Nigeria has witnessed a staggering 870 deaths linked to electoral violence since the National Peace Committee initiated its peace accord in 2015, raising serious concerns about the effectiveness of these agreements. As the nation gears up for the 2027 general elections, the persistence of violence in political contests has led many to question whether these accords are merely symbolic or if they can genuinely mitigate electoral unrest.

The National Peace Committee, led by former Head of State Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar and co-chaired by the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Matthew Kukah, first introduced the peace accord ahead of the 2015 elections. This initiative aimed to foster a peaceful electoral environment, urging candidates to accept election outcomes and refrain from actions that could undermine democracy. However, subsequent elections have seen a continuation of violence, with a 2016 Council on Foreign Relations report documenting 106 deaths during the 2015 elections alone. The situation deteriorated in 2019, where the Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room estimated 626 fatalities in the lead-up to the elections.

In the recent 2023 elections, despite candidates signing peace agreements, 109 deaths were reported. The trend continued during the recent Osun State governorship election, resulting in at least 29 fatalities. These figures have prompted critical discussions about whether the peace accords have evolved into effective mechanisms for preventing violence and holding violators accountable.

In response to these ongoing challenges, the National Peace Committee convened a new peace accord signing event recently, attended by various political figures, including President Bola Tinubu's representative, George Akume, and candidates from several parties. Notably absent was Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), who cited the need for the committee to enforce consequences for breaches of the agreement.

ADC's National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, emphasized that the peace accord should not be a mere ceremonial act but should include mechanisms to hold violators accountable. This sentiment was echoed by Amnesty International's Country Director, Isa Sanusi, who criticized the lack of effective sanctions in previous agreements, stating that the peace accord, while commendable in theory, has failed to prevent electoral violence in practice.

The Social Democratic Party (SDP) also called for stricter enforcement of electoral laws, arguing that signing an agreement without repercussions for violations does little to change political behavior. SDP’s National Publicity Secretary, Rufus Aiyenigba, remarked that the peace accord has become a seasonal political ritual lacking real impact.

Conversely, security expert Kabir Adamu defended the peace accords, suggesting that the focus should not solely be on whether they prevent violence but rather on how they can enhance monitoring of political conduct. He noted that the 2026 accord introduced legal annotations linking its provisions to the Constitution and Electoral Act, potentially offering defined legal consequences for violations, including those related to misinformation and incitement.

Adamu highlighted the establishment of the Kukah Centre’s Election Security Information Hub, which tracks electoral offences and security incidents, as a significant advancement in monitoring electoral conduct. He argued that the true effectiveness of the latest accord will depend on the deployment of these new mechanisms for accountability and verification.

As Nigeria approaches the critical 2027 elections, the effectiveness of the peace accord will be tested once again. The central question remains whether political actors will treat this latest agreement as a genuine commitment to peaceful elections or merely another symbolic gesture in a long history of electoral violence.