By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s nomination of Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan as the new Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has, unsurprisingly, generated intense debate across the country.
Coming at the end of Professor Mahmood Yakubu’s tenure, this appointment arrives at a critical moment in Nigeria’s democratic journey when public confidence in the electoral umpire is arguably at its lowest, if not entirely eroded.
The controversy surrounding the 2023 general elections, particularly the presidential poll, continues to cast a long shadow over the credibility of the electoral process.
Nigerians went to the polls that year with renewed hope. They were assured that technology, especially the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal, would guarantee transparency and protect their votes.
The Commission had promised that election results, including those of the presidential election, would be transmitted in real time for all to see. It was a confidence-building assurance that Nigerians embraced with enthusiasm.
However, when it mattered most, the promise was broken. The results of the National Assembly elections, which were held simultaneously with the presidential election, were uploaded promptly to the IReV portal.
But the presidential results were conspicuously missing for hours that stretched into days. The Commission’s explanation of a “technical glitch” was neither convincing nor credible. It sounded more like an afterthought meant to douse outrage rather than an honest account of what went wrong.
That moment changed everything. Whether by error of omission or Commission, the failure to transmit the results in real time sabotaged the very essence of electoral integrity. The damage done to INEC’s credibility is enormous, and it will take deliberate effort and consistent transparency to rebuild public trust.
It is within this context that Professor Amupitan assumes office as INEC Chairman. His first challenge is not administrative or technological but moral. Nigerians no longer believe the umpire. The institution is weighed down by a heavy trust deficit. To lead INEC at this time is to carry the burden of restoring faith in democracy itself.
Already, his appointment has attracted controversy. Reports indicate that over one thousand lawyers have petitioned the Senate, urging it to reject his nomination because he previously served as legal counsel to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). They argue that his past professional relationship with the APC undermines the perception of impartiality expected of an electoral umpire.
While I acknowledge their concern, my candid view is different. Professor Amupitan is a lawyer, and as such, he is entitled to defend any client. No law in Nigeria forbids a lawyer who has represented a political party from being appointed to public office.
The fundamental principle of legal practice is that everyone deserves representation. Unless there is evidence that he is a card-carrying member of a political party or has held a partisan position, he remains fit and proper under the law to serve.
The comparison some have drawn with Lauretta Onochie’s failed nomination is incongruous. Onochie’s case was one of open partisanship. She was a known APC member and a public advocate of the party’s interests.
Amupitan’s case is different; he was a lawyer performing his professional duty. If every lawyer who ever represented a political party were to be disqualified from public service, few in the legal profession would be eligible for any national appointment.
That said, this matter cannot be viewed solely through the lens of legality. As Dr Davina Stevens, CEO of Taskbuddys, insightfully observed, “There’s no law stopping a lawyer from being appointed. But let’s be honest, this isn’t just about legality; it’s about perception. The man has served as APC’s chief counsel in several election cases.
“That naturally raises questions about neutrality. How do you expect opposition parties or ordinary Nigerians to trust the process when the umpire has openly represented one of the key players? So, while he may tick the legal boxes, the moral and ethical optics are problematic.”
Her point is both valid and profound. Governance should not only be about what is legal but also about what is credible. When there is no trust, legality alone cannot sustain legitimacy. Leadership demands not just compliance with the law but also sensitivity to perception. The people’s confidence in institutions depends on both the letter and the spirit of public conduct.
Dr Stevens further adds, “Leadership isn’t about doing what others would do; it’s about doing what should be done. Yes, he may not have broken any law, but the perception of fairness matters just as much as legality. When trust in institutions erodes, everyone loses, not just the opposition.”
Indeed, the legitimacy of democratic institutions depends on the confidence of the governed. Without that trust, even the most transparent processes will be viewed with suspicion. Therefore, while Amupitan may have a clean legal slate, he must recognise that his biggest test will be in rebuilding credibility, not defending legality.
Still, the larger question that must be asked is whether the President of the Republic should appoint the INEC Chairman. That, truly, is the heart of Nigeria’s electoral problem. As long as the appointment power remains vested in the presidency, every occupant of that office will naturally face accusations of bias.
It does not matter whether the appointee is a saint, scholar, or technocrat; the perception of partisanship will persist. The solution lies in institutional reform. Nigeria must evolve a transparent, multiparty, and civil society-inclusive mechanism for appointing the INEC Chairman to insulate the process from executive interference.
For Professor Amupitan, the task ahead is daunting. He must rise above the noise of controversy and prove through action that he can be fair to all. That begins with transparency—open communication, prompt disclosure of electoral processes, and consistent stakeholder engagement. He must ensure that INEC’s systems are not only technologically sound but also politically credible.
He should order a comprehensive audit of the 2023 elections, focusing on the alleged “technical glitch” that undermined the transmission of presidential results. Nigerians deserve to know what went wrong and what safeguards will be in place to prevent a recurrence. The electoral umpire must also improve its logistics framework, voter education programmes, and engagement with civil society and the media.
Furthermore, INEC under Amupitan must assert its independence by resisting political pressure. The funding mechanism should be reviewed to ensure financial autonomy, and internal governance structures should be strengthened to discourage compromise. The Commission must demonstrate zero tolerance for malpractice among its own officials and electoral officers.
Equally important is collaboration with security agencies to ensure elections are not only free and fair but also safe. The menace of violence and voter intimidation continues to distort outcomes in several parts of the country. The Commission must ensure that citizens’ right to vote without fear or coercion is protected at all times.
Above all, Professor Amupitan must understand that credibility cannot be demanded; it must be earned. Nigerians will judge him not by the number of policies he announces but by the integrity with which he conducts the next round of elections. His words will matter less than his actions. Every decision he takes will either build or erode confidence in the Commission.
If he succeeds in steering INEC through this turbulent period and restoring public faith in the ballot, history will remember him as the man who helped redeem Nigeria’s democracy. But if he fails, his name will simply join the long list of dashed hopes that have haunted the nation’s electoral history.
The stakes could not be higher. The trust deficit is deep, but not irreversible. What is needed is courage, transparency, and an unyielding commitment to fairness. Professor Amupitan has a rare opportunity to write a new chapter for INEC and for Nigeria.
Whether he does so will depend entirely on how he chooses to wield his authority —in loyalty to the country and people, or to the appointor who holds power in trust for them. Only time will tell.
*Lemmy Ughegbe, ANIPR, writes from Abuja
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645
