IN DEFENCE OF JOASH AMUPITAN
The INEC chairman is a man of repute, writes 𝗦𝗮𝗺𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝘂𝗸𝗮𝗿 𝗠𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗮
I had the rare privilege of being taught by Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan at the University of Jos. As a student in the Faculty of Law, I completed my Diploma in Law programme ending in 1999 and later obtained my LLB degree in 2005. Those were formative years, and Prof. Amupitan stood out as one of the most excellent lecturers I ever encountered. He was brilliant, meticulous, fair-minded, and deeply principled – a man who demanded excellence from his students while demonstrating integrity in every lecture, tutorial, and interaction. He taught with passion and clarity, never playing favourites, never compromising standards. To those of us who sat in his classes, he was more than an academic; he was a role model of intellectual honesty and moral uprightness. It is therefore with profound conviction that I rise in his defence amid the current orchestrated campaign of calumny against him as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The recent controversy – centred on alleged old social media posts from 2023, long before his appointment as INEC Chairman in October 2025 – is nothing but a desperate, politically motivated smear. At the time those posts were supposedly made, Prof. Amupitan was a private citizen and respected professor of law at the University of Jos, not a public electoral official. INEC has categorically stated that the account in question is fake, the posts fabricated by “digital imposters” and cybercriminals. The Commission is working with security agencies to prosecute those responsible. Even if one were to entertain the wildest assumption that the posts were authentic (which they are not), they would still hold no legal or moral weight against him today.
Let us be clear on the law, as any right-thinking Nigerian should demand. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) sets the qualification for INEC Chairman in the Third Schedule, Part I, Paragraph 14(2):
“A member of the Commission shall— (a) be non-partisan and a person of unquestionable integrity; and (b) be not less than 40 years of age in the case of the Chairman….”
This requirement was rigorously scrutinised and satisfied during Prof. Amupitan’s nomination by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, consultation with the Council of State, and confirmation by the Senate under Section 154. There is no provision in our laws that retroactively disqualifies a person for private expressions of opinion made years earlier as an ordinary citizen.
The stricter neutrality rules often cited by critics apply exclusively to serving election officials during the actual conduct of elections. Section 26 of the Electoral Act 2022 is explicit:
“(1) All staff, electoral officers, presiding officers, returning officers and security officials taking part in the conduct of an election shall affirm or swear to an oath of loyalty and neutrality as in the Second Schedule… (2) Any person who violates subsection (1), commits an offence…”
The prohibitions in Section 27(1) against appointing persons who are members of political parties or who have “openly expressed support for any candidate” are limited to ad-hoc and lower-level electoral officers for specific elections – not to the constitutionally appointed Chairman, and certainly not retroactively to a professor’s private activity in 2023.
Removal of an INEC Chairman is governed solely by Section 157 of the Constitution, which requires the President to act only on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senate for “inability to discharge the functions of the office… or for misconduct.” Old, alleged private posts – even if real – do not constitute such misconduct. To suggest otherwise is to rewrite the Constitution for political expediency.
Compare this to what past INEC Chairmen endured. Prof. Attahiru Jega, who served from 2010 to 2015, faced vicious accusations of bias and tribalism from the then-ruling PDP during the 2015 elections. Former Minister Godsday Orubebe publicly called him “tribalistic, selective and partial” in a now-infamous meltdown. Yet Jega conducted what many still regard as one of Nigeria’s most credible polls. No one demanded his resignation over pre-appointment views or private opinions; he was allowed to serve out his tenure with dignity.
Similarly, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, who succeeded Jega and served from 2015 until October 2025, operated under a constant barrage of partisan accusations from the opposition. Critics repeatedly alleged bias towards the ruling APC in both the 2019 and 2023 general elections. Yet Yakubu completed a full ten-year tenure without being removed. The same voices now hounding Prof. Amupitan raised no constitutional alarm over Yakubu’s tenure despite far more serious and contemporaneous claims of institutional bias during actual elections.
Prof. Amupitan, by contrast, brings an even cleaner slate: a lifetime academic and legal practitioner with no history of political office, no party membership, and – according to INEC – no personal social media footprint at all. As his former student, I can attest that the man I knew in the lecture halls of University of Jos two decades ago is the same man today: a thoroughbred scholar whose commitment to fairness and the rule of law is beyond reproach.
