INEC’s true test lies in operational independence, not political endorsement – Itodo, Yiaga Africa boss
Yiaga Africa Executive Director and election development expert, Samson Itodo, has urged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to redeem its image by guaranteeing true operational independence rather than relying solely on financial autonomy. Speaking on Channels Television’s Politics Today, Itodo said if INEC Chairman, Prof Joash Amupitan, resists political pressure, he would secure a place on the positive side of Nigeria’s democratic history. He further emphasised that accountability must remain a constant duty for every INEC official. David Lawani reports
What is the mood like with the confirmation of the new INEC chairman, Professor Amupitan?
I think that when you look at today’s screening, the kind of questions that were put forward to the nominee, now confirmed, they had to fulfil that constitutional condition. All in all, for those two hours, the Senate posed 33 questions. Out of the 33, 29 were directed to the nominee, while four others were written. I have a problem with that because I am disappointed with how the Senate managed it. However, I was pretty impressed with some of the questions the Senators asked. For instance, three questions revolved around the independence of INEC. The Deputy Senate President asked one question about INEC’s independence, and two other Senators raised similar concerns. So, the independence of INEC was a significant theme. The second issue that dominated the hearing was the management of election results. There were questions around the electronic transmission of results and the collation process. Another major issue was the integrity and accountability of INEC officials. You could clearly see a Senate that brought its field experience to bear as it confirmed the INEC Chairman. To a large extent, I am impressed with some of the questions, but when you look at how the process was managed, it started well until one of the Senators, who was supposed to ask a question, made a motion that the nominee should take a bow. The uproar was caused because Senator Victor Umeh wanted to ask a very insightful question about the judiciary and how INEC would respond to it. Given that this was a hearing, I thought the Senate President should have allowed other Senators to ask their questions directly. The Senate and Nigeria lost an opportunity, because here was an expert on election law, a renowned scholar on electoral matters. We lost the chance to hear him speak to the nation on questions relating to electoral justice. He has the expertise, and that opportunity was missed.
And he has written a huge book on the law of evidence?
Exactly. We lost that opportunity on the altar of politics. The last segment of the screening was really politicised. They could have allowed other Senators to pose their questions so the nominee could respond. However, what he showed today was that in terms of capacity and pedigree, there’s no doubt about him. He also demonstrated integrity and answered the questions brilliantly. The bigger issue now is the task ahead. When you think about INEC’s independence, one of the things I’ll be watching for is something the chairman said: he plans to conduct an audit. And we have said it should be an audit of the BVAS and IReV. When we talk about INEC, it’s not just about financial independence. There are a few critical questions: First, how will INEC under his leadership resist pressure from politicians who try to influence contracts or recommend vendors? That’s one area where INEC must assert its independence. Second, how will INEC sanction officials who compromise? There are INEC officials who act as moles for politicians. Ensuring that there are no sacred cows in INEC is crucial. Those who undermine the commission’s integrity must be sanctioned according to the law. Another issue that came up during the hearing was that Senators emphasised the need for the right winner to be declared in every election. When you think of INEC’s independence, will the commission under his leadership declare results based solely on the outcome, without external influence? So, INEC’s independence goes beyond financial autonomy—it’s about operational independence. The chairman said the commission is independent and will rely on constitutional provisions. Only time will tell. But we will be watching to ensure he fulfils his promises.
Some think that perhaps this is one of President Tinubu’s best appointments. Do you align with that view?
It’s relative. When you look at the criteria citizens have set, does the chairman meet them? The first is non-partisanship. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence that this individual has ever been a member of any political party or aligned with any political belief. Even from the dynamics of the hearing, you can say he doesn’t seem to pander to any political party or formation. So, to a large extent, he appears apolitical. We hope that he maintains that stance. The second criterion is integrity, unquestionable integrity. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been any petition or allegation questioning his integrity. So, to a large extent, this nominee has the moral standing to hold the office. The third is experience in elections or a related field. With his credentials, that’s evident.
Does he have the mental stamina?
From what we saw today, yes, he does. The last point is courage. When he responded to the questions today, you could clearly see he has it. But once he gets into office, he will face major tests. The first will be the Anambra election, which is just a few weeks away. Since he has been confirmed, he needs to be sworn in and immediately engage with INEC’s plans. He said he would sit with the team to review existing plans, which is commendable. I think the President appointed someone who meets those criteria.
How can Prof Amupitan stand his ground, considering his reputation is at stake?
Something very instructive he said during the screening was that, if confirmed, his position would be one of trust, and he intends to take that message to INEC. I agree with him. But the reality is that, having worked in Nigeria for two decades, he will need more than just that to deal with INEC officials. The key question is: how will he hold complicit INEC officials accountable? For instance, many collation officers, including academics, were mentioned. Senator Oshiomhole raised a question about lecturers. Some professors and PhD holders have been found wanting, though not all.
There are bad eggs, and the question is, what should be done to them?
He must ensure they are sanctioned, especially when politicians have compromised them. That’s where he must assert independence. Beyond blacklisting, such individuals should face the full weight of the law, just like the professor in Akwa Ibom who is currently facing trial. What Nigerians and civil society will be watching closely is the chairman’s talk about a whistleblowing policy. We were excited about that because if properly implemented, it could help significantly. But even with such a policy, the real test lies in the actions that follow. Will the commission take strong, transparent steps against wrongdoing? That will determine public trust in INEC’s ability to hold its officers accountable.
What is your message to the INEC chairman?
We must remember that INEC is not about Professor Amupitan alone. There are twelve other national commissioners, thirty-seven Resident Electoral Commissioners, and seven hundred and seventy Electoral Officers across the local governments. The personal integrity of all these people matters greatly. If they don’t align with the chairman’s vision and allow politicians to compromise them, then we risk returning to ground zero, and that’s where we must not go. Let’s not forget that while the chairman sets the tone, the collective integrity of the entire INEC team will ultimately define the commission’s success.
