Political Panorama Issue No 27
In this hard-hitting analysis, I dissect the recent appointment of Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN, as Nigeria’s INEC Chairman - an appointment that threatens to shatter what remains of public confidence in the nation’s electoral umpire. Drawing on verified reports confirming Amupitan’s role as lead counsel to President Tinubu and the APC in the 2023 election tribunal, this edition of Political Panorama questions the moral, legal, and democratic legitimacy of such a partisan selection.
I argue that democracy is not sustained by elections alone, but by the trustworthiness
of the institutions that conduct them. With Amupitan’s appointment, Nigeria
risks turning INEC into an appendage of executive power - a scenario where the
“referee now wears the team’s jersey.”
“One cannot simultaneously be the defender of a political victory and the guardian of the process that validates future victories. What Nigeria needs today is not another professor or SAN, but a nonpartisan custodian of democratic fairness.”
Read full
analysis below in this edition of Political Panorama with Ola Olateju
In
a democracy already reeling from trust deficits and institutional compromise,
the appointment of Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN as the new Chairman of the
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is not just questionable but a
fundamental threat to Nigeria’s democratic credibility.
Prof. Joash Amupitan
A recent fact-check confirms that Professor Amupitan served as a member and indeed a lead counsel of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress (APC)’s legal team during the 2023 presidential election petition tribunal. This single truth raises profound ethical, legal, and moral questions about the independence of the electoral umpire now expected to preside over Nigeria’s next general elections.
The Integrity Crisis: When the Umpire
Is the Advocate
Democracy
thrives not merely on elections, but on the credibility of the institutions
that conduct them. INEC’s chairman, by constitutional expectation, must not
only be non-partisan but must also be seen to be independent of any political
colouration.
How
then can a man who recently defended the electoral victory of the ruling party,
deploying legal arguments to uphold Tinubu’s presidency, now sit as the
ultimate arbiter of future contests involving the same party?
This
is a textbook case of conflict of interest. It is akin to appointing a defense
lawyer as a judge in a retrial of the same case or worse still, making a
football team’s coach the match referee in a championship final. No amount of
personal integrity or academic accomplishment can compensate for such an
obvious institutional compromise.
The Spirit of the Constitution and
the Ethics of Neutrality
While
the 1999 Constitution does not explicitly bar legal practitioners who once
represented political parties from public appointments, it is the spirit - not
the letter - of the law that sustains democracy. The framers of our laws
envisioned that certain offices, such as that of the INEC Chairman, demand an
unimpeachable perception of neutrality.
Section
153 of the Constitution and Paragraph 14 of the Third Schedule make it clear
that INEC must operate free from executive control and be independent in
thought, composition, and conduct. The appointment of a man whose recent
professional career was devoted to defending the ruling party’s legitimacy
offends this spirit.
Even
if Professor Amupitan were to act with perfect impartiality which remains
doubtful, the public perception of bias alone is sufficient to erode confidence
in INEC’s decisions. Democracy depends as much on perception as it does on
process.
Lessons from Comparative
Jurisprudence
Across
democratic societies, the firewall between political partisanship and electoral
administration is sacred. In the United States, even minor associations between
election officials and campaign teams are grounds for recusal or
disqualification. In Ghana and South Africa, electoral commissioners undergo
rigorous vetting to ensure neutrality and distance from partisan roles.
Nigeria
cannot afford to lower this bar further. Having endured the contentious 2023
elections marred by accusations of manipulation, opaque result transmission,
and logistical failure what Nigerians need now is restored faith, not another
reason for cynicism.
The Academic Mystery: Gaps, Grey Areas, and the Credibility Question
Beyond
the moral and institutional conflicts that trail Professor Joash Amupitan’s
appointment, recent revelations have raised disturbing questions about the
integrity of his academic record as presented in the official State House press
release signed by Mr. Bayo Onanuga.
The
details, on closer scrutiny, expose glaring inconsistencies and unexplained
gaps that demand public clarification. For a man now entrusted with the
stewardship of Nigeria’s most sensitive democratic institution, such omissions
are far from trivial they go to the very heart of credibility.
According
to the profile released by the Presidency, Prof. Amupitan was born in 1967, and
“after completing primary and secondary education,” he attended Kwara State
Polytechnic between 1982 and 1984. Curiously, the statement provides no record
of the names or timelines of his primary and secondary schools. This omission
becomes more suspicious when one considers that by 1982, he was barely 15 years
old.
The next claim is even more puzzling. He reportedly obtained his law degree at the University of Jos between 1984 and 1987. In Nigeria’s university system, as at 1984, the minimum duration for a law degree is four years with Advance Level or equivalent qualification in relevant subjects and five years with WASC, excluding the one-year Law School programme. When the Faculty of Law at the University of Jos was established in 1978, the duration of the LL.B degree was five (5) academic years. The same as it remains today for standard entry through the university’s 100-level (UTME) route.
Here’s
the breakdown and historical context to back this up.
At the time UNIJOS founded its Faculty of Law (circa 1978), Nigerian universities operated a uniform national academic structure based on the National Universities Commission (NUC) and Council of Legal Education (CLE) standards.
The
CLE regulations (1977–1978), which governed accreditation of law faculties
nationwide, clearly stipulated that:
“The course of instruction leading to the
award of the LL.B degree shall extend over a minimum of five academic sessions
in the case of candidates admitted on the basis of the West African School Certificate
or its equivalent.”
(Council of Legal Education Handbook, 1977 edition).
Therefore,
when UNIJOS started its Law Faculty in 1978, it automatically adopted this
five-year curriculum structure to ensure its graduates would qualify for
admission to the Nigerian Law School for the Bar Part II programme.
