By Iroyin Yoruba Television
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria has called on the Department of State Services to investigate the Edo State Chairman of the All Progressives Congress, Jarrett Tenebe, over remarks in which he allegedly referred to “AK-47 fire” while discussing the party's mobilisation plans for the 2027 presidential election.
HURIWA's demand, made public on October 4, 2026, followed a video circulating from an APC political gathering in Benin City in which Tenebe was heard making references to firearms while speaking about people he said might attempt to frustrate the party's objective of securing 2.5 million votes for President Bola Tinubu in Edo State.
The organisation said the context and intention of the remarks should be established by the appropriate security authorities rather than left to competing political interpretations.
The controversy comes as political parties across Nigeria intensify preparations for the 2027 general elections, with mobilisation, coalition-building and grassroots campaigns becoming increasingly prominent.
According to reports on the gathering, Tenebe was addressing APC supporters after the state's recent local government elections when he discussed the party's target for the 2027 presidential contest.
He reportedly referred to the ambition of delivering 2.5 million votes from Edo State to President Tinubu.
While discussing people who might attempt to obstruct that objective, he used language referring to “Holy Ghost fire”, a “General Purpose Machine Gun” and “AK-47 fire”.
The remarks have generated concern among opposition figures and rights advocates because references to firearms during political mobilisation can be interpreted as threatening, particularly in an environment where Nigerian elections have historically been affected by violence and intimidation.
HURIWA said Tenebe should explain the context in which the words were used and whether they were intended literally or figuratively.
The organisation also asked the DSS to determine whether the remarks contravened any provision of Nigerian law.
The request does not amount to a finding that Tenebe committed a criminal offence.
Rather, HURIWA is asking a security agency to examine the statement and determine its meaning, context and possible implications.
That distinction is important because political speeches can contain metaphors, religious expressions and rhetorical language that are not necessarily intended as literal threats.
At the same time, statements involving firearms can carry serious implications during an election period, especially where they are directed at people who might oppose a party's electoral objectives.
The question for investigators would therefore be whether the language constituted a genuine threat, political rhetoric or another form of expression, and whether the surrounding circumstances provide evidence of an intention to intimidate or incite violence.
The issue has attracted attention because Edo State is already becoming an important arena for political competition ahead of 2027.
The APC controls the state government under Governor Monday Okpebholo, while opposition parties are seeking to strengthen their structures and challenge the ruling party's influence.
Political parties are therefore likely to increase their activities across the state's local government areas and wards as the election approaches.
The APC's reported target of 2.5 million presidential votes has also become a subject of political debate.
The figure is ambitious and would require substantial voter mobilisation.
How realistic the target is will ultimately depend on voter turnout, the number of registered voters, electoral competition and the preferences of voters on election day.
Political parties routinely set ambitious targets during campaigns as a way of motivating their supporters.
But achieving such targets requires more than party declarations.
It requires sustained grassroots organisation and, ultimately, voters choosing the party's candidate.
Tenebe's comments have become controversial because of the way he described people who might oppose or obstruct the party's objective.
According to reports, his reference to “AK-47 fire” followed a statement about those who might stand in the way of delivering the promised votes.
The wording has been interpreted by critics as a threat against political opponents.
HURIWA wants the authorities to establish whether that interpretation is justified.
The organisation said political mobilisation should not involve language suggesting that firearms could be used against citizens or political opponents.
It also urged political leaders across the country to exercise caution in their public statements as the 2027 elections draw closer.
The call reflects wider concerns about the relationship between political rhetoric and electoral violence.
Nigeria has experienced politically motivated violence during previous election cycles, including attacks on campaign events, clashes between supporters and intimidation of voters.
Election-related violence can discourage citizens from participating and can undermine confidence in the electoral process.
For this reason, political parties and candidates are expected to encourage peaceful participation rather than language that could increase tension.
The concern becomes greater when politicians refer to weapons.
Even where a politician intends the language as a joke, metaphor or religious expression, opponents may interpret it differently, while supporters may regard it as encouragement.
That is why political communication requires particular care during an election period.
The 2027 elections are still months away, but political activity has already increased significantly.
Parties are holding meetings, announcing candidates, receiving defectors and mobilising supporters.
