The Lead Consultant of Zurray Integrated Services, Mr Oyigu Elijah, has called on the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, Professor Joash Amupitan, to clarify the methodology used in the recent creation of additional wards across two senatorial districts in Kogi State, a process that conspicuously excluded the Eastern Senatorial District despite its documented population size and landmass.
According to Mr Oyigu, the proposed ward allocation, which grants nine additional wards to Ijumu, four to Mopa Muro, six to Yagba East, four to Yagba West and four to Kabba Bunu in Kogi West, where INEC chairman hails from alongside five additional wards to Okene in Kogi Central, while allotting none to any local government in Kogi East, raises questions that the Commission owes the Nigerian public in general and the good people of Kogi East in particular an honest answer to.
Mr Oyigu maintained that an exercise of this magnitude, capable of reshaping political representation for years to come, cannot rest on informal considerations or unexplained discretion. It must be anchored on criteria that can be examined, tested and defended before the public.
In a statement on Friday, Mr Oyigu asked what specific data informed the exercise. If population size formed part of the methodology, INEC should disclose the figures relied upon and the date and source of that data. If voter registration numbers were considered, the Commission should clarify how those figures shaped the outcome. If geography, settlement patterns, polling unit distribution or population density played a role, those factors deserve the same disclosure. Citizens should not be left to guess at the foundation of a decision that touches how millions of Nigerians in Kogi State are represented at the ballot box.
Mr Oyigu noted that Kogi East, home to the Igala nation and the largest of the three senatorial districts by both population and landmass according to available census and INEC data, was left out entirely from an exercise that is meant, in principle, to reflect demographic realities on the ground.
He stated that any ward delineation process conducted by a national electoral body must be anchored on verifiable, publicly available criteria, and that when the outcome of such a process appears to favour the Chairman’s own senatorial district alongside one other while excluding the district with the strongest numerical claim, the Commission cannot expect the public to simply take its word for fairness.
“The matter becomes even more important because electoral wards are not merely administrative units on a map. They influence the organisation of elections, the distribution of electoral resources, political mobilisation and the practical relationship between citizens and their elected representatives. Decisions concerning wards can therefore have consequences extending well beyond the immediate administrative exercise. Any process capable of producing such consequences must be conducted with measurable standards, institutional neutrality and sufficient public disclosure,” he said.
The consultant recalled that this development follows an earlier exercise involving suppressed or unrecognised constituencies in which Kogi East was similarly shortchanged, a process that predated the current Chairman’s tenure but whose consequences have never been fully addressed. He argued that allowing a second exercise to replicate the same pattern, without explanation, transforms what could have been an oversight into what now looks like a deliberate pattern, and that INEC owes Nigerians clarity on whether this is coincidence or design.
Mr Elijah was categorical that INEC, as an institution established by the Constitution and funded by taxpayers from every part of the federation, does not belong to any one man or any one ethnic nationality.
He said the Chairman occupies a seat that exists to serve the entire country with equal measure, and that the moment such a seat is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be advancing the interest of the Chairman’s own people at the expense of others, the credibility of the entire Commission is placed in jeopardy. He asked directly whether Professor Amupitan sees his office as a platform for even handed national service or as an extension of sectional interest, and insisted that only a transparent explanation of the ward criteria can settle that question.
He further questioned why the process appears to have overlooked Igala land, the ancestral home of one of the oldest and most historically significant kingdoms in Nigeria, a people whose numerical strength and geographic spread within Kogi State are neither new nor disputed. Mr Elijah maintained that a decision to expand representation in two districts while leaving out the third cannot be explained away as routine administrative judgement, and that the Commission must show its working, in the same way any credible institution would when its output invites reasonable suspicion.
Mr Elijah also raised the matter of professional standing. He observed that Professor Amupitan is a trained scholar of Constitutional Law, a discipline built on the principles of equality before the law, fair hearing and the avoidance of arbitrary exercise of power.
He asked whether the same rigour Professor Amupitan would demand in a courtroom or a lecture hall has been applied to a decision that determines how millions of Nigerians in Kogi State are represented at the ballot box. A professor of that discipline, he said, should be the last person expected to preside over a process that appears to depart so visibly from the very fairness his own field of study is built upon.
He added that competence in constitutional theory means little if it is not matched by even handedness in practice, and that the people of Kogi East are entitled to ask whether the values taught in Nigeria’s law faculties, values of equity, due process and non discrimination, found any expression in the decision to expand wards in some districts and not others. This question, he said, is not an attack on the person of the Chairman but a legitimate demand that public office be exercised in a manner consistent with the training and standards that qualified him for it in the first place.
