The dust seems to have settled after the whirlwind that welcomed Prof. Joash Amupitan, the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to the political arena recently. I like the way and manner in which he has adjusted to his new life in the public space. This is quite different from what he was used to within the four walls of the classroom at the University of Jos. His new awareness is impressive, especially with how he has comported himself recently.
The distraction
I can bet that at some point, Amupitan regretted why he took the INEC job. From what I gathered, he guards his reputation jealously and, as such, he could not understand how a reputation he strived to build over decades was questioned recklessly and almost to the point of ridicule. In my opinion, it wasn’t ridicule. It was a baptism of brimstone—the type that comes unexpectedly and from unlikely places. It was an early distraction for someone who was used to intense intellectual activity as a scholar of repute. We need to take the time to peruse his resume. It is worth the scrutiny, and the earlier scrutiny that appeared to be a distraction was in place.
I was in a conversation with a mentor, and I asked about his thoughts on Amupitan and what the possible outlook is for his tenure as INEC chair. He paused, let out a sigh, and said: ‘Amupitan provides an excellent intersection between high-level academic administration and rigorous legal jurisprudence’. He also expressed some reservations. ‘Amupitan is too upright. He does not bend easily, and I don’t know whether this is a good attribute for someone holding the position of INEC chair’. I saw some sense in his position, but I wasn’t excited because he must learn how to bend when the need arises. This is his new awareness in my estimation.
Bend, but don’t break
It is a statement of fact that anything that is unbendable is breakable. And it is usually better to bend than to break. This is Amupitan’s litmus test as the elections draw nearer. There is no doubt that he has to stick with the position of the law. But the question is, how is the interpretation of the law subject to circumstances and timing? I am glad he is a Professor of Law and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. He is wearing two caps in the legal profession, and I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he knows about the concept of Jurisprudence of Necessity vs. Literalism.
It simply states that “while a leader must stick to the position of the law, the law itself provides different tools for different seasons”. For example, when adherence to the strict letter of the law would cause a catastrophic breakdown of order, national security, or institutional integrity, the interpretive lens shifts automatically to avert unpleasant situations. This is why he can bend, but not break, in the discharge of his duties. And it leads us to the maxim called salus populi suprema lex esto, which is the recognition that laws, constitutions, and procedures are not ends in themselves; they are instruments created to preserve the collective survival, security, and well-being of society. This is the awareness before Amupitan, and why he should remove himself from the academic setting if he must succeed at INEC.
The academia and the real world
In academia, A is A, but in the real world, A is sometimes B. In such situations, it is not that B is wrong, but it is another interpretation of A. This is the logic that is absent in academia but present in the real world. Academia “judges an action by its adherence to an established framework”. The real world “judges an action by its outcome and survival”. This awareness is critical not just for Amupitan, but also for others who find themselves in a rapid transition from private to public lives. The circumstances are always different. And the recommended approach is to learn fast and quickly at the risk of being consumed by the mischief of the real world.
Amupitan has a lot to offer, as well as a lot of work to do. The 2027 general elections will prove all that constitutes his credentials or question them. In my honest assessment, he might write his name in gold. This much he promised at the Senate screening. In his words, he promised a regime of ‘absolute transparency’. How he intends to effect this remains his strategy.
However, he must be mindful of certain factors that would go against the run of play. For example, internal discipline from INEC staff is as crucial as counting the votes and announcing the results. There is a perception that INEC can sometimes be a biased umpire. While this has not been proven scientifically, the rumour mills are always rife with such positions. This is the first alarm that might ring as election results trickle in. He must be prepared to handle this effectively as they arise, not by word of mouth, but by ensuring that the systems in place are utilised effectively to address those concerns.
Winners and losers
This is what everybody is interested in. And this announcement can’t be made by proxy. It must be made by him, and he should be ready to live with the aftermath by justifying that what he announced is the reflection of the will of the Nigerian people. Two things will happen after the election results are announced by him. Those who were favoured by the election outcome will praise him to high heaven. Those who lost out will criticise him down to his village. In both instances, there would be no cause for alarm for him if he stands by his conscience and actions.
In all, it will be a tough one. His family will hold their breath. The church will watch with keen attention. The University of Jos will be solemn. His friends and associates will form a buffer around him, as the entire country waits earnestly to hear his voice pronouncing who the winners and losers are. Amupitan is a bona fide expert in the “Law of Evidence and Documentary Evidence”. He is among the best in the country. This is the time for him to prove it. And I can only wish him the best of luck.
Etila is a public affairs analyst and can be reached via yahaya.etila@gmail.com