As the campaign environment becomes more competitive, inflammatory statements can attract significant public attention.
Social media further increases the potential impact.
A short section of a speech can be recorded and distributed widely without the full context of the event.
This can intensify political disputes and make clarification more difficult.
In Tenebe's case, the controversy has been driven largely by video footage of the remarks.
The video allows members of the public to hear the words directly, but it does not necessarily provide every element of the surrounding conversation.
Investigators would therefore need to consider the complete recording and the circumstances under which the statement was made.
HURIWA specifically called for the DSS to invite Tenebe and establish the meaning and intention behind the remarks.
The organisation also wants the authorities to determine whether the statement violated any law.
A proper investigation would need to distinguish between an offence established by law and a statement that is merely offensive or politically controversial.
That distinction is essential in a democratic society.
Political speech can be provocative without necessarily being criminal.
However, where speech crosses into a genuine threat or incitement to violence, authorities have a responsibility to respond in accordance with the law.
The challenge is determining where that line lies.
The controversy also raises questions about the responsibilities of political parties.
The APC, as the ruling party at the federal level and governing party in Edo State, has a particular responsibility to ensure that its officials and supporters conduct political activities peacefully.
Opposition parties have the same responsibility.
No political organisation benefits from an environment in which voters fear violence.
The objective of an election is to allow citizens to choose their representatives freely.
Political parties should therefore compete over policies, candidates, records and ideas.
The use of threatening language can shift attention away from those issues.
In Edo State, the APC is likely to focus on its record in government and its ability to deliver votes for President Tinubu.
Opposition parties will seek to highlight what they consider weaknesses in the administration and persuade voters to support alternative candidates.
That competition is normal in a democracy.
What becomes problematic is when political competition involves intimidation or threats.
The current controversy is therefore being watched not only as a dispute involving one APC official but also as part of the wider conversation about the conduct of the 2027 elections.
HURIWA's intervention comes at a time when other political actors are also raising concerns about alleged intimidation and political violence.
The African Democratic Congress Presidential Campaign Council separately called for an investigation into Tenebe's remarks and urged security and electoral authorities to examine the matter.
The ADC also linked the controversy to a reported attack on some of its members and destruction of vehicles belonging to supporters in Gegu, Koton Karfi Local Government Area of Kogi State.
The alleged Kogi incident is separate from the Edo statement and should not be treated as evidence that the two events are directly connected.
However, the ADC has presented both developments as reasons for increased vigilance ahead of the 2027 elections.
The political significance of the dispute is therefore expanding.
What began as a controversial statement at an Edo APC gathering has developed into a national conversation involving opposition parties, rights organisations and calls for security agencies to intervene.
The APC leadership may also face pressure to clarify whether Tenebe's language represents the party's position.
Political parties typically seek to distance themselves from statements that could damage their public image or create security concerns.
Whether the party formally responds will be closely watched.
The role of security agencies is equally important.
The DSS has responsibilities relating to national security and intelligence, while the police have primary responsibility for maintaining public order and investigating many forms of criminal conduct.
INEC, meanwhile, has responsibility for administering elections and ensuring that the electoral process complies with the law.
Calls for these institutions to examine political rhetoric underline the importance of preventing problems before the election itself.
Preventive action does not necessarily mean arrest.
Authorities can investigate statements, engage political parties, issue warnings or take other lawful measures where appropriate.
The objective should be to prevent rhetoric from developing into actual violence.
Political leaders also have an opportunity to lower tensions by clarifying statements that have been interpreted as threatening.
If Tenebe intended the reference to firearms metaphorically, a clear explanation could help reduce uncertainty.
If authorities determine that the statement crossed a legal boundary, the appropriate legal process should follow.
Either way, evidence should guide the outcome.
The issue also highlights the importance of political leaders understanding the potential impact of their words.
A party chairman speaking to supporters carries considerable influence.
Supporters may interpret statements from party leaders as guidance about how they should respond to political opponents.
That is why responsible leadership requires avoiding language that can be interpreted as an instruction to use violence.
Elections should be decided by ballots rather than weapons.
The Permanent Voter Card is the legitimate instrument through which eligible Nigerians participate in elections.
