s citizens through the use of force. Security may also involve state-employed law enforcement personnel.

Brooks (2007), considers security as crime prevention, security technology, and loss prevention. Therefore, election security according to Olurode (2013), should be viewed as a subset of the national security architecture. Both are closely related and can reinforce one another. Olurode maintained that a breach in election security in a small area of a vast nation like Nigeria can spark a conflagration and have far-reaching repercussions that extend well beyond the local area. Not only would elections fail, but economic losses could be substantial as well. Moreover, fatalities could result. Therefore, considering that elections are essential components of the democratic structure for governing contemporary political societies, the protection of electoral materials, results, voters, candidates, and their agents, parties, civil society groups, domestic and international observers, and security agencies constitute election security. According to Olurode (2013), security is essential for the conduct of credible, free, and fair elections. From the provision of basic security to voters at political party rallies and campaigns to the protection of election results, and security considerations surrounding the entire electoral process.

Intimidation

Intimidation is a specific type of impression management, described by Bolino & Turnley (2003, p. 238) as a strategy “in which individuals let others know that they can make things difficult for them if they are pushed too far, deal aggressively with individuals who get in their way, or use forceful behavior to get colleagues to behave appropriately.” However, there are sometimes “situations where intimidation cannot be avoided and compliance is the goal, where one can maximize compliance but keep fear as low as possible” (Hansia et al., 2023, p. 208). This paper refers to electoral intimidation/harassment, where voters, aspirants, opposition, political parties, Election Handling officials or even security agents are dealt with aggressively before, during and after elections. Therefore, intimidation occurs in many facets of social life, such as policing, politics, and the media, intimidation is not clearly defined in the academic literature and is generally regarded as a negative concept that should be avoided. Hansia et al., (2023, p. 209).  defined intimidation “as a feeling of fear or pressure caused by a perceived threat or a lack of power that is developed from discomfort with initial inferiority or otherness.” Intimidation helps define concepts, such as power and dominance, but it is rarely studied on its own. (Burgoon et al., 1998; Burgoon & Dunbar, 2000).

Electoral Violence

Before delving into discourse and analysis of electoral violence, the vast majority of extant literature has failed to answer the fundamental question of what Electoral Violence is. Due to the contentious issue of “violence begets violence” developed by Frantz Fanon during the anti-colonial struggles, there is no consensus on a definition of electoral violence. The premise of the Fanonian argument is that “violence begets violence.” Therefore, those who retaliate against the initial violence of political opponents deny that they are perpetrating violence. They merely assert that they are combating violence (Obakhedo, 2011).

 However, to properly situate this paper, it is imperative to begin by summarizing the relevant perspectives on electoral violence. According to Aniekwe & Agbiboa (2014, p. 7), Electoral violence can be classified as follows:

The Political-Centred Perspective

This body of literature focuses on electoral violence as a consequence of the competition for political power and focuses primarily on the relationship between the struggle for political power and electoral violence but fails to clearly define electoral violence in terms of its scope, limits, and timing (Aniekwe & Agbiboa, 2014, p. 7). One such work according to Aniekwe & Agbiboa is the work by Campbell (2010), who, in examining the political and conflict problem in Nigeria prior to the 2011 election. The work focused on the Nigerian conflict and power dynamics while critically appraising the risk of electoral violence without attempting to define electoral violence.  Aniekwe & Agbiboa maintained that Campbell’s work was effective in summarizing the complex power dynamics and struggles in Nigeria and how they manifest as electoral violence. However, the lack of a definition of electoral violence leaves the reader uncertain about its meaning and scope. Aniekwe & Agbiboa, 2014 argues that similarly, Omotola (2010), was identified by this paper within this perspective, arguing that the rising electoral violence in Africa is deeply connected with the ‘neo-­patrimonial character of the African state, the nature of contestation for power, the shadows of military cum authoritarian overhangs over the democratisation process, and the weak institutionalisation of democratic architectures, including the economic foundations of the democratization process, politico-­economic institutions, and political This viewpoint identifies electoral violence as a symptom of competing groups’ struggle for political power.

