INEC

Public reactions have continued to trail the decision to fix Nigeria’s 2027 general elections within the holy month of Ramadan, with commentators and political figures raising concerns about possible implications for voter participation.

A Facebook user, Ibrahim A. Khaleel, was among the early voices to criticize the development. In a widely shared post, he questioned the rationale behind scheduling the elections during the fasting period, arguing that leaders who genuinely prioritize nation-building would have avoided such timing.

> “If our politicians were sincere and truly had nation-building at heart, the INEC Chairman, Professor Amupitan, would have been greatly surprised. Why then fix the 2027 election in the month of Ramadan?”



He stressed that fasting should not prevent civic engagement, citing Islamic history.

> “Fasting is not a death sentence. Muslims even fought the Battle of Badr in the month of Ramadan in the 2nd year after Hijrah (2 AH). So what is a democratic election where people only have to stand in line?”



Khaleel, however, suggested that economic hardship and public distrust in leadership could discourage turnout, alleging that inducements have often influenced voter mobilization.

“Even pasta and seasoning cubes would have to be very convincing to bring the masses out to vote. If one bag of pasta brought Mr. ‘Raw Material’ to the voting line in 2023, then it will have to be doubled now. At least two bags, with two packs of seasoning cubes added. Maybe that will motivate Mr. ‘Raw Material,’ the friend of Nigerian Democrats!”



He also drew parallels with Muslims in conflict zones, arguing that faith and perseverance endure despite hardship.

“Have Muslims in Gaza not been facing killings since October 7, 2023? They have observed Ramadan twice in the midst of this unjust war, yet they did not lose hope and they did not give up. So why should we fail to come out and vote?”



Adding to the discussion, former presidential aide Bashir Ahmad issued a formal public appeal to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), urging the electoral body to reconsider the dates.

In his statement, Ahmad acknowledged the announcement of February 20 and March 6, 2027, for the Presidential/National Assembly and Governorship/State Assembly elections respectively, but noted the religious significance of the period.

“This is a respectful observation following the announcement of February 20th and March 6th, 2027, as the date for the next Presidential and National Assembly and Governorship and State Assembly elections respectively. The proposed dates fall within the holy month of Ramadan, a period during which many Muslims devote significant time to fasting, prayer, and spiritual reflection.”



He warned that the timing could pose participation challenges for Muslim voters.

“If the intention is to encourage full and inclusive participation in the electoral process, scheduling such a critical national exercise during Ramadan may present challenges for a large segment of the population. Many Muslims tend to reduce engagement in demanding worldly activities during this period in order to focus on religious obligations.”



Ahmad further urged electoral authorities to weigh inclusiveness in their considerations.

“Given the significant Muslim population in this country, it may be worthwhile to reconsider the timing to ensure broader participation and convenience for all citizens. I do hope this observation will be taken in the spirit of inclusiveness and national cohesion.”



The debate continues to generate mixed reactions across social media and political circles, with some Nigerians supporting a review of the dates for inclusivity, while others insist that religious observance should not hinder democratic participation.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Independent National Electoral Commission has scheduled February 20, 2027, for the conduct of the next Presidential and National Assembly elections across Nigeria.

Chairman of the commission, Prof. Joash Amupitan, announced the date during a news conference held in Abuja on Friday. He also disclosed that governorship and State Houses of Assembly elections will take place on March 6, 2027.

The release of the timetable comes at a time when discussions continue over the delayed passage of the amended Electoral Act, which is still before the National Assembly.

Earlier, on February 4, the commission indicated that it had concluded work on the election timetable and the schedule of activities, despite the uncertainty surrounding the amendment to the law.

INEC stated that it had already forwarded the timetable to lawmakers. It, however, warned that certain components of the schedule could experience adjustments. The commission said any change would depend on when the amended Electoral Act is eventually passed.

Further details on the electoral programme are expected to be made public in due course.

The Independent National Electoral Commission has informed the National Assembly that it will require N873.78bn to conduct the 2027 general elections.

The commission also proposed N171bn as its budget for operations in the 2026 fiscal year.

