A video circulating widely on social media in late August 2026 captures the Chairman of Kuje Area Council in the Federal Capital Territory, Samuel Danjuma Shekwolo, declaring in unmistakable terms that residents who do not support the All Progressives Congress must leave the council area. “I have said in my area council that it’s either you are for the APC or you leave the area council. I am not arguing about it at all,” he stated, linking the ultimatum to development projects under President Bola Tinubu and FCT Minister Nyesom Wike, and vowing resistance to any opposition ahead of the 2027 elections. Reports in Daily Trust, Punch, Sahara Reporters, and statements by Amnesty International Nigeria confirm the remarks and the ensuing public outrage.
This is not robust political mobilisation. It is a public official, using the platform of office, issuing a territorial ultimatum conditioned on political loyalty. Such a declaration is unlawful, unconstitutional, and profoundly dangerous to Nigeria’s fragile democracy.
Constitutional Rights Directly Violated:
Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees fundamental rights that no elected official may suspend by decree.
Section 40 provides: “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests…” The right to belong to an opposition party, or to none, is explicit. Conditioning continued residence in Kuje on support for the APC is a direct negation of this freedom of association and political participation.
Section 41(1) is equally clear: “Every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof…” No citizen may be expelled from any part of the Federation, or threatened with expulsion, on account of political preference. The chairman’s statement purports to convert public space into a partisan enclave—an act the Constitution forbids.
Section 39 of constitution protects freedom of expression, including the holding and expression of political opinions. Compelling silence or conformity under threat of displacement chills that right. These rights are not absolute, but any restriction must be by law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society (Section 45). No such law authorises a local council chairman to impose political loyalty tests as a condition of residence.
The statement also offends the foundational principles in Section 14: sovereignty belongs to the people, and the participation of the people in their government is assured. Democracy cannot function where office-holders treat political difference as grounds for expulsion.
Electoral Act 2022 and Criminal Law Breaches:
The Electoral Act 2022 criminalises precisely this form of coercion. Section 128 provides that a person who directly or indirectly makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or threatens injury, damage, harm or loss in order to induce or compel a person to vote or refrain from voting, commits an offence punishable by a fine of ₦1,000,000 or imprisonment for three years. The threat to force residents out of their homes and communities if they do not support the APC falls squarely within this prohibition.
Section 93 similarly prohibits threats of force or violence during political campaigns to compel support or non-support for a party or candidate. Even if the remarks are characterised as pre-campaign rhetoric, they create a climate of intimidation that the Act is designed to prevent. Related provisions on undue influence (Section 127) and disorderly conduct reinforce the legislative intent that elections must be free of coercion.
Under the Criminal Code Act (applicable in the FCT), Section 366 criminalises compelling action by intimidation: any person who, with intent to prevent or hinder another from doing what he is lawfully entitled to do, or to compel him to do what he is entitled to abstain from doing, threatens injury to person, reputation or property, is guilty of an offence. Threatening residents with displacement for exercising their political rights meets this definition. Amnesty International correctly characterised the remarks as “a call to violence and direct attack on freedom of association and liberty of persons.”
The Danger of Such Statements
Language of this kind from an elected official is not mere hyperbole. It signals to supporters that opposition is illegitimate and that the machinery of local government may be deployed against dissenters. In a country with a history of electoral violence, such rhetoric lowers the threshold for thuggery, harassment of opposition agents, and disruption of campaigns. It erodes public trust in the neutrality of local institutions and invites reciprocal intolerance. When a council chairman asserts proprietary control over residency rights, he undermines the very idea of a shared public space governed by law rather than partisan loyalty.
The subsequent clarification by the chairman’s aides—that the remarks were “misunderstood” and that the administration serves all residents—does not erase the original statement or its chilling effect. Words spoken with authority in a charged political atmosphere cannot be casually walked back without accountability.
Remedies and Remedial Action
Immediate steps are required.
First, the Nigeria Police Force and the Department of State Services must open a formal investigation into the video and related statements for possible offences under the Electoral Act and the Criminal Code. INEC should examine whether the remarks constitute electoral offences warranting sanction.
Secondly, affected residents or civil-society organisations may approach the Federal High Court under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules for declarations that the statement violates Sections 39, 40 and 41, together with orders restraining any attempt to implement or encourage expulsion, harassment or discrimination on political grounds, and damages where harm is proved.
Thirdly, the FCT Administration and the APC hierarchy should publicly repudiate the remarks, demand a clear apology from the chairman, and institute internal disciplinary measures. Silence or equivocation signals institutional tolerance.
Fourthly, civil-society monitors, the National Human Rights Commission and international observers should document any subsequent incidents of intimidation in Kuje so that a pattern, if it emerges, can be addressed before the 2027 cycle intensifies.
Finally Nigeria’s democracy is imperfect, but its constitutional architecture is clear: no public officer owns the territory he administers, and no citizen’s right to live, associate and vote freely is contingent on loyalty to the party in power. Samuel Danjuma Shekwolo’s statement crossed that line. The law must answer, not with partisan score-settling, but with the steady application of the Constitution and the Electoral Act. Anything less invites the slow normalisation of political exclusion—and that is a danger Nigeria cannot afford.
By
Samuel ihensekhien junior
(He is an international legal
Scholar, opinion writer and
Researcher and can be reached
By email: sammyihens@gmail.com)