Human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has dismissed claims that President Bola Tinubu has the constitutional authority to send the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Mahmood Yakubu, on terminal leave. Falana’s intervention followed widespread rumours suggesting the presidency had ordered the electoral chief to step aside ahead of the expiration of his tenure.
Speaking on Friday, Falana stressed that Nigeria’s constitution does not empower the president to unilaterally suspend or remove the INEC chairman. He noted that only a joint resolution of the National Assembly can approve such a move, provided there are clear grounds established by law. According to him, bypassing this legal process would be unconstitutional and would undermine the independence of the electoral body.
The controversy began on Wednesday when viral reports alleged that President Tinubu had ordered Yakubu to proceed on compulsory leave. The rumour claimed the move was politically motivated, describing it as an act of ‘revenge’ for what some within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) interpreted as Yakubu’s ‘betrayal’ during the 2023 general elections.
The reports alleged that Yakubu was being sidelined to weaken his influence and create room for a more compliant leadership at the commission. The claims gained traction when INEC abruptly cancelled its quarterly consultative meeting with political parties and another planned session with civil society groups scheduled for the same day.
These cancellations fueled suspicion that something unusual was happening within the electoral body. Falana, however, argued that regardless of political speculation, the president cannot act outside the provisions of the law. He pointed out that Section 157 of the 1999 Constitution provides that the chairman of INEC, like other heads of federal commissions, cannot be removed except by the president acting on an address supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
This safeguard, he said, was designed to protect the independence of sensitive institutions from undue political interference.
‘The president cannot suspend or send the INEC chairman on terminal leave. Such an action, if taken, would amount to a breach of the constitution’, Falana said. ‘INEC is supposed to be an independent institution. Its credibility will be destroyed if it becomes subject to the whims and caprices of the executive arm of government’.
The human rights lawyer also noted that the rumour itself reflects growing concerns about political interference in Nigeria’s democratic institutions. He said that even though the reports remain unverified, the speed with which they spread indicates deep public mistrust and anxiety about the autonomy of INEC.
The speculation comes at a time when INEC is under pressure to restore public confidence after controversies surrounding the 2023 general elections. Opposition parties had accused the commission of irregularities and technical failures that marred parts of the process, while civil society groups demanded greater transparency and accountability. Against this backdrop, the cancellation of meetings with stakeholders amplified fears that the commission might be facing political headwinds.
Political analysts say the situation underscores the fragile balance between Nigeria’s executive arm and independent democratic institutions.
Many argue that if the rumours were true, the attempt to sideline Yakubu would represent a dangerous precedent where presidents undermine INEC’s independence for political gain.
‘The credibility of elections in Nigeria is directly tied to INEC’s ability to operate without interference’, said political commentator Ayo Olukotun. ‘Even the perception that the president can dictate the fate of the chairman weakens the institution. It is not about Yakubu alone; it is about preserving the principle of electoral integrity’.
Civil society organisations (CSOs) have echoed similar concerns. Groups like the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) and Yiaga Africa have repeatedly warned against any actions that would compromise INEC’s autonomy. They argue that political meddling in the commission’s leadership could erode trust in future elections and fuel voter apathy.
For now, the presidency has not issued any official statement to confirm or deny the reports about Yakubu’s alleged compulsory leave. INEC itself has remained silent on the matter, not explaining the sudden cancellation of its stakeholder meetings. This silence, observers note, has left room for speculation and misinformation to thrive.
Falana’s clarification, therefore, comes as a reminder that Nigeria’s constitution provides a clear legal framework for handling matters related to the leadership of INEC. Any attempt to deviate from this process, he insisted, would be null and void in law.
In recent years, Falana has consistently positioned himself as a defender of constitutional order and democratic institutions. His intervention in this controversy highlights the continuing struggle to shield Nigeria’s electoral body from political pressure. Whether or not the rumour is eventually debunked, the episode has reopened conversations about safeguarding the independence of INEC and strengthening public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic system.
At the heart of the matter lies a larger question: can Nigeria’s electoral institutions remain insulated from political battles in a system where executive power often appears unchecked? For many, the answer depends not only on the resilience of the law but also on the willingness of political leaders to respect the spirit of democracy.
Until INEC or the presidency clarifies the situation, speculation is likely to persist. But Falana’s stance serves as a legal and moral caution that the rule of law must prevail, regardless of political calculations.
