As Nigeria gradually approaches the 2027 general elections, one issue that deserves urgent national reflection is the growing controversy surrounding the leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
At the heart of this concern is the continued tenure of Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan as the chairman of the commission — a matter that, in my view, now raises serious questions about public confidence, neutrality, and the long-term credibility of our electoral system.
Recent calls by the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN) for his removal may appear, at first glance, as the position of a single advocacy body. However, dismissing these concerns outright would be a mistake.
Elections in a diverse and sensitive nation like Nigeria do not depend only on legal procedures; they depend heavily on trust — trust that the electoral umpire stands above political, religious, and sectional controversies.
An electoral commission is not just another government agency. It is the custodian of the people’s mandate. The chairman of such an institution must therefore be seen — beyond any reasonable doubt — as neutral, unifying, and free from positions or past engagements that could be interpreted as divisive
The controversy surrounding Professor Amupitan, particularly reports linking him to a past legal brief alleging a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria, has deepened public suspicion in some quarters. Whether these claims are accurate, misinterpreted, or taken out of context is almost secondary to the larger issue: perception. In electoral governance, perception can be as powerful as reality. Once a significant segment of the population begins to doubt the impartiality of the electoral umpire, the legitimacy of future elections is placed at risk.
Nigeria’s democracy is still evolving. We have witnessed post-election tensions, legal disputes, and public distrust in previous cycles.
The nation cannot afford another round of elections conducted under a cloud of suspicion, especially when preventable. The cost of replacing one official is far less than the cost of a disputed national mandate.
This is not about religion, nor should it be reduced to Muslim-Christian politics. It is about institutional integrity. If any INEC chairman — regardless of background — becomes the subject of widespread credibility concerns capable of eroding national trust, the most responsible course of action is to step aside, at least pending a transparent clarification process. Democratic leadership sometimes requires personal sacrifice for institutional survival.
The federal government and the National Assembly must understand that the strength of INEC lies not merely in constitutional backing but in public acceptance. Even the most technically sound election can lose legitimacy if key stakeholders feel alienated before voting begins.
Calls for Professor Amupitan’s removal should therefore not be viewed as an attack on his person, but as a preventive measure to safeguard Nigeria’s democratic stability. Leadership of an electoral body is not a personal entitlement; it is a public trust. When that trust becomes strained, decisive action becomes a duty, not an option.
As 2027 draws nearer, Nigeria must choose credibility over controversy, unity over suspicion, and confidence over doubt. The future of our democracy depends on it.
Mansur Nayashi wrote
Abuja Network News
Tags
Opinion