By Yahaya Etila
I wonder why Prof. Joash Amupitan is not in the news after the conduct of the Anambra and Ekiti State elections. Were the elections regarded as free, fair, and credible? Did the INEC chair raise the bar in the conduct of these elections? And what should we expect in the 2027 presidential election? I am not a soothsayer, but I think things will be different this time around, leaning on the popular adage that a Saturday that will be good can be known from Friday.
I have never hidden my admiration for Prof. Amupitan since his appointment, even though he was welcomed by a barrage of fire and brimstone upon assumption of office. In a previous article I authored, “Amupitan’s Baptism of Fire,” I welcomed him to the world of politics and noted why what would make him stand out is his ability to stay true to the values he built over decades in the ivory tower—both as a professor of law with a specialization in the law of evidence and as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
I want to assume that the earlier baptism of fire he received must have done something to him. In a way, it might have reminded him that in public service, your posterity will be judged by your actions and inactions. Reputation and integrity are intangible. What matters is what you did or did not do. From the look of things, Prof. Amupitan has shown that he is concerned about his posterity, and this was what played out in the Anambra and Ekiti gubernatorial elections.
Let me start with the Anambra State election. The Nigeria Civil Society Situation Room, working in support of credible elections and governance in Nigeria—and made up of ActionAid Nigeria, Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD), Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD), Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), CLEEN Foundation, Emma Ezeazu Centre for Good Governance and Accountability (formerly Alliance for Credible Elections), Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC), Kimpact Development Initiative, Democratic Action Group (DAG), Women’s Rights to Education Programme, Joint National Association of Persons with Disability (JONAPWD), DIG Ebonyi, Life and Peace Development Organization (LAPDO), Rural Youth Initiative, Challenged Parenthood Initiative (CPI), Centre for Health and Development in Africa (CHEDA), and Josemaria Escriva Foundation—in its final statement on the November 2025 gubernatorial election in Anambra State, stated that “INEC managed its core processes effectively throughout the election, the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) functioned optimally in most polling units,” and it commended the “quick and drama-free results collation process, which was devoid of the irregularities typically associated with INEC’s vote tabulation and score recording at Collation Centres.” This is certainly a pass mark and a departure from the past.
In the Ekiti State gubernatorial election, INEC repeated the same feat, but this time with a higher margin. It was commended specifically for improving on some of the flaws that were recorded earlier in the Anambra election. This tells me one thing: that the new INEC under Prof. Amupitan means business, and Nigerians should expect something different at the presidential election. I am being specific about the presidential election because that is the ultimate contest that everyone is interested in, and by and large, Prof. Amupitan has sent a strong statement that his appointment was not a fluke or meant to serve some vested interest.
Even though it is assumed it happened in the past, it would be illogical to also assume that this is the order of the day and that it will happen again. It is also an assumption that as an appointee of the president, all INEC chairs must do his bidding. This is illogical, even though this narrative has gained prominence. In the case of Prof. Amupitan, I can argue that his case is different. He is the first Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) from the legal bar/ivory tower to lead the organization. And his area of specialization in the law of evidence makes his case different.
In law, evidence is the kernel of all cases. It is the structure on which all arguments are based. So here we have an expert in this sub-specialty heading a critical organization; what do we think Prof. Amupitan would be very careful about? Allowing room for evidence against the credibility of elections, or doing what is right in the electoral processes? The Anambra and Ekiti elections provide the answer. The evidence in the public space indeed validated the credibility of the elections.
My prediction for the conduct of the 2027 elections resonates with what was experienced in the recently conducted off-cycle elections. Some might want to argue about this prediction. It would be understandable if the argument is grounded in logic rather than emotion. There is a lot at stake in the success or otherwise of the 2027 presidential election. It is the litmus test before Prof. Amupitan to prove the heavy credentials he parades and also to demonstrate his specialization in the law of evidence. I say this because the honeymoon is over with the conduct of two elections that are adjudged an improvement from previous elections conducted in the country.
I noticed Prof. Amupitan detests being in the news for the wrong reasons; at least how he handled his initial baptism of fire was indicative. The media bashing was a threat to over three decades of unblemished reputation in the ivory tower and at the highest levels of the legal bar. It is suspected that the lessons learned were invaluable and responsible for the conduct of INEC in recent times. This is why my prayer for Prof. Amupitan is: may your road be rough. The 2027 presidential election will be keenly contested. He doesn’t need a soothsayer’s prophecy to realize it. All he needs is to learn, and very quickly, from the issues that made the Anambra and Ekiti elections fall short of 100%, fix them, test-run them, and deploy them on the big day and on the big screen.
There is a likelihood that the attention of the world will shift to Nigeria from January 16, 2027. It would seem like the World Cup; the presidential election could pass for one. I can assure Prof. Amupitan that several players will act as parallel bodies, and most of them will be for mischievous reasons and with a coordinated disinformation network. This is an area he must not allow to thrive. And how is this possible? INEC must enforce a strict, transparent, and pre-vetted accreditation process for all civil society groups and media networks. It must also act against leaving an information vacuum that could be exploited for mischievous reasons. This would be its greatest undoing, and the rest would be history.
The ball is in the court of Prof. Amupitan. It is a World Cup game with INEC as the umpire. At the sound of the final whistle, we envisage a situation where all the players will embrace one another and leave the pitch peacefully, rather than charging at the referee for poor or biased officiating.
– Yahaya Etila is a public affairs analyst and can be reached via Yahaya.etila@gmail.com