Political parties can persuade citizens to vote for them, but they cannot lawfully compel citizens to support a particular candidate.
The credibility of the 2027 election will depend in part on whether voters can participate without fear.
This requires security agencies to protect polling locations, political gatherings and communities.
It also requires political parties to restrain their supporters.
The Tenebe controversy therefore offers an opportunity for broader discussion about electoral responsibility.
Parties can set ambitious vote targets without threatening those who disagree with them.
Candidates can criticise opponents without encouraging violence.
Supporters can campaign vigorously while respecting the rights of other citizens.
These principles will become increasingly important as the campaign intensifies.
For Edo State, the stakes are particularly significant.
The state has a competitive political environment and a history of strong party mobilisation.
The 2027 presidential election will also coincide with contests for other offices, meaning political competition will occur at multiple levels.
Local political disputes can therefore intersect with national campaigns.
Party leaders must manage these relationships carefully.
The APC's target of 2.5 million votes for Tinubu will require extensive organisation if the party intends to achieve it.
Opposition parties will attempt to prevent that target from being realised by mobilising voters around alternative candidates.
That is normal political competition.
The security concern arises only if intimidation or violence becomes part of the process.
HURIWA's call for an investigation is therefore centred on determining whether the language used by the Edo APC chairman represents such a risk.
The organisation has asked the DSS to establish the context and intention rather than simply assuming guilt.
That approach is consistent with the principle that allegations should be investigated before conclusions are reached.
Tenebe should have an opportunity to explain his remarks.
The APC should also have an opportunity to clarify its position.
If the party rejects violent political rhetoric, a clear public statement could help reassure voters.
Opposition parties, meanwhile, should avoid using the controversy as justification for retaliatory rhetoric.
The objective should be to ensure that political disagreements remain peaceful.
The incident also reinforces the importance of monitoring political speeches during the election season.
Media organisations, civil society groups and citizens can document statements and raise concerns when necessary.
However, reports should distinguish between verified statements and interpretations.
The public should also be cautious about edited videos that may remove relevant context.
A complete recording is preferable when assessing controversial remarks.
In this case, multiple reports have independently described the “AK-47 fire” reference and the circumstances in which Tenebe made it.
The next question is what, if anything, authorities will do.
HURIWA wants the DSS to invite Tenebe for questioning.
The ADC has similarly called on the police, DSS and INEC to investigate.
Whether those agencies open formal investigations will determine the next stage of the controversy.
The political significance, however, is already clear.
Nigeria's 2027 election campaign is moving into a more active phase, and political leaders are increasingly using public rallies and mobilisation events to build support.
The language used at those events will be closely scrutinised.
Statements that could be interpreted as threats are likely to generate stronger reactions as parties compete for public attention.
The Edo APC chairman's remarks therefore provide another example of the growing tension surrounding the political contest.
For voters, the central issue should remain their right to participate freely and choose candidates without intimidation.
For political parties, the challenge is to persuade voters through policies, performance and organisation.
For security agencies, the responsibility is to investigate credible threats and protect citizens while respecting lawful political activity.
For electoral authorities, maintaining confidence in the process will require close attention to the security environment.
The 2027 election will ultimately be decided by voters.
Political parties may set targets, make promises and build alliances, but no party can legitimately claim ownership of citizens' votes.
Every eligible voter retains the right to choose.
That principle is at the heart of democratic elections.
The controversy surrounding Tenebe's alleged “AK-47 fire” remark has therefore become more than an argument over words.
It has raised questions about the tone of political mobilisation, the responsibilities of party leaders and the need to prevent election-related intimidation before it develops into violence.
HURIWA's request for a DSS investigation provides a formal avenue for those questions to be examined.
The outcome should be based on evidence, the full context of the remarks and the requirements of Nigerian law.
Until such an investigation establishes otherwise, the alleged statement should remain an allegation rather than a concluded finding of criminal conduct.
What is clear is that political parties across Nigeria are entering an increasingly competitive period.
The safest route for all stakeholders is to ensure that competition remains peaceful, voters remain free and political disputes are settled through democratic and legal institutions.
As the 2027 elections approach, the handling of controversial political rhetoric such as this will be an important test of the country's commitment to peaceful democratic competition.