2027 and the Battle for Electoral Credibility: Why MURIC Wants INEC Chairman Amupitan Sacked — A Deep Dive into Nigeria’s Democratic Crossroads
Nigeria’s democratic trajectory is once again under intense scrutiny as the 2027 general elections approach. At the heart of the current political storm is a renewed call by the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) urging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to immediately sack Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The demand’s enormity and implications have generated national debate, pitting civil society groups, political actors, religious bodies, and youth organizations against one another — each with distinct views on the future of Nigeria’s electoral integrity.
In this detailed analysis, we unpack the reasons behind MURIC’s controversial demand, the reactions from other stakeholders, Amupitan’s mandate and background, and the broader context shaping the 2027 election environment.
1. What Sparked the Call for Amupitan’s Removal?
The current controversy centres mainly on a 2020 legal brief authored by Professor Amupitan titled “Legal Brief: Genocide in Nigeria: The Implications for the International Community”. This document, which was reportedly shared with audiences in the United States, discussed violence in Nigeria and made claims that some groups interpreted as alleging a systematic “Christian genocide.”
MURIC, an influential Muslim advocacy organization, argues that this past position makes Amupitan unsuitable to lead Nigeria’s electoral commission. According to the group:
Amupitan’s legal brief suggests religious bias, undermining his neutrality.
An electoral umpire must be absolutely impartial to command confidence across Nigeria’s diverse society.
Allowing him to remain in office threatens the credibility of the 2027 election and could deepen existing tensions.
In a statement issued on 29 January 2026, MURIC explicitly called on President Tinubu to sack, resign, or prosecute Amupitan, arguing that his past alleged bias is incompatible with the impartiality required of the INEC chairman.
2. Religious Bodies Join the Outcry
MURIC’s demands are reinforced by similar calls from other religious advocacy groups. The Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN) has threatened to reject any elections conducted under Amupitan’s leadership, claiming that his alleged positions contradict Nigeria’s national unity and religious harmony.
In statements carried by several outlets, the SCSN highlighted the following:
The alleged “genocide” claim is divisive and dangerous in Nigeria’s fragile inter-religious context.
The electoral process must be overseen by a chairperson perceived as unbiased by all faith communities.
President Tinubu should reconsider or reverse Amupitan’s appointment to protect the democratic process.
The involvement of religious councils underscores how deeply this debate cuts across Nigeria’s socio-political landscape.
3. Counterpoints: Youth and Civil Society Reactions
Not all stakeholders support MURIC’s position. Several groups, including youth alliances and civil society organizations, have criticized calls for Amupitan’s sack as misguided or politically motivated.
The Arewa Youth Alliance for Religious Harmony, for example, called the campaign to oust Amupitan “ill-advised,” suggesting it is an attempt to weaponize religion for political gain rather than genuinely address election integrity concerns.
Similarly, segments of Nigeria’s civil society have urged the electoral commission to focus on restoring confidence in the electoral system rather than engaging in internecine debates about the chairman’s past writings. Many argue that Amupitan’s leadership should be evaluated on performance and reforms rather than controversies from earlier in his academic career.
4. Who Is Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan?
To understand the tensions, it is crucial to know more about the man at the centre of the storm.
According to official information from INEC:
Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan is a seasoned legal scholar and administrator born on 25 April 1967 in Aiyetoro Gbede, Kogi State.
He holds an LL.B. from the University of Jos and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1988.
Prior to his appointment as INEC chairman, Amupitan held senior academic and administrative positions, including roles as Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) at the University of Jos.
In October 2025, President Tinubu nominated Amupitan to lead INEC, and he was subsequently confirmed by Nigeria’s Senate. The presidency emphasized that his appointment was based on credentials and a commitment to electoral integrity.
5. The Challenge of 2027: High Stakes and High Expectations
The stakes around the 2027 general elections are historic. Nigeria’s democratic journey has been marked by numerous electoral controversies and pressures for reform. The outgoing decade witnessed repeated calls for INEC to rebuild trust, improve transparency, and modernize voting processes — especially after the controversial 2023 general election.
Upon assuming office, Amupitan underscored his commitment to:
Conducting free, fair, credible, and inclusive elections;
Upholding transparency and professional integrity within INEC;
Strengthening public confidence in electoral processes.
INEC’s leadership has framed the 2027 polls as an opportunity to set a new benchmark for African elections — technologically advanced and beyond reproach — particularly with tools like the Bi-Modal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) that aim to minimize irregularities.
6. The Political and Social Dimensions of the Removal Debate
The public debate around Amupitan’s removal is not purely administrative. It intersects with broader political narratives:
a. Religious Sensitivities:
Conflict-related narratives — especially those framed in religious terms — are highly sensitive in Nigeria, a country of diverse faiths and cultures. Groups like MURIC and the SCSN argue that any perceived bias by the electoral umpire could fracture social cohesion.
b. Political Trust:
Opposition parties and civil society have stressed the urgent need for INEC under Amupitan to rebuild Nigeria’s electoral credibility after perceived setbacks in past polls. Trust in institutions remains precarious in the eyes of many Nigerians.
c. Institutional Independence:
Critics of MURIC’s position warn against conflating criticism of an institution’s leader with attacks on democratic independence itself. They argue that focusing on past writings rather than present conduct may set a dangerous precedent.
7. What Happens Next?
As the 2027 election clock ticks, several possible outcomes could shape how this debate evolves:
President Tinubu’s Response:
MURIC’s demand places significant pressure on the presidency, which must balance constitutional mandates, political realities, and public confidence.
Judicial Challenges:
Some organizations have already hinted at legal avenues to challenge Amupitan’s appointment, although the success of such cases is uncertain.
Public Opinion:
Grassroots sentiment may increasingly influence how politicians and institutions respond in the lead-up to 2027.
INEC Performance:
Ultimately, the conduct of elections, from preparatory phases to final results, may determine whether controversies around the chairman fade or intensify.
Conclusion
The call by MURIC and allied bodies to sack INEC Chairman Joash Amupitan has ignited a national discourse about electoral integrity, religious bias, and the future of democracy in Nigeria. While critics see it as a defensive stand against perceived prejudice, others worry that such moves detract from urgent electoral reforms and institutional strengthening.
With Nigeria’s 2027 general elections on the horizon, the nation faces a critical test — not just of its electoral systems, but of its political maturity and capacity to manage differences without undermining democratic institutions.
Nigeria’s democracy is at a crossroads. Whether controversy leads to constructive reform or further polarization depends on how leaders, institutions, and citizens navigate these turbulent debates.
0 Comments