... As opposition parties realign over ADC ban, confront INEC
The storm gathering around the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, is no longer a passing squall, but one fast morphing into a full-blown political crisis, and which threatens to reshape Nigeria’s electoral landscape ahead of the 2027 general elections.
At the heart of the controversy are resurfaced social media posts allegedly linked to Amupitan, which critics say reveal partisan sympathies toward President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). What began as a digital dispute has now escalated into a nationwide debate over credibility, and the fragile trust underpinning Nigeria’s democratic process.
The controversy further intensified after United States-based Nigerian scholar Farooq Kperogi published a detailed column alleging that archived posts from an X (formerly Twitter) account bearing Amupitan’s name showed unmistakable partisan leanings during the heated 2023 elections.
Among the most contentious posts was a March 18, 2023 reply to a celebratory message by an APC official, Dayo Israel, to which the account responded: “Victory is sure.”
Another post described by supporters of opposition candidate Peter Obi in starkly negative terms, declaring that “they are evil in the 24th century,” while a separate interaction featured the single word response “Asiwaju,” a widely recognised political slogan associated with Tinubu.
For Kperogi, these were not innocuous comments, but represented, in his words, “patterned expressions of alignment” that undermined the perception of neutrality required of an electoral umpire.
“The referee cannot be a participant in the match,” Kperogi argued, insisting that Amupitan’s continued stay in office risks eroding public confidence in the electoral system.
The allegations fast spread across social media, triggering a torrent of reactions from Nigerians, analysts, and political actors.
INEC Denial and the Battle of Narratives
INEC swiftly pushed back. In a strongly worded statement signed by Chief Press Secretary Adedayo Oketola, the commission dismissed the claims as “baseless” and “a total fabrication,” insisting that Amupitan does not operate any personal account on X.
The statement framed the controversy as a coordinated attempt to undermine the commission at a critical time, warning of cybercriminals impersonating public officials for malicious purposes. But the denial did little to quell the uproar. Indeed, the fact that the statement was shared by Olusegun Dada, an aide to Tinubu, triggered another wave of outrage, as many argued that it further confirms the link between the electoral body and the presidency.
Meanwhile, open-source intelligence (OSINT) findings circulating online appeared to contradict INEC’s position. And X’s AI tool, Grok confirmed indeed that the account and the email linked to it belonged to the INEC chairman. Digital investigators pointed to links between the disputed X account and an email address allegedly associated with Amupitan, as well as a phone number matching details on his academic curriculum vitae.
These claims, though not independently verified by authorities, gained traction among a sceptical public already wary of institutional opacity. For many Nigerians, the issue quickly shifted from whether the posts existed to whether the explanation offered by INEC was credible.
Social Media Erupts
Across X, reactions ranged from outrage to deep cynicism. One user, Olusegun Bakare (@theboyisgreat), mocked what he described as a clumsy attempt to erase digital evidence: “He changed the username and locked the account but forgot to change the bio… that INEC chairman must resign.”
Another user, posting as @OurFavOnlineDoc, claimed to have traced the account’s verification process to a phone number allegedly linked to Amupitan, describing the situation as “a national disgrace” and “completely unacceptable.”
Others drew more ominous parallels. “The speed he used to switch username… is the same speed he will use to switch off IREV,” wrote @trigottista, referencing fears about potential manipulation of election result systems.
While some voices cautioned against rushing to judgment without definitive proof, the dominant tone was one of suspicion, and, increasingly, anger.
ADC Raises the Stakes
The African Democratic Congress has emerged as one of the most vocal critics, transforming the controversy into a political campaign.
In a sharply worded statement, ADC spokesman Bolaji Abdullahi described the alleged posts as “a grave affront to the integrity of our electoral system,” arguing that Amupitan had failed the fundamental test of impartiality.
“The umpire must not only be independent, he must be seen to be independent,” Abdullahi said, adding that any attempt to tamper with digital records constituted “a calculated assault on truth and accountability.”
The party has gone further, threatening nationwide civil disobedience if Amupitan does not step down.
“We will escalate our actions until the INEC Chairman leaves office,” the statement warned, signalling a readiness to sustain pressure both domestically and internationally.
A Pattern of Controversy
The social media storm is not occurring in isolation. It comes against the backdrop of earlier controversies that had already placed Amupitan under scrutiny.
His decision to derecognise the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC sparked widespread backlash, with critics accusing INEC of overreach and partisanship. Prominent legal voices, including Femi Falana, questioned the legality and implications of the move.
Similarly, the commission’s earlier proposal for a nationwide voter revalidation exercise – later cancelled – had drawn criticism over fears it could disenfranchise millions.
Taken together, these developments have reinforced a narrative among opposition figures that INEC under Amupitan is not merely controversial, but potentially compromised.
Religious and Institutional Pressure Mounts
Perhaps, the most explosive dimension of the crisis is the intervention of the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria, which has taken the unprecedented step of urging mosques across the country to demand Amupitan’s removal.
The council has gone even further, declaring that it would not recognize any election conducted under his leadership.
Spokesman Bashir Aliyu framed the position as a defence of electoral integrity, citing concerns about bias and past actions attributed to the INEC chairman.
