Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan steps into perhaps Nigeria’s most precarious institutional role at a moment when electoral leadership has become what can be described as a bird’s dance amid a hurricane. His predecessor’s multi-layered failure as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) offers a masterclass in how even good intentions and unlimited resources can crumble without the moral architecture necessary for transformational leadership.
Amupitan’s impressive credentials (34 years of academic excellence, specialisation in Law of Evidence and Corporate Governance) provide grounds for cautious optimism. Yet his success depends entirely on avoiding the five cardinal pitfalls that transformed Professor Mahmood Yakubu’s promising tenure in INEC into arguably Nigeria’s most devastating electoral disappointment.
Yakubu’s destructive legacy lies not in what he failed to achieve, but in what he promised he could deliver. His absolute declarations (“there is no going back,” “this technology has come to stay”) became too many to count. They later elevated technical failures into institutional betrayal when the 2023 IReV portal collapsed during Nigeria’s most crucial democratic moment.
Amupitan must resist the temptation to grandstand with sweeping commitments he cannot guarantee. Only promise what institutional capacity can realistically deliver, then over-deliver on those commitments. Elections are about hope, but false hope breeds the despair that now characterises Nigerian democracy. Amupitan’s legal background must remind him that every commitment becomes potential courtroom testimony. Rather than promising revolutionary transformation, he should focus on incremental, verifiable improvements that rebuild institutional credibility one election at a time.
Yakubu fell victim to technological mysticism, placing faith in BVAS machines and IReV systems as democratic panaceas rather than tools requiring human integrity to function effectively. When political pressure mounted, technology became the scapegoat for institutional failures rather than the evidential solution to political interference.
Amupitan’s decades of managing university systems should have taught him that institutional transformation requires human leadership, not just technological upgrades. Technology should serve transparency, not substitute for courage. The BVAS machines and IReV portal remain valuable tools, but only if operated by leaders willing to defend their integrity when politicians demand accommodation over accuracy. Amupitan must treat technology as evidence-gathering instruments that enhance, rather than replace, principled electoral management.
Nigeria’s electoral landscape is littered with brilliant reforms undermined by weak implementation. Yakubu introduced groundbreaking innovations, (Continuous Voter Registration, biometric authentication, digital workflows) yet failed to protect them when implementation faced political resistance.
Amupitan’s experience should suggest a different approach. Rather than launching new initiatives, he should focus on strengthening existing systems. His Corporate Governance specialisation emphasises sustainable institutional practices over flashy innovations. The infrastructure Yakubu built (176,846 polling units equipped with digital systems) represents billions in investment that requires protection, not replacement. Amupitan’s task is consolidation: making current systems work reliably before introducing additional complexity.
Nigerian electoral leadership faces an impossible triangle: the people demand credible elections, governments want favourable outcomes, and opposition parties seek level playing fields. Yakubu’s failure stemmed from believing he could please all three simultaneously through technological sophistication rather than principled arbitration.
Amupitan must find the perfect framework for navigating these pressures. Electoral decisions must be based on verifiable evidence, not political convenience. When BVAS machines malfunction suspiciously in politically sensitive areas; when result uploads fail during crucial moments; when collation processes become opaque, they become evidentiary questions requiring judicial-level scrutiny, not diplomatic accommodation. Amupitan cannot please all parties, but he can ensure that institutional decisions reflect electoral evidence rather than political pressure. His legal training should armour him against the “politically correct” posture that seemed to have neutralised Yakubu when courage mattered most.
Wisdom component is equally crucial. Institutional authority comes from consistent application of principles, not from accommodating the loudest voices. Courage without wisdom is recklessness; and wisdom without courage is impotence. The challenge will be in how to calibrate institutional responses that demonstrate unwavering commitment to electoral integrity while avoiding unnecessary confrontations that could undermine INEC’s effectiveness.
Yakubu’s ultimate failure may have been character; his willingness to bend institutional principles when political winds shifted. His defensive responses to the 2023 failures (his legal reversals on mandatory result transmission, his accommodation of obviously suspicious technical failures) all revealed an institutional leader more concerned with preserving his position than defending his principles.
Amupitan’s 2014 SAN designation represents legal profession recognition of character and competence spanning decades. Now he must prove himself on a national platform. Unlike political appointees seeking to please masters, Amupitan enters INEC with professional reputation and financial security that should insulate him from typical corruption pressures. Early, he must commit to institutional values over personal advancement; choose institutional integrity over political accommodation; and retain innate ability to withstand the hurricane-force pressures of Nigerian electoral politics. These are the irreducible and basic character foundations that electoral leadership demand.
Professor Amupitan inherits both the sophisticated electoral infrastructure Yakubu built and the trust deficit he created. His academic credentials, legal expertise, and professional reputation provide stronger foundations for success than any recent INEC Chairman has possessed. Yet Nigeria’s electoral history demonstrates that credentials without courage guarantee nothing.
Amupitan’s legacy will depend not on his impressive résumé or past successes, but on whether he possesses a huge bank of moral courage to transform that expertise into institutional transformation when the hurricane reaches maximum intensity.