INEC Chairman, Joash Amupitan, disclosed this during the presentation of the commission’s 2026 budget proposal and projected expenditure for the 2027 polls before the National Assembly Joint Committee on Electoral Matters in Abuja.

He explained that the N873.78bn estimate covers the full conduct of the 2027 general elections. He added that the N171bn request for 2026 would fund routine responsibilities. These include by-elections and off-season governorship polls.

The proposed election budget shows a sharp rise compared to the N313.4bn released by the Federal Government for the 2023 general elections.

Providing a breakdown of the projection, Amupitan said, “N379.75bn is for operational costs, N92.32bn for administrative costs, N209.21bn for technological costs, N154.91bn for election capital costs and N42.61bn for miscellaneous expenses.”

He noted that the estimate was prepared “in line with Section 3(3) of the Electoral Act 2022, which mandates the commission to prepare its election budget at least one year before the general election.”

On the 2026 proposal, the INEC chairman said the Ministry of Finance issued a budget envelope of N140bn. He, however, stated that “INEC is proposing a total expenditure of N171bn.”

According to him, the 2026 estimate includes N109bn for personnel costs, N18.7bn for overheads, N42.63bn for election-related activities and N1.4bn for capital projects.

Amupitan also revealed that the election budget did not accommodate a fresh request by the National Youth Service Corps seeking an upward review of allowances for corps members engaged as ad hoc election staff.

During the session, Senator Adams Oshiomhole argued that external bodies should not impose a budgeting template on INEC due to the sensitive nature of its mandate. He called for the removal of the envelope budgeting framework and urged lawmakers to support the commission’s financial request.

Similarly, a member of the House of Representatives, Billy Osawaru, advocated placing INEC’s funding on first-line charge in line with constitutional provisions. He said this would guarantee early release of funds for election planning.

The joint committee later approved a motion recommending the one-time release of the commission’s annual budget. It also pledged to review the NYSC’s request estimated at about N32bn to raise corps members’ election allowance to N125,000.

Chairman of the Senate Committee on INEC, Simon Lalong, assured that the National Assembly would collaborate closely with the electoral body to ensure successful conduct of the 2027 polls.

Also speaking, Chairman of the House Committee on Electoral Matters, Bayo Balogun, promised legislative backing but cautioned the commission against making commitments it might not fulfil.

“IReV was not even in the Electoral Act; it was only in INEC regulations. So, be careful how you make promises,” Balogun warned.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

A civil society organization, Muslim Rights Watch (MRW), has called for the immediate dismissal of Mr. Joash Ojo Amupitan, the newly appointed Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), labeling the appointment a “provocation” against Nigeria’s Muslim population.

In a strongly worded statement, MRW’s spokesman, Mr. Mujahid Abubakar, condemned the selection, describing Mr. Amupitan as an “anti-Muslim radical Christian extremist and hate preacher.” The group argues that the appointment is fundamentally inappropriate for a pluralistic nation and dangerously undermines the neutrality of the electoral umpire.

“In a multi-religious state like Nigeria, appointing a religious extremist and hate preacher as the head of an electoral umpire is fundamentally inappropriate and dangerous for both democracy and social stability,” Abubakar stated.

The organization expressed deep concern that Mr. Amupitan’s alleged track record of “Christian fundamentalism, extremism, and exclusionary rhetoric” directly contradicts the required impartiality of INEC. They warned that his leadership could erode public trust, predetermine electoral outcomes in some regions, and potentially trigger mass protests and violence, particularly in states like Nasarawa and Taraba.

“This appointment is not a mistake. It is a provocation,” the statement read. “It is an open declaration which sends a chilling message to millions of Nigerian Muslims that they are second-class participants in their own democracy.”

MRW concluded by demanding an immediate reversal of the appointment, a public apology from the Presidency, and accountability for officials who endorsed the decision. They asserted that “silence at this moment is not neutrality but complicity.”

The presidency has yet to publicly respond to these allegations.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

A prominent public affairs analyst, Dr. Bulama Audu Bukarti, has called for the immediate removal of the newly appointed Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan.

Bukarti made the demand during a heated video conversation on “Fashin Baki,” a weekly Hausa political programme, where he expressed strong reservations about the chairman’s neutrality in electoral matters.