Electoral Fraud Perspective

According to Aniekwe & Agbiboa (2014, p. 8), Electoral Fraud Perspective is “centred on electoral fraud views electoral violence as a subset of broader fraudulent activities during an election cycle or election year.” The perspective focuses on electoral fraud as the driving force behind electoral violence. It encompasses electoral violence within its expansive definitions of electoral fraud (Lehoucq, 2003). Again, this perspective fails to conceptualize electoral violence, conflating electoral fraud, electoral violence, and electoral malpractice into a single category.

Conflict-Centred Perspective

The third perspective in the literature on electoral violence is the conflict-centred perspective, which views electoral violence as a component of conflict within a specific context (Aniekwe & Agbiboa (2014). While situating electoral violence within a gender perspective, Bardall (2011 & Bjarnegård, 2018) are of the view that significant identity lines are evolving as a result of globalization, violating the integrity of elections and persons, while putting tension and conflict at the forefront of the engagement. Resulting in the upsurge of intra-state ethnic, nationalist, and religious tension and conflict, leading to an increase in gender-based violence, some of which are products and relics of electoral violence, which is highly susceptible to the conflict. This perspective presupposes that electoral violence is synonymous with conflict, and that electoral violence can occur in unstable political environments. Nevertheless, if events such as the Bush vs. Gore election of 2000 are proven to have been the result of electoral manipulation, they clearly qualify as electoral violence according to the electoral violence-centred perspective (Aniekwe & Agbiboa, 2014).

Electoral Violence-Centred Perspective

Aniekwe & Agbiboa, (2014, p. 8) maintains that “the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) defined electoral violence in a manner that transcends political, conflict, and fraud perspectives. It extends beyond Election Day to include harm or threat to the electoral system throughout the entire electoral cycle”. Electoral violence is defined by IFES’s Electoral Violence Education and Resolution (EVER) project as “harm or threat of harm to any person or property involved in the election process or to the election process itself during the election period.” According to the IFES-­EVER definition, electoral violence can be overt or covert and occur within a specific time frame (Aniekwe & Agbiboa, 2014). It also encompasses threats that could harm and/or undermine the integrity of the electoral process, as well as harm to electoral stakeholders or individuals.

However, Balogun (2003 cited in Obakhedo, 2011) defined Electoral violence from the operational perspective as connoting all forms of violence (physical, psychological, administrative, legal, and structural) at various stages of the electoral process by candidates, their supporters, and sympathizers (including security and election management staff). According to Birch & Muchlinski (2017), the concept of electoral violence encompasses violent protests against election outcomes, political parties, or opposition groups, as well as attacks by mobs and gangs against visible manifestations of elections, such as polling places. Balogun maintained that the concept of electoral violence includes the likely strategical shift of repression by elites to pre-electoral periods to discourage voters from casting ballots, and the employment of violence by elites to punish certain segments of society for voting in particular ways.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The British colonial government organized and conducted the first election in Nigeria in 1922 in response to the nationalists’ demands for greater participation in colonial administration and leadership positions, and it marked the beginning of electioneering in Africa’s most populous nation. However, Adebanwi & Obadare (2011) asserted that the British appear to have bequeathed Nigerians an unenviable legacy in the area of election manipulation. The 1956 and 1959 elections culminated in the succession of elections held in the second half of the 1950s as part of the transition from colonial rule to independence. According to allegations, the departing British rigged both elections in favour of their local allies in the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) (Sagay, 2001; Adebanwi & Obadare, 2011).

