For our democracy to succeed, the INEC Chairman must meet a higher standard than ordinary office holders. Credibility is expected to be his main asset.
Our democracy cannot rely on leaders with questionable character, and even less so on the electoral umpire. Nigeria does need a divisive figure to lead our electoral institution. Not when the country is as polarised as it is.
For our democracy to succeed, the INEC Chairman must meet a higher standard than ordinary office holders. Credibility is expected to be his main asset.
I say this because of Amupitan’s 80-page document, “Genocide in Nigeria: The Implications for the International Community.” The paper claimed that attacks by Boko Haram and armed herders formed a coordinated anti-Christian campaign. It reflected an extreme position and promoted harmful ethnic and religious prejudice. Such views reject tolerance and mutual respect. They oppose the idea of a united country in which citizenship comes before ethnic or religious identity.
Muslim groups, the Supreme Council for Shari’ah and MURIC, called for Amupitan’s immediate removal and prosecution, citing the content of his legal brief. They argued that Amupitan’s position differs from the Tinubu administration’s rejection of genocide claims and warned that keeping him as INEC chair would shatter the little public confidence remaining ahead of the 2027 elections.
At the time of writing, Amupitan has yet to come out to defend himself. Some will see this as a disregard for the consequences. But the problem did not stop there.
Leaders of the CAN in the North dismissed the call as political and poorly argued. They defended Amupitan’s constitutional right to freedom of religion and questioned the motives of those backing the campaign. CAN’s Youth Wing, the Christian Media Forum, and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria also rejected demands for his removal. The Christian groups did not attempt to defend Amupitan’s assertion of Christian genocide, even though it contradicts the government’s position. Instead, they defended the accusation by politicising it and even used the phrase “politically motivated.”
For observers like me, we know that in the pragmatic world we live in, any activity involving more than one person is political. It is also astonishing how people choose to categorise these claims as “politically motivated” when the political process administrator is involved. Have they not realised that everything around him is now political? If they want him to be apolitical, he should not have accepted a role in the country’s political system.
It is also clear that Amupitan became compromised the moment Christian organisations joined the national debate. With religious bodies now split over his conduct, he can no longer be seen as impartial—he is the centre of the controversy. The public no longer sees him as a neutral referee; people will presume he will side with the Christian choice, especially if the contest is between a Christian and a Muslim candidate.
Ideally, and lawfully, INEC requires a leader whose record is clean, whose judgment is steady, and whose conduct is beyond reproach. At moments like this, the country deserves someone beyond suspicion, equal to the burden of the ballot cast in the 2027 general elections.
The phrase “beyond suspicion” holds historical relevance. It reminds me of the proverb, “Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.” This means leaders and their close associates must avoid even the appearance of impropriety to maintain trust. The proverb originates with Julius Caesar, who divorced his wife, Pompeia, due to a rumour.
In 62 BC, Publius Clodius Pulcher was accused of sneaking into a women-only religious festival held at the home of Caesar, allegedly to seduce Pompeia. No proof ever emerged that Pompeia was involved. Even so, Caesar divorced her. His reason was blunt: his wife must not even be under suspicion. The logic followed from Caesar’s position. As Pontifex Maximus, he was Rome’s highest priest and a guardian of public morals. Any taint of scandal would have weakened Caesar’s authority. He knew that, to protect both his office and his political career, his household had to be beyond reproach.
This 2,087-year-old lesson applies neatly to Joash Amupitan. As the INEC Chair, he equally occupies a moral office. In that role, proof of guilt or innocence is secondary. His credibility is tainted by accusations. Like Caesar, the issue is not proof, but the presence of doubt. Once suspicion takes hold, confidence in him weakens, regardless of what counter-claims may say. An election referee must stand above suspicion if we want our democracy to succeed.
What we witnessed in the last few days is a clear lack of trust and suspicion toward Amupitan as the INEC Chair. He has become the centre of controversy as regional figures and religious bodies continue to polarise the public.
But is he worth this? Why is the government sticking with him despite this controversy? Or are all the other candidates on their list equally questionable? The government need to know that the longer they vacillate, the more people grow suspicious of their agenda.
There is a counter-claim from Christian bodies suggesting that he is being accused because Muslims do not want a Christian to hold that position. But is he the only competent Christian in Nigeria? No, he is not. We must remember that only two Muslims—Jega and Yakubu—have ever held electoral leadership in Nigeria.
Historically, Nigeria’s electoral bodies have been led largely by southerners. During the First Republic, the Electoral Commission was chaired by Eyo Esua from 1958 until the 1966 coup.
Under the Second Republic transition, Michael Ani led FEDECO to the 1979 elections, followed by Victor Ovie-Whiskey until 1983. The military era saw Eme Awa and, later, Humphrey Nwosu, who conducted the annulled 1993 election. Since 1999, INEC has been chaired by Ephraim Akpata, Abel Guobadia, and Maurice Iwu, all Southern Christians, before Attahiru Jega and Mahmood Yakubu broke that pattern.
In recent memory, Jega gave the impression of being fair before each election. He was never considered suspicious or controversial before the two general election cycles he chaired. Whether he was or not is up to those who participated in the 2011 and 2015 elections. But history will be kind to him, especially in 2011. We saw a Christian become the Governor of Kaduna State for the first time ever. He also oversaw Goodluck’s election victory and was celebrated for introducing the Card Reader, which helped bring the APC to power in 2015.
Needless to say, there has never been any accusation of full compromise by any religious body or regional section before elections until Amupitan came to prominence. This cannot be right.
In states like Kaduna, Gombe, or Nasarawa, any party that fields an all-Muslim Governor ticket will doubt whether they will be given the opportunity for a free and fair election with Amupitan at the helm. Places like Oyo, Lagos, Osun, and Ogun will not have confidence in fielding a Muslim either. Likewise, in constituencies within the Middle Belt, where Muslim minorities run against Christian candidates like Plateau, Taraba, Benue, Nasarawa or Abuja, candidates are not going to have confidence in contesting against any candidate that is favoured by Amupitan’s legal brief.
As citizens, we must endeavour to call a spade a spade. Many would agree that Amupitan is a questionable character. And if we believe in the democratic process, the people must have confidence in the electoral umpire.
For the INEC Chairman, Amupitan, the standard remains clear: the office must be held by someone who is, and is seen to be, beyond suspicion.
Dr Nasir Aminu
Academic and Columnist