Spread the love

Copyright Reserved © DocuNews Central

In a bold and urgent move, a coalition of over 1,000 lawyers under the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP) has petitioned the Nigerian Senate to disqualify Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan from confirmation as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). They argue that his previous role as lead counsel for the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2023 Presidential Election Petition creates a conflict of interest that undermines the neutrality required for Nigeria’s top electoral body. This article from DocuNews Central explores the claims, legal foundations, political implications, and potential outcomes of this developing story.

The Demand: What Exactly Are the Lawyers Saying?

Who Is ALDRAP and How Many Lawyers Are They Talking About?

ALDRAP is a professional association of legal experts specializing in legislative drafting and advocacy. Many members reportedly serve as consultants or staff to Nigeria’s National Assembly. According to their statement, the association boasts a membership strength of over 1,000 lawyers (Vanguard). Although the precise figure has not been independently verified, the group’s influence appears substantial within Nigeria’s legal community.

What Is Their Core Argument?

In a letter dated October 10, 2025, addressed to Senator Simon Lalong, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Electoral Matters, ALDRAP argued that Prof. Amupitan’s nomination violates ethical and legal standards. They cite his prior role as lead counsel for the APC during the 2023 Presidential Election Petition as evidence of potential bias. The group insists this relationship compromises his ability to serve as a neutral umpire in future elections.

Specifically, ALDRAP claims that his nomination breaches:

  • Section 5 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act (1991), which prohibits public officers from conflicts of interest.
  • Section 19 of the ICPC Act (2003), which forbids using prior official positions for undue advantage.

They also recall that in 2021, the Senate rejected Lauretta Onochie’s nomination for a similar reason—her affiliation with the APC.

The letter, which was also sent to the Presidency, various security agencies, and international missions, warns that ALDRAP may seek legal redress if the Senate proceeds with confirmation.

Media Coverage: Credible Sources Reporting the Story

Multiple reputable Nigerian news outlets have published the same report, including:

These independent reports consistently affirm ALDRAP’s petition and concerns about conflict of interest.

Legal Foundations Behind the Call for Disqualification

The Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act, 1991 (Section 5)

This law prohibits public officers from actions or associations that could conflict with their official duties. ALDRAP’s lawyers argue that Amupitan’s previous service to the APC directly conflicts with the neutrality demanded of an INEC chairman.

The ICPC Act, 2003 (Section 19)

Section 19 bars officials from leveraging prior relationships or positions to gain unfair advantage. ALDRAP contends that Amupitan’s past advocacy role could create undue political influence within INEC’s operations.

Precedent: The 2021 Rejection of Lauretta Onochie

When Lauretta Onochie, a known APC member, was nominated to INEC in 2021, the Senate rejected her due to her partisan background. ALDRAP cites this precedent as a clear basis for rejecting Amupitan’s nomination today.

The Principle of Electoral Neutrality

INEC’s credibility depends entirely on its independence. ALDRAP believes appointing a former political counsel erodes public trust and fuels suspicion of bias in future elections.

Counterarguments: What Supporters of Amupitan Might Say

  • Professional Role vs. Political Loyalty: Serving as counsel to a party does not necessarily mean sharing its ideology. Lawyers often represent diverse clients.
  • No Explicit Statutory Ban: Nigeria’s Constitution and Electoral Act do not expressly forbid former party lawyers from chairing INEC.
  • Danger of Overreach: Disqualifying nominees for past professional representation could shrink Nigeria’s talent pool of qualified experts.
  • Burden of Proof: Unless concrete evidence of bias emerges, assumptions alone may not justify disqualification.

These counterarguments suggest that while ALDRAP’s ethical concern is valid, the legal framework for automatic disqualification remains debatable.

Political Implications for Nigeria’s Democracy

Restoring Trust in Electoral Institutions

Public confidence in INEC is already fragile. Any appointment perceived as partisan can deepen voter cynicism and trigger further polarization. ALDRAP’s intervention reflects growing civic insistence on transparent, impartial electoral leadership.

Senate’s Balancing Act

The Senate faces a tough choice—uphold ethical integrity or maintain political loyalty. Its eventual decision will shape Nigeria’s democratic reputation both at home and abroad.

Presidency and Optics

President Bola Tinubu’s administration must weigh the optics of pushing a contested nominee. Any move seen as defending partisan interests could spark backlash from civil society and the international community.

Possible Scenarios and Consequences

1. Senate Rejects the Nomination

If the Senate sides with ALDRAP, Amupitan’s nomination could be rejected outright. That would signal institutional independence and strengthen confidence in legislative oversight.

2. Senate Confirms and Faces Legal Challenge

ALDRAP might proceed to court. A successful lawsuit could nullify the confirmation and delay INEC operations, possibly affecting election timelines.

3. Senate Confirms with Oversight Conditions

The Senate may attach oversight mechanisms—such as independent monitoring or periodic performance audits—to reassure the public.

4. Voluntary Withdrawal

To prevent controversy, the Presidency or Amupitan himself could withdraw the nomination. This would preserve institutional credibility and demonstrate responsiveness to public opinion.

Key Questions to Guide the Debate

  1. Is past representation of a political party automatically disqualifying?
  2. Do Nigerian laws explicitly address this type of situation?
  3. What ethical standards should guide future nominations?
  4. How should the Senate balance loyalty and public trust?
  5. What precedent does this case set for future electoral appointments?

Recommendations for Transparent Handling

  • Public Confirmation Hearings: Let ALDRAP and other groups air their objections publicly.
  • Full Disclosure by Nominees: Require signed statements of past affiliations and assurances of neutrality.
  • Independent Vetting: Form a nonpartisan legal ethics committee to assess credibility.
  • Ongoing Oversight: Establish clear accountability mechanisms once confirmed.

Conclusion: Why This Debate Matters

The push by ALDRAP to disqualify Prof. Joash Amupitan as INEC Chairman is not merely political—it is a crucial test of Nigeria’s commitment to impartial governance. While their case is ethically strong, the legal path remains uncertain. The Senate’s handling of this matter will define whether democratic institutions can rise above party loyalties and uphold national integrity.

Ultimately, Nigerians deserve an electoral commission led by someone whose independence is beyond question. Whatever the Senate decides, transparency and public accountability must guide the process.

DocuNews Central will continue to monitor this story and provide verified updates as events unfold.

© 2025 DocuNews Central. All rights reserved.