Mr Oyigu expressed concern over the pattern he has observed in the aftermath of this controversy, where individuals who raise sincere and factual objections to the ward allocation are met not with data or explanation but with personal attacks, often organised along ethnic lines. He said it is troubling that persons associated with the Chairman have chosen to go after critics personally rather than address the substance of the complaint, and he called on all sides to engage the matter on the strength of facts, figures and constitutional principle rather than intimidation..
He stated that silencing dissent through ethnic solidarity, rather than answering legitimate questions with evidence, only deepens public suspicion that something about the process cannot withstand scrutiny. According to him, if the methodology used to arrive at the ward numbers is sound and defensible, there should be no difficulty in publishing it openly, and no need for anyone to resort to attacking those who ask for it.
Mr Elijah called on the National Assembly, particularly the Senate and House Committees on Electoral Matters, to invite the INEC Chairman for a public briefing on the criteria used in the ward creation exercise. He said such a briefing would allow the Commission to place its data, its formula and its reasoning before elected representatives and the Nigerian public, and would either dispel the current suspicion or confirm the concerns that have already been raised.
He also urged the Independent National Electoral Commission as an institution, beyond the person of its current Chairman, to recognise that its legitimacy rests entirely on public confidence in its neutrality. He warned that every ward, every constituency and every boundary decision made without visible justification chips away at that confidence, and that an institution responsible for elections cannot afford to be seen as an extension of any one region, tribe or interest group.
Mr Oyigu stressed that the people of Kogi East are not asking for favour or preferential treatment, but simply for the same standard of consideration already extended to Kogi West and Kogi Central. He said fairness in this context is measurable and objective, resting on population figures, landmass and existing representational gaps, all of which are matters of public record and none of which require any special pleading.
He noted that Nigeria’s history offers enough examples of how unresolved grievances over representation and boundary allocation, left unaddressed, tend to fester and resurface at moments of greater political consequence. He appealed to the Chairman to treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves, not as a passing controversy to be waited out, but as a genuine test of the Commission’s commitment to fairness across all of Nigeria’s diverse communities.
Mr Oyigu also called on civil society organisations, professional bodies and traditional institutions across Kogi State to take an active interest in the matter, noting that questions of fair representation are too important to be left to any single group or advocate. He said broad based scrutiny, grounded in facts rather than sentiment, offers the surest path to a resolution that all sides can accept.
“Kogi East should consequently not be required to rely on assurances alone. The appropriate response to concerns surrounding the reported distribution of additional wards is evidence. If the methodology is sound, publication of the methodology should strengthen INEC rather than weaken it. If the data support the proposed distribution, releasing that data would allow citizens to see the basis for the decision. A transparent explanation can resolve legitimate concerns far more effectively than political arguments, accusations or counter-accusations. The people of Kogi State should also insist that the discussion remains peaceful, lawful and focused on institutional accountability.
“There is nothing wrong with citizens questioning an electoral decision that affects their political representation. There is, however, a responsibility to ensure that legitimate concerns are expressed through lawful democratic channels and supported with verifiable evidence. Any protest, petition, public hearing or stakeholder engagement should therefore demand answers from INEC without threatening the integrity of the electoral institution or the peace of the state.
“Professor Amupitan now has an opportunity to demonstrate that INEC’s decisions can withstand rigorous public examination. The simplest way to address the concerns surrounding the reported ward proposals is to place the methodology, data and legal basis before the public and allow the evidence to speak. If Kogi West and Kogi Central satisfy the same objective criteria that Kogi East does not satisfy, INEC should show Nigerians precisely how that conclusion was reached. If there are errors or omissions in the process, transparency will make correction possible before the consequences become entrenched.
“The fundamental issue, therefore, is neither Kogi East against Kogi West nor Kogi West against Kogi Central. It is whether one electoral standard exists for the entire state and whether that standard has been applied fairly to every community. INEC owes Kogi State an explanation that is factual, measurable and capable of independent scrutiny. Professor Amupitan should publish the methodology used, identify the data relied upon, explain the thresholds applied and demonstrate why the reported additional wards are justified in the selected local government areas while none has been proposed for Kogi East. Until those questions are satisfactorily answered, the concerns surrounding the exercise will remain legitimate and deserving of public attention,” Oyigu stated.
He said that the purpose of this call is not to prejudge the Chairman’s intentions but to insist on the transparency that public office demands. Mr Elijah said Professor Amupitan has an opportunity, through a full and public disclosure of the methodology behind the new wards, to demonstrate that the Commission he leads serves every Nigerian equally, regardless of where they come from or which language they speak at home.
Anything short of that disclosure, he warned, will continue to feed the perception that a decision meant to strengthen democracy in Kogi State has instead been used to weaken trust in one of its most important institutions.
