The appointment of Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN, as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is a development that warrants careful optimism. In a country where electoral credibility has often been questioned, his selection offers a measure of hope that integrity and diligence might guide the nation’s electoral processes. While the challenges before him are immense, there is reason to affirm the qualities he brings to this onerous role: scholarship, experience, and a reputation for principled public service. 

Approved by the Council of State, confirmed by the Senate and sworn into office by the president, Amupitan’s appointment has already generated interest across a country long burdened by deep cynicism and electoral uncertainty. It is no exaggeration to say that, in our political imagination, INEC has often been seen as a graveyard of reputations. Yet the selection of Professor Amupitan, a scholar of unimpeachable integrity, offers a rare opportunity to restore public trust in a critical national institution.

Having known Professor Amupitan as a student at the University of Jos in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I can attest to his intellectual calibre and character. He was my lecturer in Constitutional Law, often deputising for the itinerant but brilliant constitutional scholar, the late Professor Ebiere Osieke. Later, he was my lecturer in Evidence Law. However, I attended his classes a few times before my arrest and detention as President of the National Association of Nigerian Students, NANS, at the Kirikiri Prison in 1991, missing a term in which the teaching of the course lasted. Over more than three decades, our paths have crossed many times, and I know him well enough to affirm his qualities: he is industrious, honest, humble, and deeply grounded in principle. These traits are precisely what INEC requires at a time when the credibility of elections is central to the nation’s democratic survival.

The role of INEC extends beyond organising elections and announcing results. In a postcolonial state such as ours, where democratic institutions are still consolidating after decades of military rule and political turbulence, the credibility of elections is foundational to legitimacy, governance, and social cohesion. Scholars like Larry Diamond, Samuel Huntington, Yusuf Jibo and Adele Jinadu have repeatedly emphasised that democracy is more than periodic voting; it is the establishment of accountable, transparent institutions that can command public confidence. Diamond, in particular, highlights the importance of free and fair elections as both a means and an end in democratic consolidation, arguing that public trust in electoral management bodies is a sine qua non of legitimacy. 

Our electoral history demonstrates why this trust is so fragile. From the annulled 1993 presidential election, widely believed to have been won by Chief Moshood Abiola, to the controversies surrounding the 2007,  2019 and 2023 elections, allegations of vote-rigging, ballot stuffing, and manipulation have repeatedly eroded public confidence. Even with technological innovations like the card reader and the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), the perception that powerful political actors can influence elections continues to undermine our democratic faith. These challenges are not unique to our country, but the stakes are particularly high in a country of over 200 million people with deep ethnic, religious, and regional divisions. Credible elections are not a luxury; they are essential for peace, stability, and the legitimacy of governance.

INEC’s independence, enshrined in the Constitution, is meant to insulate it from political interference. In practice, however, the perception of susceptibility to external pressure has often undermined its credibility and authority. For decades, politicians have accused the Commission of bias, while citizens have questioned whether their votes truly matter. Scholars like Professor Jibrin Ibrahim, AKA Jibo, have underscored the importance of institutional autonomy for electoral commissions, noting that independence is not simply a matter of legal imprimatur but also of political culture, integrity, and the consistent application of rules, as well as what Michel Foucault described as the discipline of power. 

Professor Amupitan’s academic rigour, ethical grounding, and experience in public service position him to navigate these challenges with wisdom, resolve, and recourse to conscience. Leadership matters immensely in shaping electoral institutions. A credible electoral umpire is a reflection of the values, discipline, and priorities of its leadership. INEC under Professor Amupitan is thus challenged to set a new benchmark for professionalism, impartiality, and apolitical responsiveness. 

This entails not only overseeing elections efficiently but also engaging proactively with civil society, political parties, and citizens to reinforce transparency and trust. An effective INEC enforces electoral laws consistently, applies sanctions where necessary, and communicates openly about processes, challenges, and outcomes. In this regard, the Chair’s role is as much about moral authority as it is about administrative competence.

The significance of credible elections goes beyond individual outcomes. In a multiethnic, postcolonial democracy like ours, elections are a social contract through which citizens express their consent to be governed. When elections are perceived as rigged or unfair, this contract is undermined, creating space for grievance, unrest, and even violence. Studies have shown that post-election violence often correlates directly with perceptions of electoral fraud. Conversely, when citizens trust that votes are counted accurately and that leaders are elected fairly, democratic consolidation accelerates. INEC is therefore not merely an election management body; it is the cornerstone of our country’s political stability and national unity.

Professor Amupitan’s tenure must then be viewed through the lens of reforms. Electoral reforms are not simply a matter of technology but of culture, ethics, and institutional robustness. While the adoption of BVAS and electronic transmission of results has improved transparency, these measures alone are insufficient. Continuous capacity-building for electoral officials, rigorous audits of procedures, and rapid dispute-resolution mechanisms are essential. 

Equally important are the enforcement of campaign finance laws, transparency in political party operations, and educating the electorate on their rights and responsibilities. Leadership that prioritises these reforms will not only safeguard elections but also reinforce the broader democratic culture of the country. Moreover, INEC must navigate the delicate balance between legal fidelity and responsiveness to public expectations. Citizens rightly expect that electoral rules are applied fairly, but they also demand that elections produce outcomes consistent with democratic ideals of representation and fairness.

Professor Amupitan, with his dual grounding in law and public service, is uniquely equipped to reconcile these demands. His academic background enables him to appreciate the letter of the law, while his practical experience sensitises him to the moral and social imperatives of leadership. This combination is vital in a country where legal formalism must be tempered by democratic pragmatism. Here, comparative experience from other democracies offers valuable lessons.

In India, the Election Commission has maintained credibility through transparent procedures, swift administrative adjudication of disputes, and strict neutrality. In South Africa, the Independent Electoral Commission has earned public trust by consistently enforcing laws and engaging with civil society. In each case, the integrity and independence of the leadership were central to the institution’s success. INEC, under Professor Amupitan, has the opportunity to learn from these examples while tailoring reforms to the nation’s unique sociopolitical context.

Beyond reforms, communication and public engagement will be critical. Citizens must understand how elections are conducted, how disputes are resolved, and how irregularities are addressed. Transparency builds trust, and trust is the currency of democracy. Professor Amupitan’s leadership style must therefore combine technical proficiency with openness, fostering a culture where INEC is seen not as an obstacle to democracy but as a guarantor of its values. 

The task ahead is formidable. As our country approaches the 2027 general elections, the stakes could not be higher. Our youths, who make up the majority of the electorate, are particularly attentive to issues of fairness, accountability, and integrity. Social media ensures that electoral processes are subject to unprecedented scrutiny. Missteps by INEC are instantly magnified, and public confidence can be eroded in real time. For Professor Amupitan, navigating this complex environment will require foresight, courage, and steadfast adherence to principle.

The appointment of Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN, as INEC Chairman may provide cautious optimism in our democratic journey, but his integrity, scholarship, and commitment to public service provide a firm foundation for credible, transparent, and fair elections. The task ahead is daunting, but the potential rewards, strengthened by our collective purpose and public trust, are immense. 

As citizens, it is incumbent upon us to engage constructively with electoral reforms and uphold the democratic principles for which generations have struggled. Professor Amupitan’s tenure offers INEC the chance to recover its lost credibility, and our country, an opportunity to remind itself that even in the climate of doubt and cynicism, principle still matters. Democracy endures only through fidelity to principles—that much is the immutable given. May God guide him right.

Abdul Mahmud is a human rights attorney in Abuja