The exit of Professor Mahmood Yakubu as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has stirred mixed reactions across Nigeria — relief for some, concern for others. His tenure, stretching through defining elections, was marked by innovation, institutional resilience, and controversies that refused to fade.
Now, with May Agbamuche-Mbu stepping in as Acting Chairperson, the spotlight has shifted from personalities to process. The question is no longer just who leads INEC, but how the leadership of such a critical institution is chosen — and whether that process can ever be truly independent.
Under the 1999 Constitution, the President appoints the INEC Chairman, after consulting the Council of State and obtaining Senate confirmation. On paper, that looks democratic. But in practice, it gives the executive arm almost total control over who oversees elections — a structure that raises inevitable doubts about neutrality.
When the referee is appointed by one of the players, can the game ever feel fair? That’s the dilemma Nigeria has battled for decades.
Each leadership change at INEC comes with the usual surge of optimism — fresh faces, renewed promises, and expectations of reform. Yet, history has shown that without genuine independence, even the most well-intentioned chairpersons struggle to resist political pressure. Replacing individuals without addressing the system that produces them is like repainting a cracked wall without fixing the foundation.
Calls for reform aren’t new. Civil society groups, legal experts, and even some lawmakers have proposed that appointments into INEC should be handled by an independent panel — one that includes representatives from the judiciary, professional bodies, and credible civic groups. The idea is simple: make the process transparent, merit-based, and insulated from partisan influence.
Because credibility doesn’t begin on election day. It begins at the point of appointment. The public should not only know who becomes INEC Chairman but also how they got there.
This latest leadership change is therefore more than a routine administrative shift — it’s a reminder of how fragile Nigeria’s democratic institutions still are. The true test is not in the announcement of a new name, but in whether the process behind it inspires confidence.
If Nigeria must keep faith with democracy, the independence of its electoral umpire cannot depend on goodwill. It must be built into the system itself — firm, transparent, and beyond political reach.
Got insights on politics, economy, governance, or society? Share your perspective! Send your submissions to ebonyinews.ng@gmail.com
