ALDRAP Urges Senate To Disqualify Amupitan As INEC Chairman

…Says “he was the Lead Counsel to APC during the 2023 Presidential Election Petition”

In what is rapidly turning into one of the most heated political-legal controversies of the year, a coalition of more than 1,000 Nigerian lawyers has petitioned the Senate to reject the nomination of Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN, as the next Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The lawyers, under the banner of the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP), have argued that Amupitan’s nomination represents a direct threat to the neutrality and credibility of Nigeria’s electoral management system, given his previous role as Lead Counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC) during the highly divisive 2023 Presidential Election Petition.

Their protest is not an isolated cry. It has opened a floodgate of debates across legal, political, and civic spaces about the future of Nigeria’s electoral independence, the blurred lines between law and politics, and whether the current administration is testing the constitutional limits of partisan influence in public appointments.

In a detailed letter dated October 10, 2025, and addressed to Senator Simon Lalong, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters, ALDRAP stated unequivocally that Prof. Amupitan is unfit to preside over Nigeria’s electoral body, given his partisan legal history. The letter, signed by Jesse Williams Amuga, the association’s Administrative Secretary, cited several constitutional provisions, ethical codes, and precedents as justification for their position.

“The integrity of the Independent National Electoral Commission depends on the complete impartiality of its leadership. The moment a person who has represented a political party in a presidential election dispute is appointed to head INEC, that independence collapses in perception and in fact,” the group stated.

ALDRAP pointed to Section 5 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act (1991), which prohibits public officers from engaging in activities where personal interest conflicts with official duties. They also referenced Section 19 of the ICPC Act (2003), which criminalizes the use of prior professional or political engagements to obtain undue advantage in public office.

By these provisions, the lawyers argue that Amupitan’s nomination violates the constitutional demand for neutrality, given his previous advocacy for the ruling party during one of Nigeria’s most contentious election litigations.

For ALDRAP, the opposition to Amupitan’s nomination is not simply about politics — it is about the principle of impartiality, the very foundation upon which the credibility of an electoral commission rests. The group’s argument is anchored on a dual framework: perception and practice. Even if Amupitan could theoretically act independently, his past professional loyalties to the APC, they claim, would create a permanent perception of bias, particularly in an electoral climate already marred by distrust and polarization.

The association’s letter reads in part: “The Senate must act in line with precedent, as seen in 2021 when it rejected the nomination of Mrs. Lauretta Onochie over her partisan involvement with the APC. Prof. Amupitan’s case falls squarely within that standard of disqualification.”

This reference to the Lauretta Onochie precedent is a strategic one. In 2021, President Muhammadu Buhari’s nomination of Onochie, who had openly supported the APC and President Buhari, was rejected by the Senate after public outcry. The rejection was hailed as a rare instance of institutional restraint and defence of electoral neutrality. ALDRAP is now invoking that same moral and legislative standard, urging the Senate not to erode its own institutional credibility by confirming Amupitan.

To understand the magnitude of this debate, one must revisit the 2023 Presidential Election Petition, arguably one of the most consequential in Nigeria’s democratic history. Following the declaration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu as winner, opposition parties — the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Labour Party (LP) — challenged the results, alleging irregularities, manipulation of transmission systems, and suppression of votes.

At the Supreme Court stage, Prof. Joash Amupitan, SAN, led the APC’s legal defense team. His performance, by several accounts, was technical, precise, and assertive—earning him both professional admiration and political recognition within ruling party circles. His close professional alignment with the APC leadership during that case is precisely what makes his nomination for INEC chairmanship so controversial.

For the over 1,000 lawyers now mobilized against his appointment, Amupitan’s past advocacy is not just an occupational coincidence—it is a structural disqualification. His name, they insist, cannot be separated from the party machinery he defended in court.

In their statement, ALDRAP reminded the Presidency and the Senate that Nigeria is not short of legal experts qualified to lead INEC. The group estimated that the country currently has over 200,000 licensed lawyers, with at least half unaffiliated with any political party. To them, appointing Amupitan—who carries a visible partisan imprint—is an unnecessary provocation.

