Fadahunsi’s comment

THERE are moments in the life of a nation when a single utterance becomes more than careless talk, but a mirror held to the face of society, revealing how desperate and dangerous the political class can be in its pursuit of power. The reported comment by Senator Francis Fadahunsi, representing the Osun East Senatorial District, calling on supporters to “kill” members of the Accord Party, invalidates the politician as a worthy statesman and marks him as unfit for the position of Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. His unguarded statement falls beneath the dignity of exalted public office. The Osun State Police Command was right to have summoned the senator for questioning in respect of the statement, which was reportedly made during an All Progressives Congress (APC) election campaign in Ilesa. The police invitation followed the circulation of a video in which the senator, speaking in Yoruba, was heard urging supporters to kill Accord Party members. The outrage that followed was understandable. As Nigeria’s democracy is already bruised by electoral violence, such language is not merely reckless; it is potentially incendiary.

The senator’s subsequent explanations, supposedly meant for damage control, have unfortunately worsened the matter. According to Fadahunsi and his supporters, the senator meant that APC supporters should “kill the Accord Party in the governorship election with votes, not violence”. They argued that the statement was metaphorical and intended to urge voters to overwhelmingly reject the party at the ballot box. Subsequently, the senator reportedly claimed that the video was generated by artificial intelligence. These explanations cannot comfortably occupy the same moral and logical space. If the statement was metaphorical, then there is no need to claim that the video itself is fabricated. A public office-holder must be held to the clarity of his own words. Given the atmosphere that preceded the Osun governorship election, Fadahunsi’s words are inflammatory and dehumanising.

Prior to Fadahunsi’s statement, the political temperature in Osun State had been dangerously high, and there had already been incidents of violence and inflammatory rhetoric. Against such a background, words uttered from a political platform are not just harmless sounds carried away by the wind. They can become commands in the ears of the impressionable, invitations to thuggery in the hands of the violent, and justification for bloodshed in the minds of those seeking an excuse. In The Republic, Plato  asked: “Who will guard the guardians?” The question is pertinent to Nigeria’s democracy. Unchecked authority is dangerous. Who will restrain those entrusted with public authority when they themselves deploy languages capable of unsettling the peace? A lawmaker, by virtue of his office, has a greater obligation to weigh his words. He should know that political speech has consequences, particularly in a country where elections have too often been accompanied by intimidation, arson, assault and, tragically, death. Dismissing the episode as another skirmish in the perennial contest between political parties would be a grave mistake. This is not about the APC versus Accord Party. It is about the moral boundaries of political competition. Nigerian politicians across party lines have, for decades, made provocative statements, threatened opponents, and spoken as though victory at the polls were a matter of life and death. Such rhetoric must no longer be normalised.

READ ALSO: ‘Kill Accord’ remark: Why we invited Senator Fadahunsi — Police

There is a dangerous philosophy embedded in the phrase, “all is fair in politics”. It is a philosophy that strips politics of morality and turns public office into a prize for which every weapon is permissible. But really, not all is fair in politics. Politics is not a war without rules. An election is not a battlefield on which the humanity of opponents may be suspended. The ballot is supposed to replace the bullet; persuasion is supposed to replace coercion; and debate is supposed to replace bloodshed. If politics is thus understood as a moral vocation — the stewardship of the commonwealth — then calling for the killing of fellow citizens becomes unthinkable. Those who belong to Accord Party have wives, husbands, children, parents, and friends, just as APC supporters do. The killing of a political opponent does not kill an ideology; it destroys human lives and leaves families to bear the wound. William Shakespeare, in Measure for Measure, wrote: “O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.” Nigeria’s political culture should not be characterised by abuse of power, but by restraint, responsibility, and respect for human life. Political disagreement must never become a licence for dehumanisation.

Worrisomely, Nigeria may now be confronting a menace, what may aptly be described as linguistic banditry. The Nigerian political atmosphere is replete with willful manipulation of language to normalise conduct that ought to provoke moral outrage. In national discourse, political power seekers create attitudinal structures for violence and civil disturbance with careless, repressive, inciting, insensitive, divisive, virulent, and uncivil statements — linguistic banditry that is worsening insecurity in Nigeria. The political class must put an end to the reckless use of language. George Orwell’s celebrated essay, Politics and the English Language, argued that political language is often designed “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable”. This points to the fact that language is never morally neutral; it either builds civilisation or corrodes it.

We are therefore disappointed that a serving senator could make such a statement, whether intended literally or metaphorically. A parliamentarian is not an ordinary partisan at a beer parlour. His words carry the weight of office. They can reassure a frightened population or embolden those who believe violence is an acceptable instrument of political struggle. The police must consequently treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. The invitation of the senator should not be reduced to a ritual exercise or a public-relations response to social-media outrage. The law must be allowed to take its course. If the statement violated any provision of the law, appropriate consequences should follow, irrespective of the senator’s party, influence, or political standing.

Nigeria cannot continue to preach peaceful elections while tolerating language that prepares the ground for violence. Democracy survives not merely because elections are held, but because citizens believe they can disagree without being hunted, assaulted, or killed. George Orwell posits in Politics and the English Language: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” This highlights the danger of politicians using language to make violence politically acceptable. Nigerian leaders must avoid falling into that pit. The correct message therefore must be unmistakable: political rivalry is legitimate; political violence is not. Passion is permitted; incitement is not. Victory is desirable; human life is inviolable. Nigerians must reject the cynical proposition that everything is permissible in the pursuit of political power.