“We urgently call on President Tinubu to immediately remove the INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan,” Bukarti declared. “If the President refuses to act, Northern politicians should take note: this man will not deliver justice or fairness in elections involving you.”

During the discussion, Bukarti accused the INEC boss of harbouring bias in the conduct of elections, particularly in contests involving candidates from the North.

“Whenever a Hausa or Fulani candidate contests against a non-Hausa/Fulani opponent, he will not conduct free, fair, or credible polls—his public hatred for Hausa and Fulani people is evident and undeniable. In contrast, when a Northerner faces a non-Northerner, he won’t be fair to the Northerner. He has previously dismissed our region’s large population figures as fabricated lies and accused Northern military and police personnel of taking over the institutions to Islamized Nigeria.”

He stressed that concerns about the appointment would have been stronger if the swearing-in had not already taken place.

“Had he not already been sworn in as INEC Chairman, we would have demanded his appointment be blocked outright. Now that the process is complete, it is imperative to press the President: this individual is unfit to lead INEC, as he cannot guarantee impartial elections for Northerners or Muslims.”

Bukarti also responded to possible criticism regarding the motive behind his position. He rejected claims that the call for removal was driven by religious sentiment.

“Anyone claiming this call for his removal stems from religious prejudice is deceiving themselves. The core issue is not his faith, but his deep-seated disbelief in Nigeria’s unity and his passionate hatred toward Northern Muslims. He has accused Northern Muslims of invading and settling in Christian-majority North Central states like Benue and Plateau as ‘settlers,’ while alleging ongoing persecution of Christians in Benue, Plateau, and Taraba states.”

The remarks have since stirred debate across political circles, with observers awaiting reactions from the Presidency and the electoral body.

The video of the programme was made available online, with viewers directed to watch the full discussion in the comment section.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Nigerian Senate has voted down a proposal seeking to amend the Electoral Act to make the electronic transmission of election results compulsory.

The decision was taken on Wednesday when lawmakers rejected an amendment to Clause 60, Subsection 3, of the Electoral Amendment Bill. The proposal aimed to remove the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) discretion over how election results are transmitted.

If approved, the amendment would have legally required INEC presiding officers to electronically upload results from every polling unit directly to the Result Viewing Portal (IREV) in real time. This process was to occur immediately after Form EC8A had been duly signed and stamped by the presiding officer, with party agents countersigning the document.

However, the Senate chose to maintain the existing and widely debated provision of the Electoral Act.

Under the current law, “the presiding officer shall transfer the results, including the total number of accredited voters and the results of the ballot, in a manner as prescribed by the Commission.”

By retaining this clause, lawmakers have allowed INEC to continue determining whether electronic transmission will be used. Critics insist that this flexibility created gaps that were allegedly exploited during the 2023 general elections.

The Senate’s decision has sparked strong reactions across the country, with many Nigerians and civil society organisations expressing disappointment. These groups had backed the amendment, describing it as a vital safeguard against manual manipulation of results at collation centres.

Analysts described the move as a setback for democratic development in Nigeria.

“We thought the National Assembly would learn from the failures of 2023 where the IREV portal became a source of national embarrassment,” Gerald Ede said. “By rejecting mandatory transmission, the Senate has essentially given a green light for the status quo of ‘manual miracles’ and result manipulation to continue.”

Supporters of the amendment had viewed mandatory real-time transmission as a crucial measure to rebuild public trust in elections.

The rejection comes at a time when calls for comprehensive electoral reforms are growing, particularly reforms designed to reduce human interference in the electoral process.

Opponents of the Senate’s position argue that leaving the “manner” of transmission to INEC’s discretion, especially given its past record of “technical glitches” during key stages of result collation, could fuel further electoral disputes and weaken the legitimacy of elected officials.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has explained why it invited the two rival factions of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to a meeting amid the leadership dispute within the party.

The Commission stepped into the internal crisis after summoning representatives of both camps to its national headquarters in Abuja on Friday. The intervention followed growing tension within the opposition party.

INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, said the decision became necessary after the electoral body received contradictory letters from the factions involved in the dispute. He noted that the conflicting communications made it important for the Commission to hear directly from all sides.

