Amupitan’s Past Tweets Reveal APC Leanings

By Farooq A. Kperogi

Several verifiable past tweets by INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, from his time as a professor at the University of Jos, reveal clear partisan sympathies for the APC and, more specifically, for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. If he values institutional integrity, he should acknowledge them, confront their implications, and resign. I will return to this.

Amupitan’s neutrality has long been under suspicion, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt—much to the irritation of those who urged me to call him out earlier and wrongly assumed my restraint stemmed from a personal relationship.

When it emerged that he authored a tendentious memo alleging a “Christian genocide” without recognising equally horrific Muslim deaths in central Nigeria’s communal violence, I attributed it to what I call epistemic closure—an intellectual condition where one’s information environment becomes so self-reinforcing that contrary evidence is dismissed. In such a state, complex realities are reduced to narrow, self-confirming interpretations.

For a professor and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, such intellectual insularity is disappointing. It contradicts the core values of scholarship, which demand self-criticism and openness. Still, I did not consider it sufficient proof of bias.

When he faced criticism for scheduling the 2027 election during Ramadan, I again resisted hasty conclusions. Islam does not forbid work during Ramadan, and elections have been conducted during the period in several Muslim-majority countries. Moreover, with figures like Malam Mohammed Haruna on the commission, it would be simplistic to assign sole responsibility to him. Even at the risk of being seen as overly charitable, I held my fire.

However, two developments began to strain that position. His push to revalidate permanent voter cards—potentially disenfranchising millions—raised concerns. His role in the ADC’s internal crisis further suggested an inability to conceal partisan impulses aligned with Tinubu’s perceived strategy to weaken the opposition.

Even these concerns pale beside what has now emerged. Evidence shows that in 2023, about two years before his appointment, Amupitan used an X account bearing his name to post openly partisan comments.

On March 18, 2023, APC National Youth Leader, Dayo Israel, boasted of flipping an “Igbo-dominated” polling unit to the APC. Amupitan replied: “Victory is sure.” This was not a neutral observation but a direct endorsement of a partisan claim framed in ethnically charged language.

A day earlier, March 17, 2023, one Okodoro Oro alleged that Peter Obi supporters manipulated an image to malign Lagos lawmaker Desmond Elliot. Amupitan responded: “They are evil in the 24th [sic] century.” This is not the language of detachment but of moral condemnation directed at a political camp.

Then, on April 25, 2023, he responded to a celebratory post about Tinubu’s reception at Abuja airport with a single word: “Asiwaju.” In Nigerian political discourse, this is more than a title—it is a declaration of allegiance.

Such expressions go beyond private opinion. They reflect participation in partisan discourse at a time of heightened political contestation. While future electoral umpires are not expected to be devoid of personal views, publicly expressed alignments of this nature carry significant implications.

Following the resurfacing of these tweets, the account reportedly changed its handle, rebranded as a parody, and was subsequently locked. Yet, digital archives continue to link the posts to the original identity, raising questions about transparency.

The sequence is clear: an account bearing Amupitan’s name engaged in partisan commentary during the 2023 election cycle, then altered its identity after scrutiny intensified. For someone now occupying Nigeria’s most sensitive electoral office, this raises serious concerns.

What makes this particularly troubling is that I once defended him. In my October 11, 2025 column, I described him as a respected scholar with no known partisan affiliations. That assessment was based on available evidence at the time. We now know otherwise.

The issue is not that Amupitan held political views as a private citizen. It is that those views were expressed in ways that clearly aligned with a political party during a defining electoral period, and he now leads an institution that demands not just neutrality, but the perception of neutrality.

Electoral legitimacy rests on public trust. Once that trust is eroded, even credible elections become suspect. Electoral umpires must therefore be above reproach—both in conduct and perception. These revelations undermine that standard.

He has worsened the situation by failing to address the matter directly. He should speak publicly, acknowledge the tweets, and confront their implications. The moral weight of his office demands nothing less.

While the legal process for his removal is complex, resignation remains the most honourable path. If he stays, every election he oversees risks being tainted by allegations of bias—damaging both the institution and, ultimately, the political system.

Nigeria has seen allegations of electoral partisanship before. Rarely, however, has the evidence been this direct and difficult to dismiss.

If he remains in office, Amupitan risks being remembered not just as a controversial INEC chairman, but as one whose tenure deepened public distrust in the electoral process.

Postscript:
As this column was being finalised, INEC’s Chief Press Secretary, Adedayo Oketola, claimed the account was fake. That assertion raises further questions. In 2022, Amupitan was not a public figure likely to be impersonated. The tweets surfaced in 2023, before his appointment.

Fake accounts rarely maintain coherent histories, change identities, and restrict access only when scrutiny arises. The pattern suggests concealment, not impersonation.