EDITORIAL: Atiku, INEC And The Dangers Of Turning Ethnicity Into Evidence

Nigeria's democracy is approaching another consequential electoral test, and every development affecting the credibility of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) deserves serious public scrutiny. It is against this background that former Vice President Atiku Abubakar's concerns over the appointment of two Yoruba officials to head important departments of the electoral commission should be examined, not through the prism of partisan rivalry, but against the provisions of the Constitution, the principles of administrative fairness and the overriding national interest in credible elections.

Atiku, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has questioned the appointment of Mrs Oluyemi Titilayo Adeyemi-Showunmi as head of INEC's Electoral Operations and Voter Registry Department and Dr Lawrence Bayode as head of its Information and Communication Technology Department. Through his spokesperson, Phrank Shaibu, he has demanded explanations for the appointments, insisting that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu must keep his hands off the electoral body ahead of the 2027 general elections.

The former vice president's intervention raises important questions about institutional independence, the distribution of public appointments and the integrity of the electoral process. Yet, while the demand for transparency is legitimate, the argument must be subjected to constitutional scrutiny, because a democracy cannot protect itself by replacing evidence with suspicion or allowing ethnicity to become an automatic measure of an official's political allegiance.

The Constitutional Question

The first issue is whether appointing two persons of the same ethnic group to head important departments of INEC is, in itself, unconstitutional.

Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides the foundation for the federal-character principle, requiring the composition of the government of the federation and the conduct of its affairs to reflect Nigeria's diversity, promote national unity and prevent the predominance of persons from a few states, ethnic groups or sectional interests in federal institutions. This is an important constitutional safeguard in a country whose political history demonstrates the dangers of exclusion and the concentration of public power.

However, the existence of this principle does not mean that every appointment involving two persons of the same ethnicity automatically violates the Constitution. The relevant questions include the overall composition of the institution, the nature and level of the positions involved, the applicable appointment rules and whether the process has resulted in demonstrable exclusion or sectional domination.

The constitutional principle must therefore be applied carefully rather than selectively. Two Yoruba officials heading two departments do not, without additional evidence, establish that Yoruba people dominate INEC, that other ethnic groups have been deliberately excluded or that the appointments were made to advance President Tinubu's political interests.

Indeed, the ethnicity of an appointee is not proof of partisan loyalty. Nigerians from every ethnic group have the constitutional right to participate in public service, and professional appointments should ordinarily be determined by qualifications, experience, integrity and competence, subject to applicable laws and public-service requirements.

Atiku would have a stronger constitutional argument if he could demonstrate that the appointments breached an applicable federal-character requirement, violated established procedures or formed part of a pattern of deliberate exclusion. In the absence of such evidence, his concern should be treated as a question requiring clarification, not as proof of a constitutional offence.

INEC's Independence And The President's Role

Atiku's demand that Tinubu keep his hands off INEC also requires a distinction between legitimate presidential authority and improper political interference.

INEC is a constitutionally established institution charged with organising, undertaking and supervising elections. Its credibility depends substantially on its ability to discharge those responsibilities without being controlled by the political interests of the government in power.

The Constitution, however, does not entirely exclude the President from the institutional framework governing INEC. Sections 153 and 154, together with the relevant provisions of the Third Schedule, establish the commission and prescribe arrangements for the appointment of its chairman and national commissioners, including presidential appointment subject to the applicable constitutional procedures and Senate confirmation, as well as consultation with the Council of State where required. <Cite refs={["turn492574search0","turn492574search2","turn492574search7"]}/>

The constitutional position is therefore more nuanced than an absolute demand that the President have no involvement whatsoever in INEC-related appointments. The law permits certain defined presidential functions while requiring the commission to operate within its constitutional mandate.

The critical distinction is between exercising a lawful constitutional power and using the authority of the presidency to influence electoral decisions, manipulate sensitive appointments or compromise the neutrality of the institution.

If Tinubu or any other political officeholder were to pressure INEC to appoint particular officials for partisan purposes, interfere with election preparations or influence the handling of electoral materials, the allegations would warrant a serious investigation. But the mere fact that two Yoruba officials occupy senior departmental positions does not establish that such interference has occurred.

Atiku should therefore identify the evidence connecting the appointments to the President rather than leave the public to infer a political arrangement solely from the officials' ethnicity.

Why The Two Departments Matter

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to dismiss the concerns simply because the evidence presented so far may be insufficient to establish wrongdoing.

The Electoral Operations and Voter Registry Department and the ICT Department occupy important positions in the administration of modern elections. Electoral operations involve the practical arrangements required to deliver materials, personnel and logistical support to polling locations, while information technology supports essential functions involving data management and digital systems.