According to Amupitan, the meeting was intended to provide a platform for dialogue and clarity ahead of future electoral activities.

“We felt that by rubbing minds together, it’ll be a good opportunity for us to forge the way forward concerning the elections,” Amupitan said.

He also stressed that INEC remains guided strictly by existing laws in carrying out its duties.

“Actually, INEC sits on the tripod of three legal regimes, the Constitution, the Electoral Act and the regulations that have been made,” he said.

Amupitan further assured that the Commission would act within the limits of the law in addressing the situation.

“So we are determined to ensure that we follow the provisions of the various laws, the Constitution, and the regulations that we have made.”

The PDP has been grappling with internal disagreements, which have raised concerns about its preparedness for forthcoming elections. INEC’s move is seen as an effort to ensure order and compliance with electoral regulations as political activities intensify nationwide.

By Abu Turay

Across West Africa, a silent but powerful transformation is taking root: the judicialization of politics. The courts, once arbiters of constitutional order, are increasingly the final arbiters of electoral contests. Nowhere is this trend more visible than in Nigeria, where nearly every major election ends not at the ballot box, but at the bench.

This expanding role of the judiciary in electoral outcomes raises complex questions: Are the courts rescuing democracy from flawed elections? Or are they replacing the people’s will with judicial verdicts, thereby shifting the center of gravity in democratic governance?

Courts as Electoral Arbiters

In Nigeria, the 2023 general elections showcased the scale of post-election litigation. Dozens of gubernatorial, legislative, and even presidential results were contested, with tribunals and appellate courts deciding outcomes. In some states, candidates initially declared losers were later declared winners by judicial rulings.

This is not unique to Nigeria. Ghana, Senegal, and Sierra Leone have all witnessed major electoral disputes resolved by courts. The judiciary has become both a battleground and a battlement—a place where democracy is either affirmed or redefined.

At face value, this suggests a maturing democracy where the rule of law reigns supreme. But the implications are not always reassuring.

Why Judicialization Is Rising

Several forces are driving this trend.

First, the deterioration of electoral credibility. When institutions like the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) are accused of logistical failures, transparency lapses, or bias, the courts become the last hope for justice.

Second, electoral malpractice, including voter suppression, ballot snatching, vote buying, and misinformation, creates fertile ground for legal contestation.

Third, the increasing legal codification of elections means that technicalities—like improper nomination, overvoting, or irregular result collation—can overturn popular mandates.

Finally, the high stakes of public office in West Africa create desperation. Access to state power can mean access to wealth, immunity, and patronage. In such a zero-sum environment, litigation becomes not just a legal process but a political strategy.

The Benefit and Risks of Judicialization

There’s no denying that courts have played a vital role in correcting flawed elections. In theory, their intervention strengthens democracy, punishes rigging, and reinforces accountability. For disenfranchised voters and honest candidates, the courts can offer justice.

However, the risks are real—and growing.

• Erosion of Voter Confidence: When elections are routinely overturned or validated by judges, citizens may begin to see voting as irrelevant. If judges, not voters, decide winners, what incentive remains for civic participation?
• Perception of Bias: Even when courts follow the law, public trust can erode if verdicts appear to favor the ruling party or lack consistency. Allegations—often unproven—of judicial compromise further deepen distrust.
• Political Pressure on Judges: With so much at stake, courts may face overt or subtle pressure from powerful actors. This politicization of the judiciary undermines its independence and the democratic process.
• Weakened Electoral Bodies: Overreliance on courts can take pressure off electoral commissions to improve. If every error or illegality is expected to be “fixed” in court, institutional reform stalls.

Striking the Right Balance

The solution isn’t to remove the judiciary from politics, but to restore balance in democratic governance. That starts with a few key reforms:

1. Strengthen INEC: Electoral commissions must be empowered and insulated from political interference. Technology, transparency, and real-time result transmission should be prioritized.
2. Judicial Reform: Appointments should be merit-based and transparent. Courts must deliver verdicts speedily, especially before swearing-in ceremonies, to avoid situations where incumbents retain power during prolonged litigation.
3. Public Legal Education: Citizens must understand the legal basis for judgments. Civic education can prevent misinformation and temper partisan outrage.
4. Political Party Reforms: Many disputes begin with flawed primaries. Strengthening internal party democracy would reduce court cases tied to candidacy irregularities.
5. Pre-election Dispute Resolution: Early intervention by courts—before elections—on candidate eligibility, party symbols, and procedural concerns can limit post-election chaos.

