Trust on Trial: INEC and the future of Nigeria’s elections

BY EBUKA UKOH

Democracies do not run on assurances. They run on trust. And trust, once weakened, demands more than denials to fix.

The allegation that the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Joash Amupitan, operated a Twitter account that posted content favouring the All-Progressives Congress (APC) and President Bola Tinubu in 2023 remains accusatory for now. However, the office he holds does not permit a clear, independent answer.

INEC carries a singular responsibility: It must be, and be seen to be, impartial at all times. This is not a standard that applies occasionally or selectively. It must be constant, because elections determine who holds power; the burden on the Commission is higher than on any other public institution. This is not about one individual. It is about the credibility of the system he represents.

Why this moment matters

Nigeria’s 2023 elections have already left deep questions. The much discussed “technical glitch” that affected the transmission of results drew criticism precisely because it appeared most pronounced during the presidential poll. The failure of real-time transmission during the presidential election, despite prior assurances by INEC that results would be uploaded directly from polling units, remains one of the most contested aspects of the process. Explanations and counter-explanations followed. What remained was doubt.

In that context, fresh allegations about partisan digital activity strike at a sensitive point. They do not exist in isolation. They deepen an existing crisis of confidence.

Adedayo Oketola, Chief Press Secretary and Media Adviser to the Chairman of INEC, had stated that Amupitan does not own or operate any personal Twitter account. Yet, during a speech on April 14, 2026, Senate President Godswill Akpabio appeared to contradict this position while defending the Chairman against allegations of partisan bias. He acknowledged the controversial “Victory is sure” tweet, arguing that it was neutral and did not reference any political party. Further, he suggested that, even if authentic, it was posted at a time when Prof Amupitan was a university teacher. These attempts at defence have not resolved the issue. Initial denials of account have been followed by statements implying limited engagement, while public commentary from senior officials has added to the confusion rather than clarified it. Each shift has widened the gap between claim and clarity, further eroding public confidence.

In a further development, INEC has reportedly released an internal finding stating that the Chairman does not own or operate any personal Twitter account linked to the alleged posts. While this may resolve the matter, it introduces a deeper institutional concern. An electoral body cannot be both the subject of an allegation and the final authority that clears it.

An internal conclusion, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot replace an independent verification. Where institutional credibility is already under strain, such self-exoneration risks reinforcing, rather than resolving, public doubt. If the Commission is confident in its findings, they should be subjected to public scrutiny. The underlying report, methodology, and technical basis must be released in full for independent review.

Credibility is not restored by assertion. It is restored by transparency. The Commission should formally engage with X social platform, obtain verifiable account-level data, and present its findings to Nigerians in a manner that allows independent experts to interrogate them. Anything less leaves the question unresolved.

When narratives shift in this direction, credibility is compromised. It erodes. For millions of Nigerians, this is not an abstract institutional debate. It is about whether their vote still carries any meaning.

Standard Amupitan’s office requires

Under the Nigerian Constitution of 1999, the legitimacy of governance flows from the will of the people expressed through credible elections. That principle places an exceptional burden on electoral institutions to remain above suspicion. Section 14(2) (c) of the Constitution provides that the participation of the people in their government shall be ensured. That participation loses meaning where confidence in the electoral process is compromised. Electoral leadership is not judged only by what is proven. It is judged by what is plausible. The appearance of bias can damage confidence as much as bias itself.

That is why the response to these allegations must meet a higher bar.

Credibility is not restored by assertion. It is restored by transparency. The Commission should formally engage with X, obtain verifiable account level data, and present its findings to Nigerians in a manner that allows independent experts to interrogate them. Anything less leaves the question unresolved.

Case for stepping aside

Public office often demands personal costs in the service of institutional integrity. In situations where credibility is under serious question, stepping aside is not an admission of guilt. It is a protection of the office. It allows investigation to proceed without the shadow of influence or perceived interference.

That standard should apply here.

For Prof Amupitan, the honourable course is to step aside pending the outcome of an independent inquiry. Doing so would signal that the institution matters more than the individual who leads it.

Refusing to do so risks the opposite signal. The office will absorb uncertainty rather than confront it.

At this point, the issue extends beyond one individual. Nigeria should consider establishing a standing independent electoral audit mechanism, separate from the INEC, mandated to review election processes and address post-election disputes with both technical and institutional independence. If left unresolved, episodes like this do not end with a single controversy. They shape how future elections are perceived, contested, and ultimately accepted.

This moment also raises a forward-looking concern. As election cycles become increasingly shaped by digital platforms, the role of artificial intelligence in generating, amplifying, or distorting political content cannot be ignored. Whether these allegations are ultimately proven or disproven, they point to a broader vulnerability. Electoral institutions must now prepare not only for physical and procedural threats, but for a digital environment where authenticity itself can be contested. If credibility is fragile today, the rise of AI-driven political content, without robust safeguards, will make it even harder to distinguish truth from manipulation.

Even if this investigation clears the Chairman, the episode exposes a deeper structural problem. The process for appointing the head of INEC remains tied to the executive. That reality shapes perception before any action is taken and creates a built-in scepticism that no individual, however well-intentioned, can fully overcome.

Reform is therefore overdue. It is difficult to sustain confidence in a system where a sitting president appoints the official who will oversee an election in which he is a participant. That arrangement raises clear concerns about the separation of powers. A constitutional amendment that broadens and insulates the appointment process is necessary. Greater involvement of independent bodies, transparent nomination procedures, and legislative safeguards would strengthen public confidence. Without such reform, Nigeria risks repeating the same cycle. New leadership. Old doubts.

What Nigerians deserve

In elections, perception is not secondary to legitimacy. It is central to it. Citizens do not expect perfection from institutions.

They expect seriousness. They expect allegations to be investigated. They expect findings to be published. They expect accountability to follow evidence.

Above all, they expect the electoral umpire to stand above suspicion.

The credibility of future elections will depend less on new technology or new promises and more on whether institutions can respond to moments like this with clarity and integrity.

Allegations may fade. But how they are handled will remain a reference point. Elections do not fail only when votes are miscounted. They fail when citizens no longer believe the process is both neutral and transparent.

If this moment is handled with transparency, it can rebuild trust. If it is handled with deflection, it will certainly deepen doubt. After all, if the umpire is in doubt, the game cannot be trusted.

A democracy survives disagreement, delay, and even flawed elections. What it cannot survive is an umpire that citizens no longer trust to be neutral. This moment demands clarity, not deflection. Once doubt takes hold at the centre of the process, elections cease to be a contest of votes and become a contest of belief.

Mr Ukoh, who writes from New York, United States, is a coauthor of Built By The Ancestors, an alumnus of the American University of Nigeria, Yola, and a PhD student at Columbia University, New York