By Sabastine Abu
A recent demand by the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN) for the removal of INEC Chairman Professor Joash Amupitan, backed by its threat to illegitimize future elections, has sparked a national debate in what many believe constitutes a profound assault on Nigeria’s constitutional order, the principle of secular governance, and the integrity of its democratic institutions.
This position, echoed by the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), is not a defense of electoral integrity but a dangerous attempt to inject a religious litmus test into a constitutionally mandated national office.
The response must therefore be unequivocal, rooted in law, and protective of Nigeria’s fragile national cohesion. The call if acted upon by the President Bola Ahmed administration, would have amplified a dangerous intersection of religion and state power.
The Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN), a body representing Islamic law interests demand, is rooted in a legal brief Professor Amupitan authored in 2020 while in private practice, concerning the classification of violence in the country. The council, citing support from some voices within the northern hegemonic bloc and it’s socio-political establishment, has declared that it will boycott any future election conducted under Amupitan’s leadership. They argue that his past legal opinion demonstrates an inherent bias that disqualifies him from overseeing a national election.
The demand has triggered a swift and forceful backlash from a broad coalition of civil society organizations, Christian associations, and proponents of constitutional governance, who view the threat as an existential challenge to Nigeria’s secular democracy.
Legal experts have sounded the alarm of such threats ability to create a constitutional crisis. “This is not a mere political disagreement; it’s a direct assault on the constitutional order,” states Barrister Aisha Mohammed of the Centre for Constitutional Governance. “INEC is created by the constitution to be independent. Making its leadership subject to the approval or disapproval of a single religious body effectively nullifies that independence and sets a catastrophic precedent.”
The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) have issued strong condemnations describing it as a threat to democracy and national secularity. Archbishop Daniel Okoh, President of CAN, stated, “We did not demand the removal of previous INEC chairmen who were Muslims based on their faith. We judged them by their work. To now insist on the removal of a qualified appointee based on his past professional work as a lawyer is to introduce a poisonous sectarian veto into our national life. We will vigorously oppose any attempt to sacrifice merit and due process on the altar of religious sentiment.”
Analysts points to a glaring inconsistency by the Shari’ah Council. For the 15 years preceding Professor Amupitan’s appointment, INEC was chaired by distinguished Muslims—Professors Attahiru Jega and Mahmood Yakubu. “Where was this passionate standard for neutrality then?” asks political analyst Dr. Chidi Nwafor. “This selective outrage undermines the credibility of the complaint and suggests deeper political maneuvering disguised as religious concern.”
President Bola Tinubu’s appointment of Professor Amupitan, a North Central (Middle-belt) Christian and esteemed legal scholar, was widely seen as a strategic move to balance the nation’s religious and geographical tensions, following the lengthy tenure of his Muslim predecessor. Supporters argue he was chosen for his legal acumen and perceived neutrality. His opponents, however, have seized on his past to question that neutrality.
“This has never been about one man’s competence,” noted a senior government official speaking on condition of anonymity. “It is about certain power blocs testing their ability to control or destabilize a critical institution through external pressure. If this succeeds, INEC will never be free again.”
The implications of this standoff extend far beyond the INEC headquarters. If a major institution can be forced to change its leadership via religious ultimatum as being canvassed by the Sharia’h Council, it would have established a new, dangerous tool for political negotiation.
Furthermore, the threat to boycott or reject election results before a single ballot is cast exposes a clandestine move to delegitimize the entire democratic process and could be a prelude to unrest.
This recent call by the Sharia’h Council has further deepened the religious fracture in Nigeria. It formally frames national discourse in uncompromising religious terms, pushing the country closer to a majoritarian/minoritarian standoff where governance becomes impossible.
As a path toward upholding the Institution, calls for resolution are centering on the inviolability of INEC’s independence. “The only metric for assessing Professor Amupitan must be his performance in office,” says Ene Obi, Country Director of ActionAid Nigeria. “Let him be judged on the transparency of procurement, the robustness of voter registration, and the fairness of the election timeline. If there is professional failure, let him be removed by constitutional means—not by bullying by one religious group with ulterior motive.”
As the nation watches, the response from the Presidency and the National Assembly will signal whether Nigeria’s democracy is resilient enough to withstand sectarian pressure, or if its most critical institutions are now open for capture by the highest bidder of communal sentiment. The integrity of the 2027 general elections may very well depend on the outcome of this immediate confrontation.