Democracy in the Dock

The growing judicial role in elections reflects both the fragility and resilience of West African democracies. It shows that, although the ballot may be compromised, the Constitution still carries weight. Yet, democracy must not become a perpetual courtroom drama.

The judiciary is not an electoral umpire. It is a guardian of law, not a generator of legitimacy. When citizens believe their votes don’t count, the social contract frays. When politicians believe they can win in court what they lost at the polls, the democratic ethic decays.

Ultimately, a nation where every election becomes a lawsuit is one where democracy risks death by litigation.

To end this piece, I ask: Do we want a democracy that is judicially rescued or an institutionally reliable democracy? The difference will shape not only our politics but our future.

Abu Turay is an Embedded Technical Expert on Electoral Affairs at the Electoral Assistance Division of ECOWAS Peace, Security and Governance (EPSG) Program. He can be reached via bainam2010@yahoo.com.

By Yakub Aliyu

Nigeria has entered dangerous territory. The country has appointed as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) a man whose most prominent public writing is an 80-page brief accusing whole communities of committing genocide. That document, published in 2020, framed national violence almost entirely through a Christian-victimhood narrative and presented sweeping, contested claims that many Nigerians find offensive, incomplete, or simply inaccurate.

Today, the author of that brief is the referee of our national elections. And yet, the political class, from the Presidency to the Senate to the parties, is maintaining a silence so absolute that it borders on negligence.

It is this silence, not the controversy itself, that is now the real danger.

The Integrity of Elections Is a National Security Issue
Every Nigerian knows elections in this country are not routine administrative events. They are national security operations involving millions of citizens, overstretched security agencies, and volatile political identities. The neutrality of INEC is therefore not optional. It is foundational.

When the person leading that institution has authored a highly divisive document, which is now weaponised against the country by some foreign powers, the question is no longer academic. It becomes a matter of national security.

If the chairman once wrote that a section of the country was engaged in “genocide,” how will those communities trust him? How will they interpret his decisions? How will they accept results in a tight contest? And what happens if the outcome of 2027 is close enough for suspicion to matter?

These are not theoretical questions. They are national security scenarios.

How Did This Appointment Pass Through Screening?
The more the issue is examined, the more troubling the answers become.

1. The Executive Vetting Was Inadequate.
   It is difficult to believe that the Presidency did not know about the 2020 brief. It is publicly available and widely circulated among advocacy groups. If the government did not know, it raises questions about the quality of its due diligence. If it knew and ignored it, that is an even bigger problem.
2. The Senate Screening Was Superficial
   A nomination of this magnitude requires hard questions about ideology, neutrality, and past publications. No such questions were asked. The Senate treated one of the most sensitive constitutional positions as a formality. This is a failure of oversight.
3. Political Actors Fear Religious Backlash
   Many southern politicians do not want to appear to be “attacking a Christian advocate.” Many northern politicians do not want to inflame tensions by addressing a document they consider deeply inaccurate. And politicians on both sides fear being dragged into arguments that can harm their coalitions.

The easiest solution for them is silence.

4. Some Actors Prefer a Weak INEC
   A chairman under suspicion is easier to pressure. A weakened INEC is more pliable. Some forces benefit from an institution whose credibility can be questioned but whose cooperation can be secured.

This is the cynical logic but it must be acknowledged.

Why the Silence Is Dangerous

The real risk is not that the chairman is personally biased. The risk is that millions of Nigerians may believe he is, especially when political temperature rises.

Nigeria’s democracy cannot run on suspicion. If a northern, Muslim candidate loses narrowly, the chairman’s own words from 2020 will be used immediately:
“How can the election be fair when the umpire once accused us of genocide?”

This single sentence is enough to delegitimise an election. In a fragile environment, it is also enough to trigger unrest.

