Why Northern CAN’s Rejection of the INEC Removal Call Matters — Democracy, Religion & Nigeria’s Electoral Future
In a development that has captured national attention, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in the 19 northern states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has firmly rejected calls for the removal of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan. The association’s stance has sparked critical discussions about religion, national unity, democratic integrity and the rule of law in Nigeria.
This blog post explores what prompted the controversy, the positions of different religious bodies, the broader implications for Nigeria’s 2027 general elections, and why this conversation resonates far beyond headlines.
Background: What Triggered the Call for Removal
The controversy began when the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN) publicly demanded that the INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, be removed and investigated. The council claimed Amupitan’s integrity was compromised due to a legal brief in which he acknowledged allegations of persecution against Christians in Nigeria, and suggested this could affect his impartiality as head of the electoral body.
The SCSN also warned that Muslims might refuse to recognise any election overseen by Amupitan, implying that his position could undermine electoral legitimacy across parts of the country.
This demand amplified existing tensions, prompting reactions from major religious organisations — most notably CAN and other Christian groups — who opposed the call on principle and framed it as deeply problematic.
CAN’s Rejection: Protecting Democratic Institutions
In its response, issued from Kaduna and jointly signed by its Chairman Rev. Joseph John Hayab and Secretary-General Bishop Mohammed Naga, Northern CAN described the SCSN’s demand as dangerous, divisive, and an attempt to politicise religion.
Key Points from CAN’s Statement
1. Freedom of Religion Is a Right: CAN emphasised that Professor Amupitan, like any Nigerian, enjoys constitutional freedom of religion, and holding religious views does not disqualify anyone from public office.
2. Competence Over Religion: The association insisted that professional competence, integrity and national interest — not religious affiliation — should guide the assessment of public officials.
3. Historical Precedent Matters: CAN recalled that previous INEC chairmen, including Prof. Attahiru Jega and Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, who were Muslims from northern Nigeria, served without public calls for their removal on religious grounds.
4. Danger of Sectarian Politics: By challenging the chairman based on religion, CAN warned, Nigeria risks deepening divisions at a sensitive time in its democratic calendar — just ahead of the 2027 elections.
5. Call for Transparency: CAN questioned who truly backs the removal campaign, urging organisations using religious platforms for political aims to be transparent about their motives.
In doing so, CAN’s position reflects a broader insistence that democratic institutions should not be undermined through sectarian sentiment, and that public confidence in the electoral process must be protected.
Christian Groups Rally Behind INEC Chairman
CAN was not alone in its stance. The National Christian Alliance for Good Governance in Nigeria (NCAGG) — a coalition of church leaders and civic actors — also condemned the call for Amupitan’s removal.
In a separate statement, NCAGG described the demand as undemocratic and ill-advised, arguing that such actions risk inflaming unnecessary divisions in a country where religious harmony remains fragile. They stressed that INEC’s independence and integrity must be defended, especially as Nigeria prepares for arguably its most consequential elections in 2027.
Counter-Arguments: What SCSN and MURIC Are Saying
The Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria grounded its removal call on the belief that Amupitan’s previous legal brief showed bias that could affect his stewardship of Nigeria’s elections. They also asserted that Muslims might not recognise an election overseen by him.
The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) subsequently backed this position, calling the demand “justifiable and objective” and warning that retaining Amupitan jeopardised electoral credibility. MURIC suggested that the chairman’s involvement with a legal brief on alleged Christian persecution and genocide could undermine trust among Muslim communities.
These arguments, though contested, reveal broader anxieties about representation, identity and fairness in Nigeria’s political landscape.
Why This Matters: Religion, Politics & National Unity
At its core, this debate is not only about the future of Professor Amupitan’s role — it’s about how religion intersects with governance in Africa’s most populous nation.
Nigeria is a country deeply shaped by religious diversity. Christians and Muslims each make up nearly half of the population, and political tensions can quickly assume religious hues. The reaction from CAN suggests a fear that public institutions could become battlegrounds for sectarian influence if religious considerations overshadow merit and constitutional rights.
CAN’s criticism also highlights longstanding concerns about discrimination against religious minorities in national appointments. Their public remarks drew attention to the need for inclusive governance that rises above identity politics — a message with particular magnification as the country approaches another general election cycle.
The Broader Context: Nigeria’s Democratic Challenges
Nigeria’s election history is marked by disputes over credibility, fairness, and public trust. INEC, as the electoral umpire, bears the heavy responsibility of safeguarding the legitimacy of the democratic process. Its independence is therefore critical — not only legally, but symbolically.
When religious bodies take positions on leadership appointments, it can have the unintended consequence of shaping public perceptions of neutrality, especially if those comments are framed in terms of acceptance by a particular faith bloc. CAN’s reaction underscores the risk that such narratives pose to national cohesion.
Similarly, political commentators have long emphasised that Nigeria’s democratic stability depends on managing diversity — religious, ethnic, or regional — without letting it fracture national identity or electoral participation.
Looking Ahead: Impact on 2027 Elections and Beyond
With the 2027 general elections on the horizon, the timing of this controversy is significant.
If unresolved, debates over the integrity and leadership of INEC could:
Undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
Reinforce perceptions of bias among religious constituencies.
Fuel narratives of marginalisation that might depress voter turnout or deepen divisions.
Set a precedent for how religious organisations engage in political advocacy.
Northern CAN’s rejection, therefore, is more than just a defensive stance — it is a call for a politics rooted in competence, equity and national interest, rather than religion-based mobilization.
Final Thoughts: Democracy Above Division
Nigeria’s journey as a democratic republic has been fraught with challenges, yet its strength lies in the resilience of its institutions and the ability of its people to negotiate diversity.
The debate around Professor Joash Amupitan’s leadership at INEC is reflective of larger national questions about how religious and political identities intersect, especially when public trust and democratic legitimacy are at stake.
By rejecting calls rooted in religious contention, Northern CAN and allied groups have signalled a preference for competence, lawful process and democratic inclusivity — a stance that may yet contribute to a more robust electoral ecosystem in Nigeria’s future.
0 Comments