Why Atiku stayed away from Peace Accord signing — ADC

Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), did not attend the recent signing of the National Peace Accord, a move his party has attributed to dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the peace process in preventing electoral violence. The ADC's National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, stated during an interview on Channels Television’s Sunrise Daily that the decision was a deliberate act of protest against what the party views as the lack of meaningful enforcement mechanisms within the peace agreement framework. The ADC has long participated in the annual signing of the National Peace Accord, which aims to foster peaceful conduct among political actors ahead of elections. However, Abdullahi emphasized that despite repeated participation, incidents of violence and harassment have continued to occur, particularly during recent election periods. He pointed to the Osun State governorship election as a specific example, where political tensions escalated into physical confrontations. According to Abdullahi, the ADC’s absence from the ceremony was meant to signal frustration with the National Peace Committee, which oversees the implementation of the accord. The party argues that the committee has not taken adequate steps to hold political figures accountable for inciting violence or making inflammatory remarks. Abdullahi noted that the committee has not publicly addressed such instances, even when high-profile individuals are involved. One instance highlighted by the ADC involves Senator Francis Fadahunsi, whose comments during the Osun election period were alleged to have encouraged violent behavior. Abdullahi criticized the Peace Committee for failing to respond to these remarks, stating that the lack of public condemnation undermined the purpose of the peace process. He suggested that the committee must take a stronger stance in addressing such rhetoric, regardless of the speaker’s status. In addition to criticizing the handling of Fadahunsi’s comments, Abdullahi also referenced a statement attributed to President Bola Tinubu during the same period. The president reportedly remarked that “all is fair in politics,” a sentiment the ADC claims contributed to the escalation of violence in Osun. Abdullahi argued that the Peace Committee should have intervened to caution the president against making such statements, emphasizing that the committee must not shy away from holding even the highest-ranking officials accountable. Despite the ADC’s criticism, the party reaffirmed its commitment to the goal of ensuring peaceful elections. Abdullahi clarified that the party’s objection lies not with the intent behind the peace process but with its execution. He stressed the need for the Peace Committee to implement concrete measures to enforce the commitments made by political actors. Without such enforcement, he argued, the peace accords remain symbolic rather than functional. The ADC’s stance reflects broader concerns about the efficacy of existing mechanisms aimed at curbing electoral violence. While the National Peace Accord has been a recurring feature of pre-election preparations, critics argue that it lacks teeth. The ADC’s decision to boycott the latest signing underscores its demand for tangible reforms to the process, including stricter accountability measures and proactive intervention by the Peace Committee. The ADC’s actions have drawn attention to the ongoing challenges in maintaining electoral integrity in Nigeria. As the country prepares for upcoming elections, the effectiveness of the peace process will likely come under further scrutiny. The ADC’s call for stronger enforcement of the peace accord highlights the need for a more robust mechanism to prevent the recurrence of electoral violence.