The phenomena of Election security, Participation, Harassment, and Intimidation have brought about conflicts, and destabilization of states and regions of the world, leading to political and economic instability of states and regions alike, in some cases they have precipitated wars. In political science, elections are considered essential components of the democratic structure and as such, meaningful discussions about democracy must take into consideration the processes that would give credence to every electoral process hence should first take into consideration the security of the election, protection of voters, candidates, parties and the results from the elections from harassment and intimidation knowing fully well that violence and rumours of violence can adversely affect turn out (Gutiérrez-Romero & Lebas, 2016).

Extant studies have signified an upsurge of attention from scholars who have viewed the phenomena of electoral insecurity, participation, harassment and intimidation from different scholarly perspectives. Gleaned from the work of Okoye (2021, p. 2) that “There must be an honest, competent and non-partisan Election Management Body (EMB) like INEC, legally authorized by the constitution to organize and conduct elections.” It is therefore consequential that the election management body should be independent and one that the entire population should trust and believe in not be partisan. Okoye maintains that the Judiciary must also be independent in their interpretation of the law for a safe and secure election process.

According to Uzodike & Onapajo, (2019, p. 146):

Electoral fraud is widely perceived as a common phenomenon in developing countries due to the lack of established institutions that can ensure transparency, accountability, legal norms and order and sophisticated electoral systems as well as electorates that have the capacity to defend the franchise.

Furthermore, Uzodike & Onapajo, and Okoye agreed on the crucial roles expected of the institutions saddled with the conduct of elections, and a solid and reliable judicial system where the aggrieved could seek redress. Their assertions confirm the importance of elections and hence the need for election security. Their position, therefore confirmed the need for the Nigerian state to strengthen the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which is the body responsible for the conduct of elections in Nigeria, and an urgent need for the INEC to restructure and sanitise itself of corrupt officials in order regain or win the trust of Nigerians with their ability to conduct free and fair elections devoid of violence and electoral fraud.

To highlight the importance of elections, Olusola (2019, p. 2) argued that “elections are at the core of the democratic process, therefore, elections that are free from pressure, inappropriate influence and fear are sacrosanct.” Olusola maintained that an adequate provision of unbiased security before, during, and after elections is the sine qua non for free, fair, and credible elections in Nigeria. The need, therefore, for proper strengthening of the security architecture of Nigeria and the judicial system can never be over-emphasized in order to strengthen election security, encourage participation and reduce or eradicate harassment and intimidation during elections.

Obakhedo (2011, p. 102), in an effort to evaluate “The anatomy of the causes of electoral violence in Nigeria”, observed that greed; electoral abuses, and rigging of elections; abuse of political power; alienation, marginalization and exclusion; and the political economy of oil as some of the causes of electoral violence (Igbuzor, 2009). This article agrees with the assertions of both Igbuzor and Obakhedo on the causes of electoral violence in Nigeria, however, they failed to extrapolate the possible impact of those causes of election insecurity and how it has affected participation in election nor how the causatives brought about harassment and intimidation in elections.

Religion has been the underlying cause of violence and electoral fraud in Nigeria according to Adamo (2018, p. 16), who asserted that:

from the pre-colonial days to the present, religion has been a serious influential factor in Nigerian elections. The competitive nature of the three main religions in Nigeria has been manipulated in elections and has brought about some negative results as well as violence.

Adamo (2018) maintains that in Nigeria, the history of elections and electoral practices has failed to foster a genuinely democratic culture due to the influence of religion. In Nigeria, each election has fostered a culture of violence, authoritarianism, human rights abuse, corruption, materialism, and repression. However, Osume (1988) opines that the way forward involves educating the public about religion and elections to prevent the harmful use of religion in all spheres of life, especially politics. Christians, Muslims, and African Traditionalists require intense prayer for a genuine change of heart and fear of God. Encourage interreligious dialogue, particularly between Christians, Muslims, and African Traditionalists.

