As the tenure of Professor Mahmood Yakubu, Chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), comes to an end, the appointment of his successor has become a subject of national debate. In other democracies, the process is guided by clear rules and empirical criteria. But in Nigeria, considerations such as state of origin, religion, and political loyalty to the appointing authority often overshadow competence and integrity.
Public analysts have already begun weighing in, publishing statistics on how past INEC chairs emerged from different regions, even though no law requires the position to rotate. The rules stipulate that multiple arms of government should contribute to the process to ensure sound judgment. Yet, in practice, the selection has often resembled trial and error, with many describing it as luck or destiny.
In reality, the Senate—which must confirm the President’s nominee—has in recent years acted more as a rubber stamp than a check. Records show that even politically tainted nominees have been cleared despite constitutional requirements that INEC officials remain non-partisan. Such patterns fuel doubts about whether the next INEC chairman will be chosen for merit or convenience.
Much of the hype around the INEC chair stems from his role as returning officer in presidential elections. However, history shows this was not always the case. In 1979, for instance, it was F.L.O. Menkiti, not the INEC chair, who announced the presidential election results. Similarly, Professor Humphrey Nwosu, wrongly blamed for the annulment of the June 12 election, was not the returning officer. These examples underline that the chair does not act alone but merely declares results collated by others.
Even then, the office has been undermined by external interference. In 2016, Yakubu dismissed rumours of a postponed Edo governorship election, only for security agencies to later enforce the delay without his consent. Successive INEC chairs have also failed to secure a credible voters’ register, largely because politicians frustrate the process. Worse still, Nigeria has yet to establish an electoral offences commission to prosecute those who sabotage elections.
The judiciary has further complicated matters, often straying into political decisions under the guise of settling disputes. Cases exist where courts declared governors with votes exceeding the number of accredited voters, leaving INEC powerless. These dynamics expose the limits of the so-called power of the INEC chairman.
History also reveals that being a professor or eminent jurist is no guarantee of success in the role. Distinguished professionals like Attahiru Jega, Mahmood Yakubu, and Justice Ephraim Akpata entered with strong reputations but left bruised by Nigeria’s chaotic electoral system. By contrast, individuals like Mike Igini demonstrated rare integrity yet were sidelined.
Under the law, the President retains the authority to nominate the next INEC chair, while the Senate must approve. The constitution demands that the appointee be a non-partisan person of proven integrity. For once, Nigeria’s leaders must rise above narrow interests and choose wisely. The country deserves an electoral umpire whose credibility can inspire trust, not one whose appointment merely fuels public suspicion.