This smear campaign is not about integrity; it is about destabilising INEC ahead of the 2027 general elections. Opposition figures and their allies are recycling fabricated digital evidence in a coordinated bid to force a resignation that the law does not permit. Nigerians must see through the ploy. Prof. Amupitan deserves the opportunity to prove his mettle as INEC Chairman – just as Jega and Yakubu were given despite far louder controversies. His track record as an excellent lecturer, SAN, and administrator guarantees he will uphold the “non-partisan” and “unquestionable integrity” standard required by our Constitution.
Let the law prevail over propaganda. Let competence and character triumph over cheap political blackmail. Prof. Amupitan must be allowed to focus on delivering credible, transparent elections. Nigeria’s democracy demands no less.
𝗠𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗮 is a legal Professional
Letter
THE CASE FOR KWARA NORTH IN 2027
Kwara State was created on May 27, 1967, under the administration of General Yakubu Gowon. For nearly six decades, it has proudly borne the title “State of Harmony.”
Yet, true harmony cannot thrive without justice, fairness, and inclusion. As the state approaches the 2027 political transition, it is important to reflect on its leadership history and address a growing concern about equitable representation.
Civilian governance in Kwara State began in 1979 with Alhaji Adamu Atta, an Ebira from present-day Kogi State, who served as governor under the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) from October 1979 to October 1983. He was succeeded briefly by Chief Cornelius Olatunji Adebayo of Kwara South, who governed from October to December 1983 under the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), before the military coup of January 1984 brought civilian rule to an abrupt end.
Between 1984 and 1991, the state was governed by a series of military administrators, including Group Captain Salaudeen Latinwo, Wing Commander Mohammed Ndatsu Umaru, Brigadier General Ahmed Abdullahi, Air Commodore Ibrahim Alkali, and Major General Alwali Kazir.
The return to civilian rule during the Third Republic saw Alhaji Shaaba Lafiagi from Kwara North emerge as Governor under the Social Democratic Party (SDP), serving from January 1992 until November 1993, when another military intervention occurred.
From December 1993 to May 1999, the state again came under military rule, with administrators such as Colonel Mustapha Ismail, Group Captain Baba Adamu Iyam, Colonel Peter A.M. Ogar, and Colonel Rasheed Shekoni.
Since the return to democracy on May 29, 1999, Kwara State has enjoyed uninterrupted civilian governance. However, a closer look at leadership distribution reveals a significant imbalance: Rear Admiral Mohammed Lawal (1999–2003) – Kwara Central; Dr. Bukola Saraki (2003–2011) – Kwara Central; Dr. Abdulfatah Ahmed (2011–2019) – Kwara South; and Mallam AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq (2019–Present) – Kwara Central
Out of these four democratic governors, three have come from Kwara Central, one from Kwara South, and none from Kwara North.
Even at the deputy level, representation has not sufficiently balanced the scale: Simon Sayomi (1999–2003); Joel Ogundeji (2003–2011); Elder Peter Kisira (2011–2019) and Kayode Alabi (2019–Present).
While these roles are important, they do not substitute for the symbolic and executive significance of producing a governor.
Kwara North has contributed significantly to the political, economic, and social development of the state. Yet, in the Fourth Republic—the longest uninterrupted democratic period in Nigeria’s history—it has not produced a governor.
For a state that prides itself on harmony, this imbalance raises important questions: Can harmony truly exist without equitable power rotation? Can unity be sustained when a region remains consistently underrepresented in the highest office?
The 2027 governorship election presents a historic opportunity to correct this imbalance. It is not merely a political consideration—it is a moral and unifying necessity.
Power rotation to Kwara North would: Reinforce the principles of fairness and inclusion; strengthen unity across the three senatorial districts; and deepen democratic legitimacy in the state.
The strength of Kwara State lies in its diversity and shared identity. To preserve its legacy as the State of Harmony, leadership must reflect all its constituent parts.
2027 offers Kwara State a chance to align its ideals with its actions – by giving Kwara North a fair opportunity to lead.
Babajide Awoyale,
