Opinion: Professor Amupitan’s Report Should Not Be Used Against Him as INEC Chairman By Dr. Samaila A. Ahalu Rukuba

Justice and Fairness Must Prevail

There has been growing public debate, sponsored by Miyyetti-Allah, over whether Professor Yemi Amupitan’s previous authorship of a report on the killings of Christians in Nigeria’s North Central region should count against him in his appointment as Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

From a moral, legal and constitutional perspective, the answer is clear: NO .
A professional act performed in good faith, before any public appointment, cannot be a valid ground for disqualification or vilification.

A Lawyer’s Duty Is Not a Crime, it’s constitutionally defined and therefore protected.

As a lawyer and academic, Professor Amupitan acted within his professional and moral duty to investigate and report on human rights concerns.Moreso, the report is universally collaborated as true and factually verifiable.

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (2023) empower every lawyer to promote justice, defend rights, and expose wrongdoing provided it is done objectively and without malice.

To now turn such a professional act into a political liability would be both unjust and dangerous. A lawyer cannot be punished for carrying out his duty with integrity.
This angle still juxtaposes the far North innate plans to frustrate all North Central indigenes, from any beneficial appointments.

Freedom of Expression and Academic Inquiry

The Nigerian Constitution firmly protects freedom of thought and expression under Sections 38 and 39.

By these provisions, every citizen — including a legal scholar — has the right to express informed opinions on national issues.
Penalizing Professor Amupitan for a report that sought to highlight killings and advocate justice would amount to suppressing truth and discouraging civic responsibility.

*What the Law Requires for the INEC Chair*

Under Paragraph 14 of Part I, Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, the INEC Chairman must be a person of “unquestionable integrity” and “not a member of a political party.”
It doesn’t include a person without a Professional pasts.

Integrity does not mean silence.
It means having the courage to speak the truth, stand for justice, and remain impartial when duty demands it.

Nothing in Professor Amupitan’s record suggests bias or partisanship. His past report was not a political manifesto — it was a legal and humanitarian intervention grounded in fact.

A Dangerous Precedent

If Nigeria begins to punish professionals for objective work done in good faith, we risk silencing the very voices we need for national progress.

Democracy thrives when men and women of conscience participate in governance, not when fear of political misinterpretation drives them away.

*Conclusion*

Professor Amupitan’s authorship of a report exposing violence in the North Central region was a call of conscience and professionalism, not a mark of bias.
The report is unquestionably truthful and very objective.

In law, ethics, and fairness, that report should never be used against him in considering his appointment as INEC Chairman.
Except the usual biases against the middle Belt, is stil alive.

Our democracy deserves leaders who have demonstrated moral courage — not those who chose silence in the face of injustice.

The North Central, middle Belt intelligentsia should not allow the Miyyetti-Allah continue with these hates, against all appointees from Middle Belt.

Dr. Samaila AA RUKUBA
Concerned, Middle Belter.