Please Pay Attention: If you’re reading on PHOENIX, please click the “Read Original” button at the top right to view the article.
The recent reiteration by the African Democratic Congress (ADC) demanding the resignation of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, following the Thursday Supreme Court restoration of David Mark’s leadership, is not only misguided but a troubling display of political opportunism dressed as accountability.
At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental question: should institutions be vilified for obeying the law?
The answer is an unequivocal no.
INEC, as a statutory body, is bound by the rule of law and the hierarchy of courts. Prior to the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, there existed a valid and subsisting order from the Federal High Court which did not recognize the David Mark-led leadership. In compliance with that order, INEC acted appropriately by withholding recognition. This was not the decision of Prof. Joash Amupitan acting in isolation, but a lawful institutional response to a binding judicial directive.
It must be clearly stated: INEC obeyed the court, not the other way around.
To now weaponize the Supreme Court’s eventual decision as a basis to demand the resignation of the INEC Chairman is to either misunderstand the workings of constitutional democracy or deliberately distort them for political gain. Neither interpretation flatters the ADC.
The statement issued by the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, alleging bias and raising questions about INEC’s impartiality, is baseless and malicious. It is one thing to disagree with institutional actions; it is another to recklessly impugn integrity without a shred of evidence.
Prof. Joash Amupitan
Prof. Joash Amupitan has, by all observable standards, conducted himself with the restraint, neutrality, and professionalism required of his office. At no time has he demonstrated any inclination toward partisanship. The attempt to paint him otherwise is not only mischievous but also dangerous, as it undermines public confidence in democratic institutions.
The ADC must be reminded that allegations, especially those targeting the credibility of national institutions, carry weight and consequences. They must not be made lightly or without substantiation. If the party insists that “the electoral umpire’s actions raise legitimate questions about impartiality,” then it bears the burden of proof.
Where is the evidence?
Which specific action of INEC deviated from legal or procedural norms? Which directive did the Commission ignore? Which law did Prof. Amupitan violate?
Until the ADC can provide concrete, verifiable answers to these questions, its claims remain what they are: hollow rhetoric.
More concerning, however, is the broader implication of such unfounded attacks. In a fragile democracy like Nigeria’s, public trust in institutions such as INEC is critical. Reckless statements that erode this trust for short-term political mileage do long-term damage to the democratic process.
The ADC, rather than resorting to sensationalism, would do well to deepen its understanding of legal processes and institutional responsibilities. The Supreme Court has spoken. The legal ambiguity that previously existed has now been resolved. INEC, as expected, will align its actions accordingly.
That is how democracy works.
Calling for the resignation of a public official for adhering to the law sets a dangerous precedent, one where obedience to judicial authority becomes grounds for punishment. That is not accountability; it is anarchy in disguise.
The ADC must rise above this moment of political expediency and act with responsibility. If it has genuine concerns, it should present evidence through appropriate channels, not through inflammatory press statements.
Until then, its call for Prof. Joash Amupitan’s resignation deserves to be dismissed for what it is: a feeble, unsubstantiated, and ultimately counterproductive outburst.
Nigeria’s democracy deserves better.
