Seventeen local government areas in Anambra State have been marked as high or severe risk for violence ahead of the November 8 governorship election, according to a pre-election security risk assessment released by the Kimpact Development Initiative (KDI).

Presenting the findings in Abuja yesterday, KDI Team Lead, Bukola Idowu, said Ihiala and Aguata stand out as the most volatile, while 15 others—Awka South, Ogbaru, Onitsha North, Anaocha, Ekwusigo, Idemili North, Idemili South, Nnewi North, Oyi, Orumba North, Orumba South, Anambra East, Awka North, Ayamelum and Dunukofia—were also listed as high-risk. Four additional LGAs, Onitsha South, Njikoka, Nnewi South, and Anambra West, were placed in the moderate-risk category.

According to him, between January and September 6, Anambra recorded 96 violent incidents, 24 of which were directly linked to election activities, leading to 103 deaths.

“This figure already surpasses the level of violence recorded in the build-up to the 2021 governorship election,” he said.

He noted that beyond violence, the state faces other risks including political thuggery, misinformation, community-level disputes, identity-driven agitations, and growing voter apathy. “Anambra’s history of electoral violence continues to shape voter perceptions and public trust,” he added.

KDI also raised the alarm over dwindling confidence in the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), with more than 68 per cent of respondents saying they had little or no trust in the commission’s ability to conduct a credible poll. “Even minor logistical lapses could trigger unrest,” Idowu warned.

To address these concerns, he recommended stronger deployment of security personnel in identified hotspots, improved transparency in voter card distribution, rapid response grievance mechanisms, and stricter monitoring of political campaigns.

He further urged greater civic engagement with women and young people, as well as coordinated efforts to counter fake news and online manipulation.

Idowu stressed that while the public report avoids naming specific actors, a more detailed risk analysis has already been shared privately with security agencies and election authorities. (THISDAY)