EDITORIAL: INEC Chair, Amupitan Must Go
Nigeria’s democracy is under strain, and recent actions by the leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) have only deepened public concern. What should be a neutral institution has, in the eyes of many Nigerians, become a participant in political disputes. At a time when trust in elections must be strengthened, it is instead being eroded.
The controversy surrounding the derecognition of the genuine leadership of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has brought matters to a head. The decision, widely criticised, has raised fresh questions about whether the electoral body understands the limits of its powers. Rather than regulate, it now appears to be deciding internal party affairs.
At a world press conference in Abuja, ADC National Chairman, David Mark spoke plainly. He said the Commission had no right to interfere in the internal workings of political parties and warned that such actions could only damage the democratic process. According to him, “INEC has overstepped its bounds and placed itself in a position where it cannot be trusted to act fairly.”
Mark went further, declaring that the Commission, under its current leadership, is “incapable of conducting credible elections.” He insisted that the ADC would not be intimidated or derailed, and would continue its lawful activities regardless of the Commission’s position. His remarks reflected a growing sentiment across opposition circles.
This is not an isolated complaint. Over the past months, several groups and political actors have accused the Commission of selective interference. Decisions affecting party leadership disputes and election timelines have been viewed as favouring one side over others. Whether intended or not, the perception of bias has taken root.
In a democracy, perception is as important as action. Once citizens begin to doubt the fairness of the electoral umpire, the entire system becomes unstable. Nigeria’s democracy, now approaching three decades, cannot afford such uncertainty. It is still a young system, and it requires careful handling.
There is also a wider political context that cannot be ignored. Critics have linked the Commission’s posture to what they describe as a broader plan by the Bola Tinubu administration to weaken opposition parties and move the country towards a one-party state. Whether this claim is fully proven or not, the fear itself is damaging.
Many believe the government appears uneasy about the possibility of a united opposition. This perceived nervousness, or jitteriness, is said to be driving actions that undermine political competition. A democracy cannot thrive where the ruling party is seen to be closing the space for others.
The role of the electoral body is clear. It must organise elections, not manage political parties. It must remain impartial, not appear to take sides. When it strays from this path, it risks losing the confidence of the very people it is meant to serve.
Nigeria has experienced disputed elections before, and the consequences have often been severe. Tensions rise, institutions weaken, and public faith declines. The country cannot afford a repeat, especially with another general election on the horizon.
For this reason, the call for the resignation of the INEC Chairman is gaining ground. It is not merely a political demand; it is a call to protect the integrity of the system. Leadership must inspire confidence, and where that confidence is lost, change becomes necessary.
President Tinubu must recognise the seriousness of the moment. Allowing the situation to continue unchecked will only deepen suspicion and division. Acting now could help restore trust and demonstrate a commitment to fair elections.
Nigeria stands at a delicate point. Nearly 27 years of democratic progress are at risk of being undermined by actions that appear partial and unnecessary. To preserve what has been built, those entrusted with safeguarding the process must act with restraint, fairness and, when required, the humility to step aside.