Weaknesses in these areas can undermine confidence in the electoral process, whether they arise from administrative incompetence, inadequate security, technical failures or deliberate misconduct.

Consequently, the public is entitled to ask whether officials heading these departments possess the necessary qualifications, professional experience and institutional independence. INEC should be prepared to explain the procedures followed in making senior appointments, especially when those appointments become the subject of credible public concern.

However, transparency should apply equally to every official, irrespective of ethnicity or political speculation. An official should not be presumed compromised because of where he or she comes from, just as an official should not enjoy immunity from scrutiny because of professional credentials or institutional seniority.

The proper test is whether the appointments were made in accordance with the applicable rules and whether the officials can demonstrate impartiality in carrying out their responsibilities.

Election Materials And The Case For Disclosure

Atiku has also demanded that INEC disclose the names of companies engaged in producing election materials, the materials assigned to each contractor, the states concerned, the procurement methods employed and the safeguards governing production, storage and delivery.

This aspect of his intervention deserves particular attention because the integrity of sensitive electoral materials is central to credible elections.

Where reports raise questions about the procurement or production of ballot papers and other election materials, the commission should provide verifiable information to the extent permitted by procurement, security and other applicable laws. It should also explain the safeguards used to prevent unauthorised access, duplication, diversion or tampering.

Such disclosure would help establish whether the procurement process followed the rules and whether adequate controls are in place. It would also give political parties and the public a basis for evaluating the commission's preparations without relying exclusively on anonymous accounts or partisan interpretations.

At the same time, transparency does not require the indiscriminate publication of every operational detail where disclosure could compromise security. The objective should be meaningful accountability consistent with lawful confidentiality requirements.

It is also important not to confuse an allegation about election-material production with proof that ballots have been compromised. Until supporting evidence emerges, the responsible course is to seek clarification, examine the relevant records and allow the commission an opportunity to respond.

The Danger of Ethnicising Electoral Trust

Nigeria's political environment is already vulnerable to ethnic suspicion, particularly during presidential election cycles when political actors are tempted to interpret administrative decisions as evidence of a broader sectional agenda.

Atiku must recognise that raising concerns about the ethnicity of officials without demonstrating a corresponding pattern of exclusion risks encouraging precisely the kind of suspicion that electoral institutions should help the country overcome.

The same standard would apply if two officials from the North, the South-East or the South-South were appointed to sensitive departments. Their regional origins alone would not establish that they were acting on behalf of a president, a political party or an ethnic interest.

A genuinely independent electoral commission must be judged by its conduct, the fairness of its procedures, the integrity of its personnel and the credibility of its decisions, rather than by assumptions about the ethnic identities of individual officers.

That does not mean ethnic balance is unimportant. The federal-character principle exists because representation matters in a diverse federation. But representation and professional competence are not necessarily competing objectives, and the constitutional pursuit of inclusion should not become an excuse for excluding qualified individuals merely because they belong to an ethnic group already represented in an institution.

The objective must be to ensure that no group monopolises public institutions while preserving the right of qualified Nigerians to serve the country.

What INEC Must Do

INEC should not respond to the controversy with silence or dismissive assurances. It should clarify the relevant appointment procedures, explain whether the appointments complied with its internal rules and provide appropriate information about the professional qualifications and experience required for the positions.

It should also address Atiku's questions about election-material procurement, identifying the relevant contractors and explaining the safeguards governing sensitive materials, subject to lawful security restrictions.

If the commission finds that any procedure was breached, it should take corrective action. If the appointments complied with the applicable rules and were based on merit, it should provide sufficient information to demonstrate that position.

Atiku, for his part, should distinguish between questions that require investigation and conclusions that can be established only by evidence. The opposition has an essential responsibility to scrutinise the electoral umpire, but its credibility is strengthened when its allegations are specific, verifiable and grounded in law.

Ultimately, the 2027 elections will demand more than assurances from INEC or warnings from political candidates. They will require an electoral institution capable of demonstrating impartiality in its appointments, procurement, deployment of personnel and management of results.

The constitutional position is clear in principle: electoral independence must be protected, federal character respected and public appointments made in accordance with applicable law. What remains unproven in this particular controversy is whether the appointments of Adeyemi-Showunmi and Bayode breached any of those requirements.

Atiku is therefore justified in demanding transparency, but the claim that the appointments themselves demonstrate political interference cannot be sustained without further evidence. The burden is on INEC to explain its decisions and on anyone alleging wrongdoing to substantiate the allegation.

Nigeria cannot afford an electoral commission whose integrity is taken for granted, but neither can it afford a political culture in which ethnicity becomes a substitute for proof. Credible elections require vigilance without prejudice, scrutiny without premature conviction and accountability without partisan distortion.