Urgent Call: Shari’ah Council Demands Immediate Dismissal of INEC Chairman Over Controversial “Genocide” Legal Brief
In a dramatic and sharp development that is sending ripples across Nigeria’s political and religious spheres, the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN) has publicly urged Bola Tinubu’s administration to sack Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, newly appointed chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), citing a legal brief he authored in 2020 which labelled violence in Nigeria as “genocide”. Teachers of electoral neutrality and religious harmony have taken note, and the stakes are high.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of what’s going on, how we got here, what it means — and why this is a major moment for Nigeria’s democracy, religious coexistence and electoral credibility.
On 6 November 2025, an exclusive investigation by SaharaReporters revealed that Prof Amupitan had authored a document titled “Legal Brief: Genocide in Nigeria – The Implications for the International Community”, published under his law firm “Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan (SAN) & Co.” within a 2020 report titled “Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter”.
In the brief, the author asserted that “crimes under international law — including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity — were being perpetrated in Nigeria,” with a focus on Christians and minority groups in northern Nigeria, also linking the hostilities to extremist violence and the historic 19th-century jihad of Sheikh Uthman dan Fodio.
Two days later, the SCSN issued a statement (on Friday, 7 November 2025) expressing “deep disappointment and grave concern” that someone now tasked with overseeing Nigeria’s electoral integrity had previously authored what the Council describes as “divisive, sectarian, abusive and factually inaccurate narratives against a majority faith community”.
The SCSN demanded that President Tinubu “immediately review and reverse” the appointment of Prof Amupitan, arguing that the “integrity of Nigeria’s electoral process cannot be entrusted to someone whose record reveals open hostility toward one of the country’s largest faith communities.”
What’s in contention
The heart of the controversy lies in three inter-locking issues:
1. Content of the legal brief: Prof Amupitan’s document describes large-scale violence and mass killings in Nigeria as “genocide,” implicating the Nigerian state and non-state actors in failure to uphold constitutional duties.
2. Perceived sectarian tilt: The SCSN argues that the brief is not a neutral human rights analysis but “provocative, distorted and bigoted assertions” directed at Muslims in Northern Nigeria. The Council points out that humanitarian data in conflict zones shows Muslims have suffered heavily — citing casualty patterns in Borno, Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, Niger and Yobe states.
3. Electoral neutrality and trust: Because Prof Amupitan now heads INEC, the electoral umpire in Nigeria’s multi-religious, multi-ethnic society, the SCSN argues his prior views raise serious doubts about his ability to conduct a genuinely fair, inclusive electoral process. The issue is whether his past writings compromise public confidence in his neutrality.
Implications for Nigeria
Electoral credibility: The demand strikes at the heart of one of Nigeria’s most sensitive institutions. Any perception of bias or lack of impartiality in INEC’s leadership threatens to undermine the legitimacy of upcoming elections and the broader democratic process.
Religious and ethnic fault-lines: Nigeria has long dealt with ethno-religious tensions. A narrative that labels conflict in the North as “Christian genocide” while highlighting Muslim victims could inflame sectarian emotions. The SCSN is keen to prevent this.
Governance and accountability: The brief raises serious questions about state capacity and responsibility for protecting citizens. If mass killings are framed as genocide, then international norms and duties (including the Responsibility to Protect) may come into play — a sensitive matter for Nigeria’s sovereignty.
Presidential decision-making: President Tinubu now faces a high-stakes decision. If he accedes to the SCSN demand, it may placate one segment of public opinion but stir criticism of yielding to religious pressure. If he does not, he risks alienating the SCSN and other stakeholders, or being seen as tolerating a compromised INEC.
Public trust & social cohesion: Given the SCSN’s call for calm among Muslims and Christians (“our real enemies are injustice, poverty, corruption, insecurity”), this episode will test the ability of leaders and institutions to maintain social stability while navigating sensitive issues.
What to watch
Official response from INEC / Prof Amupitan: Will he issue a statement distancing himself from the brief, clarifying his stance, or defending it?
President Tinubu’s decision: Will he act on the SCSN’s call, leave the appointment untouched, or demand further investigation?
Media & civil society reaction: How will human rights organisations, inter-faith bodies, and the global community respond? Will this spark a broader debate about electoral leadership standards?
Upcoming electoral calendar: With Nigeria preparing for state and national elections, the timing of this crisis could amplify the consequences if not managed properly.
Conflict data and narratives: Underlying the entire dispute is contested data about who is being targeted, where, and by whom. Accurate and transparent data on victims and perpetrators will be critical in shaping public discourse.
This unfolding story is more than a personnel dispute. It touches on issues of justice, religious coexistence, electoral integrity, and state legitimacy. The SCSN’s bold demand challenges the very trust framework underpinning Nigeria’s democracy: that those who oversee elections must be beyond reproach, unbiased, and acceptable to all communities.
For Prof Amupitan, the stakes could not be higher — his ability to lead INEC effectively will now depend not just on technical competence but on perceived fairness across faith lines. For President Tinubu and his administration, the decision they make will send a signal: either that Nigeria can bridge religious divides in its democratic governance, or that underlying fault-lines will continue to threaten cohesion.
In a nation with a rich tapestry of ethnicities and religions, and a fraught history of electoral and communal violence, this moment demands reflection. Trust must be earned. Narratives must be accurate. And leadership must not only act but be seen to act in the interest of every citizen.
I will continue to monitor developments and can provide follow-up updates if any responses, investigations or counter-statements emerge.
0 Comments