Nigerian elections have always witnessed low turnouts resulting from election violence which includes harassment, intimidation, lack of credibility on the security forces, and lack of trust and confidence in the INEC. As a matter of fact, most Nigerians believe that the election process is crappy and lacks credibility and integrity, believing that their votes will never count and therefore distance themselves from participation in the elections which is usually considerd risky and a total waste of valued time, energy and resources. For instance, in the November 18, 2017  governorship election in  Anambra state,  “report from   INEC indicated that out of 2,064,134 registered eligible voters, only 457,511 representing 22.16% actually came out on the election day to be accredited while 448,111 about 21.74% actually casted their voter” (Chukwuma & Okpala, 2018, p. 71). A similar pattern was also observed by Chukwuma & Okpala in the 2010 and 2013 governorship election. They observed that “out of 1.845 million people, 301, 232 voted and 465,891 voted out of 1,784,536 registered voters (Chukwuma & Okpala, 2018, p. 71). The low turnout in Nigerian elections is because most of the elections have been marked by ugly incidents of political thuggery and violence, electoral fraud, never-ending litigation, legitimacy crisis, instability, and disorder.

Roberts et al., (2023, p. 20) categorized the possible causes of voter frustration into two broad factors: ecological and institutional. They maintained that the ecological context in which an election takes place is referred to as the election’s ecology. According to Roberts et al., extant studies found that political attitudes of the population, including the mobilization of ethnic values, the mobilization of religious sentiments across Nigeria’s religious divide, inflammatory statements, and hate speech by the media and key opinion leaders and politicians; political or electoral violence and communal tension; regionalism and the long-standing power sharing problem; injustice; and associated cynicism, are some of the ecological factors that affect voter turnout (Phillips et al., 1999; Nnamani, 2014). The context does not simply negate the influence of demographic or socio-psychological factors on voter participation. Nonetheless, it determines whether these factors will substantially impact participation (Phillips et al., 1999). The weaponization of these factors tends to impede the efficient accumulation of citizens’ desired preferences for influencing election outcomes.

According to Roberts et al., (2023), from an Institutional standpoint, the immediate causes of voter distress in the electoral process are the inability of the electoral governing body to create a seamless electoral cycle that facilitates citizen participation. The institutional factors, therefore, include the nature and roles of the electoral governance agency, the structure of the electoral program it designs, the electoral rules of the game, including the registration laws and procedures, the type of election and its competitiveness, the shape and solidity of the competing political parties, the level of mobilization of the electorate by the relevant institutions, and the role of the institutions in reshaping the existing polity.

An analysis of institutional arrangements reveals that voters are dissatisfied with the electoral process, from pre-election to election day and beyond. The difficulties primarily involve the operations of INEC and other election stakeholders, including political parties and candidates. In addition to the problems associated with the election management agency, such as counting the votes and allowing the votes to count, there is also a lack of internal party democracy and a lack of faith in election tribunals.

Theoretical Framework

This study’s theoretical underpinning is Structural Functionalism. This theory is, without a doubt, a consensus theory; it posits that society is based on equilibrium, order, interrelation, and balance among its parts to maintain the efficient operation of the whole. Structural functionalism has significantly contributed to our understanding of how different components of societal structures fit together and how each contributes to the stability of the entire society.

According to the theory, all social institutions are structured to meet the needs of the society. Talcott Parsons was a prominent American Functionalist advocate. He is best known for identifying how various institutions must collaborate for the overall functioning of society (Doherty et al., 2009). This supposition implies that the various parts of a society must be highly integrated. However, structural functionalism is not defined solely by its positive effects; it also has adverse effects that render institutions dysfunctional. Institutions are only functional if they fulfill the original purpose for which they were established or the needs of the people. They are dysfunctional if they create disorder or chaos in society by failing to establish order and stability.

