The appointment of INEC chairman and other matters

By Uchenna Offiah

The appointment of the Chairman and Commissioners of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has remained one of the most controversial issues in Nigeria’s democratic journey. Elections are the heartbeat of democracy, and when the body conducting them is viewed with suspicion, the entire democratic process becomes weakened. Over the years, Nigerians have repeatedly raised doubts about the neutrality of INEC leadership, especially given the manner of their appointment.

The 1999 Constitution empowers the President to appoint the Chairman and Commissioners of INEC, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and in consultation with the Council of State. On paper, this seems like a fair process designed to provide checks and balances. However, in practice, serious questions have been raised as to whether such consultations are genuine or merely ceremonial. Many critics point to the appointment of the current INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, as one example where the President exercised near-absolute discretion without open consultation.

This pattern of presidential dominance in INEC appointments has generated deep mistrust. The underlying concern is simple: how independent can an electoral body truly be if its leaders owe their positions to the goodwill of the President, who is often a key player in the very elections they are expected to supervise?

Recently, a bill before the House of Representatives has reignited debates on this sensitive matter. The bill seeks to reform the appointment process of INEC’s leadership. However, lawmakers themselves appear divided on who should rightly control the process. Some argue that leaving it solely in the hands of the President undermines transparency, while others fear that involving too many actors may create gridlock and further politicize the institution.

The popular saying goes, “he who pays the piper dictates the tune.” As long as the President maintains the power to unilaterally decide who becomes the INEC Chairman, doubts about independence will persist. Nigerians have seen situations where INEC’s neutrality was questioned, and where the electoral umpire was accused—rightly or wrongly—of favoring those in power. This is not healthy for democracy.

It is not only Nigerians who have expressed concern. International observers, civil society organizations, and democracy advocates have consistently raised alarm about the credibility of Nigeria’s electoral process. For instance, Yiaga Africa, a reputable election monitoring group, has often warned about the dangers of a compromised INEC. The 2023 presidential election, which was marred by technical glitches and inconsistencies in results transmission, only deepened this crisis of confidence.

Observers noted that beyond technology failures, the underlying issue was trust—or the lack of it—in the capacity and impartiality of INEC. When trust in elections erodes, voter apathy sets in, and democracy itself begins to lose meaning. Already, Nigeria struggles with low voter turnout compared to its population. This cannot be divorced from citizens’ perception that their votes may not count in a system they believe is rigged from the very beginning.

Across the world, different democracies have devised ways of insulating their electoral bodies from executive interference. In South Africa, for instance, the appointment of the Independent Electoral Commission involves Parliament, civil society, and the judiciary. In India, one of the world’s largest democracies, the Election Commission is appointed by the President but based on recommendations from a collegium that includes the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. These systems are not perfect, but they create room for broader participation and reduce the perception of bias.

Nigeria cannot continue to rely solely on the goodwill of the President. Democracy thrives not on goodwill but on strong institutions and transparent processes. If our elections are to command respect at home and abroad, the process of appointing INEC leadership must be open, participatory, and credible.

The solution is not far-fetched. First, the positions of INEC Chairman and Commissioners should be publicly advertised. Qualified Nigerians with proven integrity, competence, and non-partisanship should be encouraged to apply. This is standard practice in other high-profile appointments and would open the field beyond the narrow circle of political patronage.

Second, screening should not be left to the President or his allies alone. Political parties represented in the National Assembly should be allowed to jointly screen applicants. This would guarantee that no single party dominates the process. The short-listed candidates should then be forwarded to the Senate for ratification after a transparent confirmation hearing.

Third, civil society organizations and professional bodies such as the Nigerian Bar Association, Nigerian Union of Journalists, and religious or community leaders should be given observer roles in the selection process. This will not only enrich the process but also enhance public confidence in the eventual appointments.

Finally, reforms must be anchored in patriotism and maturity. Nigeria’s elections have often been characterized by tension, suspicion, and post-election litigation. By reforming how INEC leaders are chosen, we would be addressing one of the root causes of this endless cycle of distrust. Elections will not suddenly become perfect, but they will be seen as fairer, and that perception is critical for stability in any democracy.

If these reforms are not carried out, the consequences could be grave. Already, Nigeria faces multiple challenges: insecurity, economic hardship, and ethnic divisions. Adding electoral distrust to this mix will push the country further into crisis. Democracy survives on legitimacy, and legitimacy comes from credible elections. When elections are compromised, citizens lose faith not only in politicians but in democracy itself. This is a dangerous path that Nigeria must avoid.

The debate over who appoints INEC’s Chairman and Commissioners is not just a legal technicality. It is at the heart of Nigeria’s democratic survival. For too long, the President has wielded excessive influence over the process, leaving INEC vulnerable to accusations of bias. Now is the time for genuine reform.

Advertising the positions, involving political parties and civil society in the screening process, and ensuring Senate ratification of the most competent candidates represent the surest way forward. This is how to restore trust, deepen patriotism, and guarantee maturity in managing Nigeria’s elections.

The credibility of future elections—and indeed the health of our democracy—will depend on whether stakeholders summon the courage to implement these necessary changes. History will not forgive us if we fail.