By Okechukwu Nwanguma
Democracy begins long before election day. It begins with the freedom to attend a meeting, support a candidate, criticise a government or decline an invitation to a political rally without fearing punishment. When these ordinary choices become dangerous, electoral competition is already under threat.
Recent developments in Enugu State raise troubling questions about how freely citizens can exercise those choices. A circulating document threatens teachers with disciplinary action for failing to attend Governor Peter Mbah’s second-term endorsement rally. Opposition parties have reported attacks on their gatherings and obstacles to their activities. A controversial crowd-control proposal, subsequently reported withdrawn for wider consultation, has added to public anxiety about the future of peaceful assembly.
These developments require careful scrutiny. They also require a clear statement of principle: public authority must protect political choice.
The document bearing the letterhead of the Igbo-Etiti Local Government Education Authority is particularly disturbing. It describes attendance at an endorsement rally as mandatory, characterises absence as insubordination and demands written explanations within 48 hours. It further threatens to treat failure to respond as an admission of guilt.
Its authenticity and the authority of its signatory must be established. The image alone does not prove that the governor authorised it. ENSUBEB and the Education Secretary should publicly clarify whether the directive was issued, who authorised it and whether any teacher has been threatened or sanctioned.
If authentic, however, the document would represent an unacceptable attempt to turn public employment into an obligation of political loyalty.
Teachers are employed to educate children. Their salaries are public funds earned through service. Attendance at a politician’s endorsement rally cannot simply be converted into a professional duty by describing the gathering as an official event.
A teacher may support the governor, support another candidate or choose to remain politically unaffiliated. None of these choices should determine job security, promotion or treatment at work. An endorsement extracted under threat tells us little about popular support. It tells us much about the pressure placed on those expected to provide it.
The wider implications become clearer when the letter is considered alongside reports of attacks on opposition activities.
Police acknowledged an alleged shooting outside the Nigeria Democratic Congress secretariat in October and announced an investigation. They had also announced investigations into reported attacks on PDP and NDC gatherings in September. The Enugu State Government denied involvement in the October incidents, while the opposition disputed official explanations of what happened at the airport. Responsibility must be established through credible investigation.
Yet uncertainty about sponsorship does not diminish the urgency of protecting political participation. Citizens who see meetings disrupted, vehicles damaged or supporters injured will assess the risks before attending the next gathering. Some will stay home. Others will withdraw financial support, decline organising roles or conceal their political preferences.
This is how civic space contracts. Fear does not need to reach every citizen directly. A few visible incidents, followed by little public evidence of accountability, can discourage many more people from participating.
The government’s denial of involvement must therefore be accompanied by demonstrable protection for all parties. Investigations should produce findings, and evidence of criminal conduct should lead to prosecution. Security agencies must show through their conduct that opposition supporters enjoy the same protection as supporters of the incumbent.
The controversy surrounding the proposed crowd-control legislation belongs within this broader discussion, but accuracy matters. Reports published on 8 October stated that its sponsor, Chima Obieze, had withdrawn the proposal for wider consultation. He maintained that its purpose was to prevent avoidable deaths at large gatherings. It should not be presented as an existing law.
Crowd safety is a legitimate public responsibility. Emergency exits, medical arrangements and sensible traffic planning can save lives. Any renewed proposal should be examined on its actual provisions, through an open process involving civil society, political parties, event organisers and affected communities.
The critical question is whether regulation helps people assemble safely or gives officials excessive discretion over whether they may assemble at all.
Requirements must be clear, proportionate and affordable. Decisions must be open to prompt review. Enforcement must apply equally to government events, ruling-party rallies and opposition gatherings. A public-safety framework loses credibility when it becomes easier for those in power to organise than for those seeking to challenge them.
The cumulative effect of administrative pressure, violence and restrictive regulation deserves particular attention. These mechanisms can reinforce one another even where central coordination has not been established.
An employee fears punishment for declining an incumbent’s rally. An opposition supporter fears injury at a meeting. An organiser fears that an event will be obstructed. A businessperson fears consequences for donating to an alternative candidate. Each may decide that silence is the safest course.
The resulting political environment can look peaceful while excluding meaningful participation. The absence of public disagreement may reflect intimidation rather than consent.
That is why the quality of an election cannot be judged only by what happens at polling units. Before voters cast their ballots, candidates must have a fair opportunity to organise, explain their programmes and reach communities. Citizens must be able to hear alternatives and form opinions without coercion.
A ballot paper may contain several names while the conditions preceding the vote have made competition deeply unequal. An orderly election day cannot by itself repair months of suppressed organising or frightened participation.
Governor Mbah has an opportunity and a responsibility to address these concerns directly. He should make clear that no public employee will be punished for declining political endorsement activities. The education authorities should authenticate or disown the circulating query and protect affected teachers against retaliation. Any misuse of official authority should attract appropriate accountability.
Police should provide transparent updates on investigations into attacks on political gatherings and ensure impartial protection for lawful activities. Opposition parties must also conduct themselves peacefully and comply with legitimate safety requirements. Accountability should follow evidence, irrespective of political affiliation.
Civil society and the media should continue documenting incidents carefully, distinguishing verified facts from allegations and pressing institutions for answers. Precision strengthens advocacy. It prevents legitimate demands for accountability from being dismissed as partisan accusations.
The democratic test for Enugu is whether a citizen can openly support an alternative government, organise peacefully and return home safely; whether a teacher can decline an endorsement rally and resume work without fear; and whether public institutions can serve everyone fairly during a competitive election.
Those freedoms must be secured now, while political choices are being formed. By election day, the damage caused by their denial may already have been done.
Okechukwu Nwanguma is the Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (#RULAAC).