Due to its inherent predictive-explanatory capabilities, this article has adopted the structural-functionalism theory to explain issues surrounding election security, participation, harassment, and intimidation. Following the primary basic assumption of structural-functionalism (Eisenstadt, 1990), the article emphasizes that the participation of security agents in an election, especially in developing countries, cannot be disputed, as the success of such an election depends heavily on the capacity of security agents to create a safe and secure environment in which people can participate in electoral processes without fear, intimidation, and pressure before, during, and after elections. In summary, the theory emphasizes, on the one hand, that the availability of impartial and willing security agents to perform their constitutionally defined roles will go a long way toward achieving credible elections. On the other hand, the absence of impartial security agents would inevitably compromise the integrity and quality of electoral processes and elections.

METHOD

This article relies primarily on secondary sources for data collection; to that end, a literature search was conducted to describe how a lack of adequate security before, during, and after elections in Nigeria led to election violence, low voter turnout, harassment, and intimidation, a significant departure from the expected election standard.

To accomplish this, the review’s search strategy utilized the following search terms: Election Violence, Election, Election security, Election Harassment and Intimidation, and Nigeria Democracy. An assortment of online and offline sources, including Google Scholar, sci-hub.ee, Emerald Databases, Library catalogues, personal collections, and many others, were scoured for relevant and pertinent literature upon which the review would be based. This resulted in over 70 publications, of which 29 were chosen for the article due to their similarity to election security, election violence in Nigeria, and in other countries around the world and in Africa.

DISCUSSION

May 13, 2023, Kazeem Biriowo of Tribune online averred that “An election violence monitoring and mitigation group report, conducted by a Civil Society Organisation, Kimpact Development Initiative (KDI), has shown that Nigeria recorded no fewer than 238 violence which resulted in 24 deaths during the 2023 general elections”. Biriowo maintained that “a total of 98 of the total violence occurred during the February 25 presidential election as 140 were reported during the March Governorship and State House of Assembly polls. According to Biriowo, the KDI team was led by Bukola Idowu, who, at the public presentation of the Nigerian election violence report on the 2023 general elections in Abuja titled “The Quest for peaceful election: The Report and Documentation of KDI’s 2023 general Election security interventions and Assessments,” of May 13, 2023, stated that:

In total, we had looked at about 238 cases of election violence, which is spread across the country, and not good enough and each of them has its perpetrators and then also the victims; we have close to 900 victims, and at the same time, reported 24 cases of electoral death.

Idowu’s findings revealed that security presence deterred electoral violence. He asserted that the areas that had enough security presence recorded lower numbers of violence and vice versa. In Idowu’s recommendations, it was suggested that the presence of security forces in a community is one of the ways to mitigate electoral violence. This further supports the tenets of the Structural Functionalism Theory, which states that the failure of one structure affects the other. The failure of the security structures to effectively discharge their duties reflected negatively on the outcome of the 2023 elections.

Serwat (2023) observed that while the campaign for the 2023 election was ongoing, in January 2023, in one of the deadliest incidents ever reported, the PDP candidate for Ideato North and South federal constituency in Imo state was murdered in his residence in the Akokwa community. In some cases, electoral violence targeted female politicians. A former PDP leader from Abia state was one of four people killed in Ohafia Local Government Area (LGA) in March 2022, while an LP leader from Kaura LGA in Kaduna state was gunned down in her home in November. These incidents were also linked to the inability of the security institutions to adequately secure the aspirants, especially women, before, during, and after elections.

Chiamaka Okafor of Premium Times online on March 21, 2023, reported: “that Saturday’s governorship elections were characterized by widespread violence, voter intimidation, and suppression, according to media reports and election observer groups.” Okafor’s report quoted the US Embassy’s comment, “Members of the U.S. diplomatic mission observed the elections in Lagos and elsewhere and witnessed some of these incidents first-hand.”.