The directive has added a volatile religious dimension to an already tense political situation, drawing pushback from Christian groups, who warn against politicizing faith.
Opposition Finds Common Cause
Ironically, the controversy appears to be achieving what years of political rivalry could not, uniting Nigeria’s fragmented opposition.
Recent high-level meetings involving figures, such as Atiku Abubakar, Peter Obi, Rotimi Amaechi, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, and Seyi Makinde suggest a growing alignment aimed at confronting what they perceive as institutional bias. The meetings, held behind closed doors, have focused on building a unified front ahead of 2027, a task long considered elusive due to internal divisions within opposition ranks.
Governor Makinde described such gathering as a “solidarity visit,” but the underlying message was the opposition is closing ranks.
For the ADC, which has continued to attract defectors and strengthen its internal structures despite INEC’s stance, the moment represents both a challenge and an opportunity.
The Burden of Perception in Electoral Integrity
In electoral governance, perception is often as consequential as reality. Analysts argue that even if no concrete evidence emerges proving operational bias, the mere belief that the umpire is compromised can be enough to delegitimize outcomes.
This is the dilemma now confronting INEC. The commission’s insistence that the allegations are fabricated has done little to restore confidence, particularly in an era where digital forensics and open-source intelligence have empowered citizens to interrogate official narratives.
For critics, the issue is no longer confined to whether Amupitan expressed partisan views in the past, but whether he can convincingly separate those views from his present role. That distinction, many argue, has already collapsed in the court of public opinion.
“I think this scandal is too steep for anyone to say it doesn’t matter,” said Anthony Chidi, Abuja based legal practitioner. “Yes, there’s a point in which one could argue that those views – if truly his – were expressed when he was a private person. But there’s a reason even in football, referees are not appointed to officiate matches involving clubs that they support. The honorable thing is for him to resign.”
Legal Hurdles and Political Realities
Despite the swelling calls for his resignation, removing an INEC chairman is not straightforward. The process requires presidential initiation and approval by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, a threshold that is politically complex.
Given the alignment between the executive and the legislature, expectations that Tinubu would initiate such a process remain low among opposition figures. This has shifted the focus back to voluntary resignation as the most viable option.
Yet, Nigeria’s political history offers little precedent for high-ranking officials stepping down under pressure, particularly in cases framed as politically motivated attacks. For many observers, this creates a stalemate: rising public distrust on one side, and institutional inertia on the other.
The Shadow of 2027
As Nigeria inches closer to the 2027 general elections, the implications of the current crisis are becoming more pronounced.
Electoral cycles in the country have historically been fraught with tension, but analysts warn that the present trajectory could produce a uniquely volatile environment, one in which the credibility of the process is contested even before the first vote is cast.
The growing alignment among opposition forces is a direct response to this fear. Political actors, who once operated in silos are now exploring coalition frameworks, driven by a shared concern over what they describe as “institutional capture.”
For these groups, the controversy surrounding Amupitan is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern that includes contentious regulatory decisions and perceived interference in party affairs.
The risk, analysts say, is that elections could become battlegrounds not just for votes, but for legitimacy itself. The threat by the ADC to embark on civil disobedience marks a significant escalation in the crisis.
While such actions are not unprecedented in Nigeria’s political history, their potential impact in the current climate is uncertain. Sustained protests could amplify public pressure on INEC, but they also carry the risk of deepening polarization and triggering security concerns.
More worrying for some observers is the possibility of pre-election unrest. If large segments of the population lose faith in the electoral process, participation could decline, or worse, disputes over results could spiral into broader instability.
The intervention of the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria has added another layer of complexity to the unfolding crisis. Observers note that by directing mosques to call for Amupitan’s removal and declaring non-recognition of elections conducted under him, the council has effectively elevated the controversy into a national flashpoint that intersects with religious identity.
This has drawn sharp reactions from Christian organisations, including the Christian Association of Nigeria, which warned against introducing religious considerations into what should remain a constitutional and institutional matter.
Institutional Trust at a Crossroads
Trust in public institutions has long been a fragile commodity in Nigeria, and the current controversy threatens to erode it further. For many citizens, the debate over Amupitan is symbolic of a larger issue – the perceived gap between official assurances and lived realities. The language used in INEC’s defence, emphasising fabrication and cybercrime, contrasts sharply with the detailed claims circulating in the public domain.
This disconnect has created a credibility gap that is proving difficult to bridge. Rebuilding that trust, experts say, will require more than denials. It may demand transparency measures, independent verification, and possibly institutional reforms aimed at strengthening accountability.
The Media and the Battle for Narrative
The role of the media, both traditional and digital, has been central in shaping the trajectory of the crisis. From investigative columns like that of Farooq Kperogi to viral posts by ordinary citizens, the narrative has been driven by a decentralised information ecosystem where official statements compete with crowdsourced evidence.
This dynamic has amplified scrutiny but also complicated efforts to establish a single, authoritative account of events. In many ways, the controversy reflects the evolving nature of political accountability in the digital age, where public officials are increasingly held to account not just by institutions, but by networks of engaged citiz