By ALO360 Editorial Board
Since October 2025, when Joash Ojo Amupitan assumed office as chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), his tenure has been dogged by one controversy after another. What should have been a quiet period of institutional consolidation has instead become a season of credibility erosion.
Barely months into office, the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria and Muslim Rights Concern demanded his removal, accusing him of bias against the Muslim North. Their concern stemmed from a letter he had written prior to his appointment, in which he raised alarm over alleged Christian genocide in northern Nigeria. That episode almost consumed his chairmanship before it even found its footing. Though the agitation eventually subsided, the damage was done: a seed of doubt had been planted.
Then came the 2027 election timetable. INEC scheduled the presidential election during the holy month of Ramadan. This decision immediately provoked resistance, particularly from the North. The commission was forced into a retreat, adjusting the timetable to avoid a clash. Again, the issue was not just the mistake, but what it revealed: a troubling lack of foresight from an institution expected to be meticulous and sensitive in its planning.
The situation worsened with INEC’s handling of the crisis within the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The commission’s interpretation of the Court of Appeal directive to maintain status quo ante bellum raised more questions than answers. By removing the leadership of David Mark and Rauf Aregbesola from its portal, INEC appeared to adopt a position that many legal and political observers find questionable.
What exactly does status quo ante bellum mean in this context? Before the dispute began. Yet, from all available indications, INEC monitored the very NEC meeting that produced Mark and Aregbesola as chairman and secretary of the party. Video evidence shows that Nafiu Bala Gombe was present at that meeting and had voluntarily stepped down as deputy national chairman. According to Elisha Abbo, Bala’s current actions may even be tied to disagreements over prior arrangements in terms of power sharing.
INEC’s decision, therefore, did not just appear controversial; it appeared inconsistent with facts already in the public domain. Unsurprisingly, it triggered protests, particularly from the ADC, and intensified calls for the resignation of the INEC chairman.
Then came the most damaging episode yet. The controversy surrounding an X account allegedly linked to Amupitan. The account reportedly made partisan comments in 2023 in support of the ruling All Progressives Congress. While INEC has repeatedly denied that its chairman owns any X account, the matter has refused to go away.
Grok, an AI tool on X, reportedly linked the account (bearing the name Joash Ojo Amupitan) to the chairman’s email address and phone number, details of which are consistent with those on his official letterhead and CV. Independent checks reportedly showed that the phone number, when run through financial platforms, OPay, returned his name.
Even more troubling was the communication sequence that followed. Olusegun Dada, a presidential aide, posted a statement by the chairman’s media aide. INEC, on its part, failed to post the statement on its official X account until almost 24 hours later.
That raises a fundamental question: why would a presidential spokesperson be the first to communicate on a matter that directly concerns the independence of INEC? At what point did the electoral umpire begin to rely on the executive to manage its public credibility?
In a democracy, the independence of the electoral umpire must never be in doubt. Not in action. Not in perception. Once Nigerians begin to believe that the referee is compromised, every election conducted by that body becomes suspect, even before the first ballot is cast.
Yes, every INEC chairman has faced challenges. From Maurice Iwu to Attahiru Jega and Mahmood Yakubu, controversies have been part of the job. But those crises typically emerged close to elections or in their aftermath.
What is different with Amupitan is that the crises began at the very start of his tenure and have continued without pause. That is not just a bad start. It is a dangerous trajectory.
If not urgently addressed, these credibility issues risk undermining public trust ahead of the 2027 elections. And once trust is broken, it is almost impossible to rebuild in time for a credible poll.
INEC must understand what is at stake. This is no longer about isolated controversies. It is about a pattern that suggests either poor judgment, weak institutional control, or something more troubling.
Nigeria cannot afford an electoral umpire whose neutrality is constantly in question. Because when the umpire loses credibility, democracy itself is placed on trial.
INEC must act decisively, transparently, and independently.
Anything less will only deepen suspicion. And in a country already battling trust deficits, that is a risk Nigeria simply cannot afford.