Odunsi, (2023) – dailypost.ng online report titled “Lagos election: LP supporters’ intimidation triggers tension between Yorubas, Igbos.” The daily post online report by Odunsi (2023) highlighted how some people of Igbo descent entered panic mode after the open display of disdain for them at several polling units, across the state. The reporter also mentioned that “series of complaints, elections in some places were postponed from Saturday to Sunday over the inability of the voters residing there to exercise their right. Odunsi further reported how many Igbos were stopped from voting because of a purported agenda to take over the governance of Lagos through Rhodes-Vivour, repeatedly linked to Anambra State. According to Odunsi, close watchers said the election brought to the fore the seeming hatred for the people of the South-East based in Lagos as many of them were disenfranchised. The incidences also exposed the weakness and incapacity of the Nigerian security forces in securing the human rights, lives, and properties of Nigerians.

Table 1.1: Table showing incidence of electoral insecurity, intimidation and harassment

Source: March 25, 2023. Violence that marred 2023 elections www.vanguardngr.com marred 2023 elections www.vanguardngr.com

Odunsi concluded with the following remarks “The effect of the 2023 Lagos gubernatorial election will hunt our Lagos for a long time. The result will dawn on us as we step into our various work and business spaces in the new week. “The effect of the 2023 Lagos gubernatorial election will hunt our Lagos for a long time. The result will dawn on us as we step into our various work and business spaces in the new week. “There is no way we can look at ourselves the same way again. The blockage of Igbos from performing their civil rights, the harassment and beating of some voters were distasteful and horrific. “As a Nigerian born and bred in Lagos, I pray we get past this, heal from it, and hopefully it doesn’t escalate to a situation that we cannot control,” the media/PR expert said. Vanguard online (March 25, 2023) reported some of the electoral violence that marred the 2023 elections, stating that almost all the states in Nigeria witnessed one form of violence or order.

The European Union’s final report on the 2023 elections summarised the incidences of violence, insecurity, and intimidation that marked the 2023 elections in Nigeria (European Union Election Observation Mission NIGERIA 2023 General Elections, 2023).

CONCLUSION

Elections in Nigeria have witnessed insecurity leading to election fraud, harassment, intimidation, and, in most cases, violence or unending litigations. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) which is the institution responsible for conducting elections in Nigeria, has not been able to conduct an election that could be free and fair devoid of violence, harassment, and intimidation.

The trajectory of election manipulation can be traced back to the British colonial masters who rigged Nigeria’s first election in favor of their trusted Northern partners and since then, several elections have been conducted in Nigeria by the institutions responsible for the conduct of elections, with almost all of them manipulated and compromised causing election insecurity, harassment and intimidation to aspirants, their agents, voters, etc. This paper exposed the trajectory of election manipulations and possible causes of election insecurity, harassment, and intimidation before, during, and after elections in Nigeria and how it affects participation. Therefore, the paper concludes that election security, strong and reliable elections, and judicial institutions are the panacea to Nigeria’s political and economic stability.

Data Availability: No data was generated for this article.

Author Contributions Statement:

REFERENCES

1. Adamo, D. T. (2018). Religion and Elections in Nigeria: A Historical Perspective. Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae, 44(3). https://doi.org/10.25159/2412-4265/3580
2. Adebanwi, W., & Obadare, E. (2011). The abrogation of the electorate: an emergent African phenomenon. Democratization, 18(2), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.553357. Accessed June 18, 2023
3. Adebanwi, W., & Obadare, E. (2011). The abrogation of the electorate: an emergent African phenomenon. Democratization, 18(2), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.553357. Accessed June 18, 2023
4. Aniekwe, C. C., & Agbiboa, D. (2014). Civic engagement and its role in mitigating electoral violence in Nigeria: implications for the 2015 general elections. Available at SSRN 2541330.
5. Balogun, T. A. (2003). Electoral violence and national security. A paper presented to the Security Agencies in Preparation for, 1-11.
6. Bamgbose J. A. (2008). Kenya presidential elections and the fallacy of democratic experiment, AAU: African Studies Review, A Journal of History and International Studies, Adekunle Ajasin University.
7. Bardall, G. (2011). Understanding Gender and Electoral Violence. Accessed June, 10, 2023
8. Bamgbose, J. A, (2009). Presidential election and refugee crisis in Togo, Journal of Intra-African Studies, (2)
9. Birch, S., & Muchlinski, D. (2017). The Dataset of Countries at Risk of Electoral Violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2017.1364636
10. Biriowo, K. (2023). 2023 General elections: Nigeria records 238 violence cases, 24 deaths– Report https://tribuneonlineng.com/2023-general-elections-nigeria-records-238-violence-cases-24-deaths-report/. Accessed July 13, 2023
11. Bjarnegård, E. (2018). Making gender visible in election violence: Strategies for data collection. Politics & Gender, 14(4), 690-695.
12. Bolino, M., & Turnley, W. (2003). Counternormative impression management, likeability, andperformance ratings: The use of intimidation in organizational settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 237–250
13. Bracking, S. (2010). Democratization through power–sharing: Is riding the tiger a necessary evil or unfortunate distraction? The Constitution 10(1).
14. Brooks, D. J. (2007) Defining the Science of Security through Knowledge Categorisation. Paper presented at the Criminology and Victimlogical Society of Southern Africa (CRIMSA) Conference 2007, October, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
15. Burchard, S. M. (2020). Get out the vote – or else: the impact of fear of election violence on voters. Democratization, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1710490. Accessed June 07, 2023
16. Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communications Monographs, 65(4), 308–335.http://doi.org/10.1080/03637759809376456
17. Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominance‐submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communications Monographs, 67(1), 96–121. http:// doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376497
18. Campbell, J. 2010. ‘Electoral Violence in Nigeria, Contingency Planning Memorandum No 9’,The Council on Foreign Relations, The Center for Preventive Action
19. Collignon, S., & Rüdig, W. (2020). Harassment and Intimidation of Parliamentary Candidates in the United Kingdom. The Political Quarterly, 91(2), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923x.12855
20. CHUKWUMA, N. A., & OKPALA, B. A. (2018). Voter turnout and the quest for free and fair Elections in Nigeria: A study of 2017 Anambra gubernatorial election. Socialscientia: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(3). Accessed June 18, 2023
21. Dinnin, A. (2021). INDOCILE DEMOCRACY: ORTEGA Y GASSET, LIBERALISM AND THE HUMILIATION OF THE MASSES. History of Political Thought, 42(2), 342-372. Accessed June 15, 2023
22. Doherty, W.J., Boss, P.G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W.R., Steinmetz, S.K. (2009). Family Theories and Methods. In: Boss, P., Doherty, W.J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W.R., Steinmetz, S.K. (eds) Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85764-0_1. Accessed June 19, 2023
23. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1990). Functional Analysis in Anthropology and Sociology: An Interpretative Essay. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.001331. Accessed June 19, 2023
24. European Union Election Observation Mission NIGERIA 2023 General Elections. (2023). https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2023/EU%20EOM%20NGA%202023%20FR.pdf
