By Ezenwa Nwagwu
Lately, conversations about premature campaigns by politicians and political parties ahead of the 2027 general elections have dominated public discourse.
While some Nigerians worry about how early campaigns might distract from governance, others are pushing for amendments to the Electoral Act that would give the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) more power to sanction politicians engaging in such activities.
For me, Instead of getting stuck on whether early campaigns are happening or not, it is my opinion that we should focus on how to provide a level playing field for all political parties during the actual campaign period. That, in my opinion, is the real conversation we should be having.
Take media access, for example. Rather than being fixated on the issue of early campaigns, we should rather discuss how to improve equal media access during the campaign. If one party is allowed to monopolize airtime while others are sidelined, then we can not claim to have a level playing field. Campaign financing also needs closer monitoring, just as access to public spaces should be guaranteed to all parties without bias.
I am not saying discussions on premature campaigns should be discarded. My point is that while it is important to address the impact of premature campaigns on governance, the real danger is allowing distractions to blind us to the deeper issues that make our elections unfair. That is the conversation we should be having as 2027 draws close.
Again, take the issue of voter education and the fight against fake news. Why are political parties not investing in educating citizens? We are demanding that politicians invest in voter education? Ignorance among voters and misinformation pose far greater threats to our democracy than early campaigning ever could. Falsehoods spread faster than facts, shaping perceptions and sometimes even determining electoral outcomes. Democracy works better when voters have access to credible, verified information about candidates, their policies, and their track records. Without that, elections risk being won on the strength of lies rather than ideas.
Also, our focus should be whether these campaigns are issue-based, promoting accountability, transparency, and meaningful debate or merely staged for optics, personal ambition, and scoring political points. The challenge for me is that, too often, the focus shifts from policies and governance to choreographed gestures that look good in the media but do little to advance democracy.
But let’s pause for a moment. Are premature campaigns really the problem? Or are they just another distraction? First, I do not believe we should create a problem where none exists. The question is, what we call early campaign, is it affecting any of the parties, is it giving undue advantage to any party? If it doesn’t give advantage to any party, why now criminalise it? My point is that all parties are guilty of engaging in this, and we must be cautious not to hand undue advantage to one party over another in the name of regulating campaigns.
In fact, the noise about premature campaigns could easily serve political interests. For example, opposition figures sometimes visit IDP camps, take photos, and share them widely in the media. While presented as humanitarian gestures, these visits are often timed to maximize visibility and shape public perception ahead of elections. The opposition uses such actions to control the narrative, while the ruling party may stay quiet to avoid accusations of early campaigning. On the flip side, the ruling party could hide behind highlighting its achievements, empowerment schemes, new projects, or policy announcements, owhile branding any opposition criticism as premature campaigning.
The truth is, the politicians who perpetuate these inconveniences know exactly what they are doing. Most of these agitations on so-called premature campaigns are nothing more than distractions, deliberate attempts to manipulate narratives, and generate tension. If we’re not careful, we will allow them to dictate the narrative while we, the people, miss the bigger picture.
For those who have followed the conversation closely, the challenge we have been battling with is the challenge of definition. What exactly constitutes “campaign,” and what kind of campaigns are we addressing as premature?
For premature campaigns, the Electoral Act does not contemplate that it is an offense. Section 94 of the Electoral Act 2022 clearly stipulates that campaign activities should only commence 150 days before the election and end 24 hours prior. Can you then punish an aspirant for “consulting” before party primaries, even if it looks like campaigning? Can you criminalize ambition?
If, for instance, someone erects a billboard that says “Eze is coming,” and everyone knows that Eze wants to run for elections, you still can not penalize anyone for saying, “Eze is coming. Because on the flip side of the coin. If Eze waits until 150 days before the polls to make anyl move, it is the same citizens who will accuse him of not being serious, that he claims he wants to run for governor or senator and he’s not doing anything or we have not seen anything. In truth, almost anything done in furtherance of an ambition can be interpreted as campaigning. But can you criminalise aspirations? I think that is what we are contending with. Is it possible to criminalise aspiration?
Beyond that, there are many subtle ways campaigns happen. Even prolonged litigation in court after an election is a form of subtle campaign. Because by the time you are in court, every day you are in court, you are discussing what went wrong and what didn’t go well and even creating victimhood. And in creating victimhood, you are meant to profit from that victimhood. The rhytorics at the end of the day is “I have been short-changed, the legal system is bad. They stole my mandate.” As you say all of that, you are talking to the people saying,”When next I come, please don’t let them steal my mandate. ” How about politicians who attend birthdays, weddings, or burials and use the opportunity to talk about themselves. So, every platform where people advance their aspirations can be defined as premature campaigns. But again, can you criminalize aspiration?
My point is that we are just getting involved in legal niceties that will probably not even further the conversation. I agree with those who say we need to have a multi stakeholders attitudinal response to whatever menace this constitutes. But once we go the legal route, I don’t think we can achieve anything
While I agree that we need some reform to the electoral Act that further empowers INEC to take action, it is my strong opinion that focusing solely on legal enforcement misses the point. The truth is that politicians are experts at exploiting loopholes; they design laws with these loopholes in mind. That is why constitutional and electoral amendments have become a permanent industry in Nigeria. The focus should be broader: building strong democratic practices, safeguarding equal access to resources, making the campaigns issue-based, and protecting citizens from manipulation.
This is why the conversation about premature campaigns often feels misplaced.
Ezenwa Nwagwu, the
Executive Director,
Peers Advocacy and Advancement Center in Africa PAACA, writes from Abuka