Nation-states collapse not from the actions of one individual, but from the inability of institutions to command trust. INEC cannot afford this weakness. Nigeria cannot afford this gamble.

The Moral Issue Cannot Be Ignored
Beyond politics lies a moral question. Every section of Nigeria has suffered from violence. Christians in some regions have endured brutal attacks. Muslims in others have buried thousands. Any narrative that elevates one community’s pain while erasing another’s deepens division.

The brief published in 2020 was not balanced. It did not acknowledge the wide pattern of atrocities across faith and region. That lack of balance is precisely what raises concern today, not whether the author meant well or not.

Leadership of INEC must be above suspicion. It must be acceptable to all parts of the country. At present, that foundation has been shaken.

Why Is Everyone Silent?
The Presidency is silent because acknowledging the issue means admitting an error in judgment. The Senate is silent because speaking now exposes the weakness of its oversight. The political parties are silent because taking a position risks angering key religious blocs. Security agencies are silent because the moment they comment, the crisis appears larger.

But silence does not preserve stability. Silence delays conflict. Silence leaves the field open for extremists, propagandists, and opportunists.

Nigeria cannot enter 2027 with a question mark hanging over the referee.

What Needs to Happen

Three things are necessary.

1. The INEC Chairman must address the Brief publicly. He does not need to renounce his past or apologise for advocacy, but he must clarify:
   —that INEC belongs to all Nigerians,
   —that all communities have suffered, and
   —that his role demands strict neutrality. Not making this clarification would mean he has lost the moral authority to remain in that office.
2. The government must break the silence.
   Here, the Presidency must explain whether the brief was vetted, how it was evaluated, and why the appointment proceeded. Nigerians deserve transparency.
3. Political leaders must safeguard the integrity of elections. If trust cannot be rebuilt, other constitutional options exist. The aim is not punishment but protection of national stability.

A Final Word

Nigeria stands at a crossroads. This issue will not disappear. It will resurface at the most dangerous moment: during the heat of the 2027 elections. The silence of today will become the crisis of tomorrow.

The country cannot sleepwalk into an avoidable disaster.

If INEC is weakened, Nigeria is weakened. If trust in the umpire collapses, no winner will have legitimacy. And if political leaders continue to pretend that this controversy is insignificant, the consequences will arrive at a cost far higher than the discomfort of speaking the truth today.

It is time to speak. It is time to act. And it is time to protect the Republic.

By Uzair Adam 

The Senate has confirmed Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN, as the new Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The confirmation followed a three-hour screening session at the Senate Chamber on Thursday, during which lawmakers grilled the nominee of President Bola Tinubu on several issues regarding electoral integrity and independence.

After the session, Senate President Godswill Akpabio put the confirmation to a voice vote, and the “ayes” carried the day without any objection. Akpabio, thereafter, urged Amupitan to ensure that votes count under his leadership.

During the screening, Amupitan dismissed claims that he served as Legal Counsel to the All Progressives Congress (APC) during the 2023 Presidential Election Petition Tribunal or at the Supreme Court. 

He noted that the law reports of those proceedings were publicly available for anyone to verify.

The new INEC Chairman pledged to ensure credible elections where losers would freely congratulate winners, stressing that such outcomes would strengthen democracy and national development. 

He also vowed to prioritise logistics, safeguard election materials through technological innovations, and intensify voter education.

Amupitan entered the chamber at 12:50 p.m. after a motion by Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele (APC, Ekiti Central) was seconded by Minority Leader Abba Moro (PDP, Benue South) to suspend Order 12 and admit him into the chamber.

Before the questioning session began, Akpabio informed his colleagues that Amupitan had been cleared by the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), the Department of State Services (DSS), and the Inspector-General of Police, confirming he had no criminal record.

President Bola Tinubu had earlier written to the Senate seeking Amupitan’s screening and confirmation as INEC Chairman in accordance with Section 154 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

In his letter, Tinubu urged the Senate to expedite action on the confirmation process, attaching Amupitan’s curriculum vitae for consideration.

Akpabio subsequently referred the President’s request to the Committee of the Whole, which concluded the legislative process with the confirmation on Thursday.