25. Fischer, R. J. and Green, G. (2004) Introduction to Security. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann
26. Hansia, M., Dunbar, N. E., & Giles, H. (2023). In search of a “sweet spot:” Can understanding how language influences intimidation maximize the quality of valued compliance?. Psychology of Language and Communication. https://doi.org/10.58734/plc-2023-0011
27. Ighodalo, A. (2012). Election crisis, liberal democracy and national security in Nigeria’s fourth republic. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 10(2), 163-174. Accessed June 12, 2023
28. Lehoucq, F. 2003. Electoral Fraud: Causes, Types, and Consequences, Annual Review of Political Science (6): 233–256
29. Nnamani D.O (2014). Electoral Process and Challenges of Good Governance in the Nigerian State (1999-2011). Journal of Good Governance and Sustainable Development in Africa 2(3):78-99.
30. Odo L. U. (2015). Free, Fair and Credible Election 2015 in Nigeria: Issues and Challenges. Humanities and Social Science Invention; 4(6): 1–6.
31. Odunsi, W. (2023, March 20). Lagos election: LP supporters’ intimidation triggers tension between Yorubas, Igbos. Daily Post Nigeria. https://dailypost.ng/2023/03/20/lagos-election-lp-supporters-intimidation-triggers-tension-between-yorubas-igbos/. Accessed July 13, 2023
32. Okoye, G. N. (2021). The Election Security and Off-Season Elections in Nigeria: The November 16, 2019 Governorship Election in Bayelsa State.
33. Olurode, L. (2013). Election security in nigeria: Matters arising. Abuja, Fredrich Ebert Stiftung. Accessed June 10, 2023
34. Olutola, O. O. (2019). Security Agents and Elections Security in the 2015 Nigeria’s General Elections. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2019/v30i230126. Accessed June 12, 2023
35. Omotola, S. 2010. ‘Explaining Electoral Violence in Africa’s ‘New’ Democracies.’ African Journal on Conflict Resolutions 10(3): 51-­‐73
36. Onwudiwe, E. & Berwind-Dart, C. (2010). ‘Breaking the Cycle of Electoral Violence in Nigeria.’ Special Report (263) of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep12181 . Accessed June 09, 2023
37. Osumah, O., & Aghemelo, A. T. (2010). Elections in Nigeria since the end of military rule. Africana, 4(2), 9-39. Accessed, June 12, 2023
38. Osume, C.1988. “A Practical Way forward to Religious Peace in Nigeria.” In The Place of Religion inthe Development of Nigeria, edited by I. A. B. Blowgun, Ade Dopamine, R.A. Akanmidu, and I. O. Oloyede. Ilorin: Department of Religions, 300–318. Accessed June 18, 2023
39. Phillips D, Roberts N, Benjamin SA (1999). Political Communication through Newspaper Advertisement: The Case of the 1999 Presidential Election in Nigeria, NISER Monograph Series No. 10. Accessed June 18, 2023
40. Roberts, F. N., Ijaiya, T. A., & Adewumi, A. P. (2023). The frustration of political choice and voter anguish in recent elections in Nigeria. https://academicjournals.org/ebook/journal1692718207_AJPSIR%20April-June%202023%20Ebook.pdf  African Journal of Political Science and International Relations (AJPSIR) Vol. 17(2), pp. 17-27
41. Uzodike, U. O., & Onapajo, H. (2019). Beyond the Card Reader: Anti-election Rigging Technology and National Security in Nigeria. Insight on Africa, 11(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0975087819845194
42. Sagay, I. (2001). Nigeria: Federalism, the constitution and resource control. Text of speech delivered at the fourth sensitization programme organized by the Ibori Vanguard at the Lagoon Restaurant, Lagos on 19th May. Accessed June 18, 2023
43. Salehyan, I., & Linebarger, C. (2014). Elections and Social Conflict in Africa, 1990–2009. Studies in Comparative International Development, 50(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-014-9163-1. Accessed June 07, 2023
44. Serwat, A. C., Ladd. (2023, February 22). Political Violence and the 2023 Nigerian Election. ACLED. https://acleddata.com/2023/02/22/political-violence-and-the-2023-nigerian-election/ Accessed July 13, 2023
45. Sule, B., Mohd Sani, M. A., & Mat, B. (2017). Political behaviour and voting pattern in Nigeria: A study of 2015 presidential election. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 4(4), 1-13. Accessed June 08, 2023
46. Vanguard News, Thursday, (2023). Violence that marred 2023 elections. 13th July Search for: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/03/violence-that-marred-2023-elections/ https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/03/violence-that-marred-2023-elections/#google_vignette. Accessed July 13, 2023
47. Watch, H. R. (2007). Election or Selection. Human Right Abuse and Threats to Free and Fair Elections in Nigeria‌ ‌