Enugu must remain open to political opposition, by Okechukwu Nwanguma – THISAGE

A citizen should not have to calculate the risk of being shot, attacked or intimidated before attending a political meeting. A political party should be able to reserve a venue, gather its supporters and present its ideas without fear of interference. These are the fundamental conditions of democratic government.

Recent developments in Enugu State raise serious concerns about the adequate protection of such conditions.

Dr Sam Amadi’s criticism of Governor Peter Mbah for allegedly cracking down on the opposition deserves consideration in this broader context. The issue goes beyond a disagreement between a governor and a public commentator. It is about the freedom of Enugu residents to organize, express political preferences and participate in public affairs.

In September, police acknowledged reports of attacks on separate opposition rallies in Nkanu West Local Government Area. An NDC meeting was reportedly hit by gunfire, leaving people injured, while canopies and chairs prepared for a PDP meeting were destroyed. The police commissioner ordered the investigations. These incidents give concerns about political intimidation a foundation that goes beyond partisan accusations.

October brought another disturbing report. A police statement acknowledged an alleged shooting outside the NDC secretariat, one person injured and damage to vehicles. Police also gave an account of a separate clash involving party supporters at the airport. Such accounts must be investigated fairly, even where they differ from opposition testimony.

There is now controversy over the withdrawal of a private venue booked for a town hall involving Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso. Opposition representatives denounced pressure from the government. Governor Mbah specifically denied ordering the withdrawal. Your denial must be recorded fairly and the allegation must be tested against evidence provided by venue management, booking records and relevant communications.

I am reluctant to find the governor guilty of directing these incidents without sufficient evidence. It would be equally irresponsible to dismiss their cumulative implications simply because responsibility remains controversial.

Repeated attacks and interruptions can suppress participation through fear. A supporter who witnesses violence can avoid the next encounter. A venue owner may decline future bookings. A community organizer may decide that political involvement is too dangerous. Families can discourage their members from publicly identifying with an opposition party.

Democracy suffers when citizens begin to hide their political choices for their own security.

The controversy surrounding proposed crowd control legislation is part of this discussion, but precision is essential. The proposal was a private member’s bill sponsored by Chima Obieze. The reports described approval requirements for gatherings of more than 100 people and substantial fines. Its sponsor defended its public safety purpose and subsequently announced its withdrawal for wider consultation. This was not a government ban on gatherings.

The retreat was appreciated. Preventing stampedes and ensuring emergency preparedness are legitimate goals. However, any future proposal must explain why particular restrictions are needed and ensure that officials cannot use security rules to decide which political meetings can take place.

A system of government permissions with broad discretion can transform a constitutional freedom into a favor granted by those in power. The danger becomes more acute where political rallies already face violence and accusations of interference.

Nigeria’s constitutional protections for expression, peaceful assembly and association are the starting point. Public safety restrictions must meet democratic standards of justification. The National Human Rights Commission has highlighted the importance of these freedoms for collective participation.

Governor Mbah therefore has the opportunity – and responsibility – to demonstrate that opposition politics is safe in Enugu.

It should state publicly that residents can support any legitimate political party without intimidation or adverse treatment from state institutions. His administration should cooperate fully with investigations into alleged interference and make clear that no official or supporter is protected from liability.

The police also need to provide credible updates. The arrests reported following the September attack are significant and should be acknowledged. But arrests must lead to evidence-based decisions, fair prosecutions 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 behave peacefully. This obligation applies equally to all parties.

Current evidence supports serious concern about an intimidating environment for opposition participation. The purpose of raising the alarm is to prevent a dangerous pattern from taking root and to ensure accountability for what has already happened.

Enugu’s democratic health will be measured in part by how freely those who oppose its government can speak, organize and assemble.

A governor confident in his results should welcome this test.

Okechukwu Nwanguma is the Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Center (RULAAC).

Post views:
224