Supporting Facts
The University of Lagos (founded its Law Faculty in 1962), Ahmadu Bello University (Zaria, 1961), and University of Nigeria, Nsukka (1960) - all operating under CLE guidelines already had five-year LL.B programmes by the mid-1970s. UNIJOS, being a newer federal university (1975/1978), followed the same model.
For
Direct Entry students (those with A-Levels, NCE, or equivalent), the duration
was typically four (4) years, as they joined at the 200-level.
How then did Prof. Amupitan complete a the law degree in just three years? Was it an accelerated programme, or is this another case of creative CV compilation?
Furthermore, while his CV credits him with earning a PhD in 2007, the same document states that he was already Head of the Department of Public Law from 2006 to 2008, and subsequently Dean of the Faculty of Law from 2008 to 2014. This sequence implies he became a Head of Department before earning his doctorate and a Dean barely a year after obtaining it. In the hierarchy of Nigerian academia, such rapid progression is virtually unheard of, especially in a federal university system known for strict promotion protocols.
If
these details are accurate, then the public deserves an explanation. If they
are not, then the Presidency and the candidate owe Nigerians a clarification of
the “missing links” in his academic and professional trajectory. At the very
least, transparency demands that Prof. Amupitan himself address these
inconsistencies because credibility, once questioned, casts a long shadow over
every decision he will make as INEC Chairman.
For
a position that requires unimpeachable integrity, these grey areas are not
cosmetic oversights, they are red flags. A democracy cannot afford to be
governed by conjecture, nor can its electoral umpire be shielded from scrutiny
under the guise of loyalty to the appointing authority.
Growing Public Outcry and Legal
Opposition
In
a fresh twist that validates the mounting public unease, over 1,000 Nigerian
lawyers have written to the Senate urging it to disqualify Prof. Amupitan.
According
to a detailed report published by Opera News Official on October 11, 2025,
these lawyers, acting under various civic and professional coalitions raised
serious legal and ethical objections to his nomination.
Their
petition cites multiple inconsistencies in Amupitan’s credentials and a pattern
of overt political alignment, arguing that confirming him would not only
undermine the spirit of the 1999 Constitution but also breach the impartiality
clause that guides appointments to the INEC chairmanship.
They
further warned that approving such a controversial figure would damage public
trust in Nigeria’s electoral process and cast a long shadow over future
elections. The lawyers’ statement, rich with constitutional references and
moral appeals, echoes the broader national sentiment that this appointment, if
confirmed, would be both a legal and democratic disaster.
This
revelation, coming on the heels of widespread doubts over the authenticity of
Amupitan’s professional record, only reinforces fears that the Federal
Government is determined to capture the electoral institution ahead of 2027.
The
Implications for Electoral Integrity
By appointing a man of questionable neutrality, the government has effectively told Nigerians that elections are not contests of ideas but orchestrated endorsements. It sends a dangerous signal that INEC the supposed umpire can be converted into a partisan apparatus serving the ruling establishment.
Our democracy cannot grow when the referee wears the jersey of one of the teams. It erodes public confidence, breeds apathy, and sets the stage for electoral violence. The neutrality of the electoral body is not a matter of discretion. It is the lifeline of democracy.
If
Prof. Amupitan truly values his academic reputation and the sanctity of
Nigeria’s democracy, he should voluntarily step aside and save the nation from
another cycle of avoidable controversy.
The Broader Implications: A Blow to Electoral Credibility
The appointment of Amupitan sends a dangerous message that loyalty to the incumbent, not loyalty to the Republic, is the surest path to institutional elevation. It consolidates the growing pattern where critical democratic institutions are being captured and converted into extensions of executive authority.
If the referee is already in the locker room with one team before the match begins, the other teams might as well not show up. Opposition parties, civil society organizations, and the international community will inevitably view future elections conducted under his watch with suspicion, if not outright rejection.
The President’s Justification - A Misplaced Defense
President
Tinubu’s claim that Professor Amupitan is “apolitical and a man of integrity”
is, at best, an act of rhetorical sanitization. Integrity is not
self-certified; it is validated by public confidence. One cannot simultaneously
be the defender of a victory and the guardian of the process that validates
victories.
What
Nigeria needs in the INEC chairmanship today is not another professor or Senior
Advocate of Nigeria, but a figure of nonpartisan trust. Someone whose
antecedents inspire confidence across political divides, not deepen suspicions
of institutional capture.
The
appointment of Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN, as INEC Chairman is not a mere
administrative choice but a defining moment for Nigeria’s democracy. It tests
whether we still understand the meaning of “independent” in the Independent
National Electoral Commission.
When
a democracy begins to blur the line between the ruler and the referee, the
outcome is predictable - the game itself ceases to be fair.
In
the final analysis, Professor Amupitan may be a learned man and a respected
scholar, but his acceptance of this appointment, given his past political role
and questionable academic record, diminishes the very institution he is now
called to lead. For the sake of Nigeria’s electoral integrity, this is one appointment
that must not stand.
The Way Forward
To preserve the sanctity of Nigeria’s electoral process, the Senate must rise above partisan allegiance and reject this nomination. History will remember whether our lawmakers chose to defend democracy or to appease power.
Civil society groups, professional associations, and citizens must also not remain silent. Silence in the face of creeping institutional compromise is complicity. The credibility of future elections in 2027 and beyond depends on the courage to draw the line today.
Until next week, this is Political Panorama with Ola Olateju - Voice of the Coalition. Voice of the People.
1 Comments
Great
ReplyDelete