The INEC Amupitan removal controversy has sparked a tense exchange between Nigeria’s electoral body and the African Democratic Congress, but the response from Independent National Electoral Commission suggests this isn’t something they plan to entertain for long.
After calls were made for the resignation of Prof. Joash Amupitan, the Commission came out with a detailed explanation. And if you read between the lines, it feels less like a back-and-forth and more like INEC drawing a firm boundary.
Why ADC Called for His Removal
The issue started when the ADC, led by David Mark, accused INEC of showing bias.
Their concern was tied to a specific decision—the removal of the party’s leadership details from INEC’s official portal. From their point of view, that move raised questions about fairness and neutrality.
So, during a press conference in Abuja, they called for Amupitan to either step down or be removed.
It’s a serious demand, and not something political parties make lightly. But at the same time, it’s also not something that happens easily.
Also read: Iyabo Ojo Speaks Out on Funke Akindele Snub, Blames Toyin Abraham for Breaking Peace Deal
INEC’s Response: It’s About the Constitution
INEC didn’t ignore the call, but its response was very clear.
According to the Commission, the position of its chairman is protected by the Constitution. Specifically, they pointed to provisions that outline how the chairman can be appointed and removed.
In simple terms, no political party has the power to demand that.
They stressed that any attempt to remove the chairman outside the constitutional process is not just inappropriate—it threatens the independence of the electoral system itself.
That’s a strong statement. And maybe intentionally so.
The Court Judgment Behind the Decision
One of the key points INEC emphasized was that its actions were based on a ruling from the Court of Appeal.
The Commission explained that it had to comply with that judgment to avoid repeating past situations where ignoring court orders led to bigger consequences. Cases like those in Zamfara and Plateau states were mentioned as examples.
There was also a standing order from the Federal High Court, which restricted INEC from taking certain actions regarding the ADC’s internal processes.
So, from INEC’s perspective, it wasn’t choosing sides—it was following legal instructions.
And that distinction matters, at least in how they are presenting it.
“We Won’t Be Dragged Into Party Conflicts”
Another point the Commission made was that it doesn’t intend to get involved in internal disputes within political parties.
That part feels important.
Political parties often have internal disagreements—leadership struggles, factional issues, and so on. INEC seems to be saying that resolving those problems is not its role.
Instead, its responsibility is to follow the law and ensure electoral processes remain intact.
Whether everyone agrees with that stance is another matter.
Voter Register Revalidation Raises Questions
Beyond the leadership dispute, INEC also addressed concerns about its planned voter register revalidation exercise.
Some groups had started to question the timing and intent behind it, possibly linking it to political motives.
But INEC dismissed those concerns.
According to the Commission, the revalidation is simply an administrative process. It’s meant to clean up the voter register—removing duplicates, updating records, and confirming active voters.
They pointed out that the current register includes data going back more than a decade, so an update is necessary.
Still, it’s the kind of exercise that can easily be misunderstood, especially in a politically sensitive environment.
Also read: Celine Dion Comeback Concerts Bring Hope After Years Away From the Stage
Focus Shifts to Upcoming Elections
INEC also made it clear that its attention is currently on upcoming elections, including the off-cycle polls in Ekiti and Osun states.
From their statement, it seems they’re trying to avoid distractions.
They insisted that their decisions are guided by law, not political pressure, and that their goal remains the same—conducting free and fair elections.
That’s the official position, at least.
A Situation That May Not End Quickly
The INEC Amupitan removal issue doesn’t look like it will fade immediately.
On one side, you have a political party raising concerns about fairness. On the other, an electoral body insisting it is simply following the law.
Both positions, in a way, make sense from their own perspectives.
But like many political disputes, the full picture is probably more complicated than what’s being said publicly.
For now, INEC seems firm in its stance. It has rejected the calls for removal and defended its actions as lawful and necessary.
Whether that settles the matter—or leads to further reactions—remains to be seen.