A video of Senator Francis Fadahunsi addressing supporters in Ilesa has forced a difficult but necessary conversation about political responsibility in Osun State. In the recording, the senator is heard telling his audience that if members of the Accord Party are seen in the area, they should be killed. He even invited people to record him.

In a state where political and cult-related killings have already claimed lives in recent weeks, those words were not ordinary campaign rhetoric. They were reckless.

Fadahunsi later issued a clarification. He said he meant “kill them with votes,” not with weapons. He accused those who circulated the video of editing his speech out of context. He maintained that he does not preach violence.

The clarification exists. It is part of the public record. But it does not erase the original moment. A senator of the Federal Republic stood before supporters and used the language of killing in a charged political environment. That choice of words carries consequences, regardless of the explanation that followed.

Osun is days away from a governorship election. Tension is already high. There have been arrests, accusations of intimidation, cult clashes, and genuine fear among residents and students. In such a climate, political leaders do not have the luxury of careless speech.

Claiming that a statement was metaphorical does not automatically neutralise its effect. Supporters who are angry, frustrated, or looking for justification may hear only the first version. By the time the clarification arrives, the damage to public confidence and the risk of escalation have already increased.

Fadahunsi is not an ordinary citizen. He is a serving senator. His words carry institutional weight. When someone in that position chooses the language of violence — even if he later insists it was figurative — he lowers the standard of political conduct for everyone else.

This is not the first time Nigerian politicians have used military or eliminationist language during campaigns. “Crush them,” “wipe them out,” “bury them at the polls” have become familiar phrases. What is new is the growing body count that now accompanies such talk in Osun.

When real people are dying, the old defence that “it is just politics” becomes harder to sustain. Leaders who continue to speak this way, only to retreat into technical explanations when challenged, are playing a dangerous game with public safety.

The people of Osun deserve an election decided by votes, not by fear or bloodshed. That responsibility rests first on those who hold public office and command the loyalty of supporters.

Senator Fadahunsi’s clarification is noted. It is not sufficient. A clearer, more responsible standard of public speech is required from him and from every other political actor in this contest. Anything less increases the risk that the coming election will be remembered not for the choice the people make, but for the violence that precedes it.

Political competition is legitimate. Threatening language, even when later softened, is not.