A video clip has placed Senator Francis Fadahunsi at the centre of a political firestorm. In it, he appears to use language that many have interpreted as a call to violence against members of the Accord Party. The senator insists the footage was edited and that his words were metaphorical, but the controversy has already taken hold. His political opponents have demanded his arrest, while the National Human Rights Commission has called for his suspension, arrest and investigation.
But in the rough-and-tumble of Nigerian politics, context matters. This controversy is about more than an incautious word. It also raises questions about the political environment in which the remarks were made and the allegations of violence that Fadahunsi says prompted them.
It is important to state clearly that Senator Fadahunsi’s remarks do not reflect the position of the All Progressives Congress or its governorship candidate in Osun State. The APC has never subscribed to do-or-die politics. Its candidate is not an advocate of violence or political thuggery. The party believes in competitive elections conducted within the boundaries of law and civility. That distinction matters because the temptation in partisan politics is to treat the words of one member as the doctrine of the entire party. That is not the case here.
Let us first deal with the offending word.
In the language of Nigerian political campaigning, “kill” can sometimes be used as visceral hyperbole for “overwhelm”, “defeat” or “send packing”. It is hardly elegant, but it is not invariably literal. In Yoruba political speech especially, vivid language is often used to describe electoral domination.
The danger is that such language can be heard differently when the political atmosphere is already tense.
Fadahunsi’s defence is that his words were taken out of context and that he was speaking metaphorically about defeating his opponents at the polls. That explanation deserves to be heard and tested against the full recording. But even if his intention was entirely political, the choice of words was reckless in an environment where allegations of violence are already circulating.
That is the uncomfortable middle ground in this controversy.
We should neither assume that the senator intended physical violence simply because a word was used, nor pretend that the word was harmless because it may have been metaphorical.
The more important question is what prompted the outburst.
Fadahunsi has alleged that as many as 30 APC members were killed in Osun within a month, while other reports have put his broader claim at more than 40 people killed in Osun East over the past year. These are serious allegations, not established facts, and they require verification.
But they should not be dismissed because they come from a politician currently facing scrutiny.
If even a fraction of these allegations is substantiated, Osun has a serious security problem that deserves the attention of the police and other relevant authorities. The families of anyone killed in political violence deserve investigation and justice, irrespective of party affiliation.
This is where the controversy risks becoming distorted. The attention devoted to Fadahunsi’s words should not prevent the authorities from examining the allegations of violence that he says formed their backdrop.
The two issues can be addressed at the same time.
The senator’s language can be investigated, while the alleged killings can also be investigated. One does not cancel out the other.
Indeed, this is precisely where responsible governance matters. When security agencies fail to provide timely and credible information about incidents of violence, suspicion grows and political narratives quickly fill the vacuum. Viral videos then become evidence, arguments become accusations and every incident is interpreted through partisan lenses.
Fadahunsi’s outburst is therefore not necessarily the cause of the tension in Osun. It may also be a symptom of a political environment in which fear and recrimination have become increasingly prominent.
That does not excuse his language.
Public office carries a responsibility to choose words carefully, particularly during an election. A politician who knows that his supporters are agitated should be cooling tempers rather than giving opponents reason to believe that violence has been sanctioned. The APC and its candidate have consistently demonstrated that they understand this responsibility. They reject the language of violence and have called for peaceful engagement.
Fadahunsi must therefore face the consequences of his words. The police investigation should run its course, and if it establishes that he genuinely incited violence, the law should take its course.
But fairness requires the authorities to follow the same principle in examining the allegations he has raised.
If people have been killed, their families deserve more than a political argument over a viral video. They deserve to know what happened and who was responsible.
This is also where Fadahunsi himself has an opportunity to help de-escalate the situation.
He should make it unequivocally clear that whatever metaphor he intended, he does not support physical violence against Accord members or anybody else. He should urge his supporters to settle the contest at the ballot box and cooperate fully with the authorities investigating both his remarks and the incidents he has cited.
That would be more than damage control.
It would be responsible leadership.
The same standard should apply across the political divide. Nobody should be allowed to use the language of violence as political mobilisation, just as nobody should be allowed to use allegations of violence selectively for partisan advantage. For the APC and its candidate, the path is clear. The party must continue to demonstrate through its conduct and messaging that it rejects violence and upholds the principles of democratic contestation.
Osun does not need competing narratives of victimhood. It needs credible facts.
The coming election is too important for the state to become trapped in a cycle in which every inflammatory statement produces another accusation, every accusation produces another counter-accusation and the underlying violence remains insufficiently investigated.
Fadahunsi may have chosen the wrong words. He should own that responsibility. But the controversy should not end there.
The real test is whether Osun’s political leaders and institutions can look beyond the viral clip and address the conditions that made such language possible in the first place.
An election should settle political disagreements with votes. It should not leave citizens wondering whether the people seeking their mandate are prepared to protect them from the consequences of their own rhetoric.
That is the responsibility Fadahunsi now carries.
And it is a responsibility that extends far beyond him.
● Dr Adegbite contributed this piece from Abuja.
(The Whistler)