“The law is clear: impartiality is not optional for the INEC Chairman; it is an existential prerequisite. When thousands of lawyers and academics exist without partisan baggage, the nomination of a recent lead counsel to a ruling party’s election defense is not just a conflict of interest — it is a moral affront to Nigeria’s democracy,” ALDRAP declared.

Their position is backed by several senior legal figures who have spoken publicly since the petition surfaced. One of them, a Senior Advocate who requested anonymity, described the nomination as “a constitutional ticking time bomb.”

“It will destroy what remains of INEC’s institutional credibility. Imagine a 2027 election where the same man who defended APC’s 2023 mandate is supervising opposition petitions. Even if he acts fairly, perception will never recover,” he said.

ALDRAP’s letter was not a mere plea; it came with an explicit warning. Should the Senate proceed with confirmation hearings, the association promised to file a lawsuit compelling adherence to constitutional standards of impartiality. Their words were unequivocal: “Take notice that in the event the Senate goes ahead to undertake confirmation of the said Prof. Joash Amupitan, our association shall be left with no option than to institute a lawsuit to compel adherence to the requirements of impartiality in the confirmation of an INEC Chairman.”

Copies of this petition were reportedly dispatched to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Director-General of the DSS, the Inspector-General of Police, and several foreign diplomatic missions, including the European Union, United States, and United Kingdom embassies in Nigeria.

As of October 12, 2025, neither the Presidency nor Prof. Amupitan has issued an official response to the allegations. However, insiders in the Presidential Villa have hinted that the nomination was personally recommended by a small circle within the administration, reportedly emphasizing Amupitan’s “competence, loyalty, and deep knowledge of electoral law.”

That argument, however, may not hold much weight in a Senate still smarting from public criticism over its perceived subservience to the Executive. The Senate Committee on Electoral Matters, chaired by Senator Simon Lalong, is now under intense scrutiny from civil society organizations, opposition lawmakers, and foreign observers.

This is not the first time Nigeria’s democracy has confronted a storm over electoral appointments. Since 1999, every administration has faced accusations of attempting to compromise INEC’s independence through partisan appointments.

Under President Obasanjo, opposition parties accused INEC of bias in its handling of the 2003 and 2007 elections.

Under President Jonathan, the appointment of Attahiru Jega was widely praised because he was perceived as independent — a rare moment of bipartisan confidence.

Under President Buhari, the attempted nomination of Lauretta Onochie rekindled the debate, ultimately forcing the Senate to block it.

Now, under President Tinubu, history seems to be repeating itself—only this time, the stakes are higher. Nigeria faces economic crisis, distrust in governance, and rising political polarization ahead of the 2027 elections.

Voices from Civil Society and the Opposition

Civil society groups such as TMG, Yiaga Africa, and CDD have urged the Senate to prioritize public confidence over political expediency.

“The next INEC Chairman must not only be impartial but must also be seen by Nigerians as impartial,” said a spokesperson for Yiaga Africa.

Opposition parties PDP and LP have also condemned the nomination. “No one who defended the APC in court can preside over elections involving the same APC,” said PDP’s Debo Ologunagba.

Several lawyers have defended Amupitan, arguing that representing a political party as counsel does not equate to partisanship. “Professional representation does not translate into political membership,” said constitutional lawyer Ibrahim Maikori.

Still, even some allies admit the optics are troubling. “It may be legal,” one supporter said, “but it is politically unwise.”

The Senate’s Upcoming Test: Integrity or Expediency?

As the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings, the nation watches. A rejection could reaffirm institutional independence; a confirmation might deepen public skepticism about the impartiality of elections under this administration.

Looking Ahead: What This Controversy Reveals About Nigeria’s Democracy

The Amupitan debate reflects the fragile balance between professionalism and politics in Nigeria’s democratic journey. It underscores the enduring question: can the nation build an electoral system where the referee is not a player?

Until the Senate makes its decision, the controversy will continue to test the strength of Nigeria’s democratic institutions and the public’s faith in them.

COURTESY: geencee.com