A deepening dispute between Christian and Muslim groups in northern Nigeria has exposed fresh fault lines over religion, power, and the integrity of the country’s electoral system, following calls for the removal of the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Joash Amupitan.
The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in the 19 northern states and the federal capital territory has condemned demands by the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN) for Amupitan’s removal, describing them as dangerous, unjustified and a troubling attempt to politicise religion.
In a statement issued in Kaduna, Northern CAN warned that the campaign against the INEC chairman risked eroding public confidence in a key democratic institution and inflaming sectarian tensions at a delicate political moment. The group insisted that competence and integrity — not religious affiliation — should be the sole criteria for assessing holders of public office.
The controversy was sparked after the SCSN called for Amupitan’s immediate removal and prosecution, accusing him of compromised integrity over a legal brief in which he reportedly acknowledged claims of persecution and genocide against Christians in Nigeria. The council argued that his continued stay in office posed “a serious threat” to the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process, warning that Muslims would refuse to recognise elections conducted under his leadership.
The SCSN president, Sheikh Bashir Umar, made the remarks in Abuja during the council’s 2026 annual pre-Ramadan lecture and general assembly. The call was swiftly endorsed by the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), which said it was “fully aligning” with the Shari’ah council’s position.
In a statement by its Kano State chairman, Mallam Hassan Indabawa, MURIC described the demand for Amupitan’s removal as “noble, consistent and justifiable”, recalling that the group had first raised concerns in November 2025 over what it described as “hate-filled” views expressed in a 2020 legal brief.
MURIC also cited alleged conflicts of interest, pointing to claims by other groups that Amupitan had been part of the legal team for the ruling party during the 2023 presidential election petition. It referenced an 80-page document attributed to him, titled Legal Brief: Genocide in Nigeria: The Implications for the International Community, which it said framed attacks by Boko Haram insurgents and armed herders as a coordinated anti-Christian campaign — a position the federal government has consistently rejected.
According to MURIC, allowing Amupitan to oversee the 2027 general elections would “erode credibility and legitimacy”, alleging partisanship and bias against Muslims.
Northern CAN has pushed back forcefully. In a statement jointly signed by its chairman, Rev Joseph Hayab, and secretary general, Bishop Mohammed Naga, the association questioned the motive behind what it called a sustained and coordinated campaign against the INEC chair.
“Who is sponsoring this campaign, and why are they hiding under a religious platform?” the statement asked, warning against the use of faith as “cheap cover” for political or sectarian interests.
Hayab said Amupitan, like every Nigerian, had a constitutional right to freedom of religion, stressing that expressing concern about challenges faced by one’s faith did not amount to bias or disqualification from public office. He noted that Muslims had previously occupied sensitive national positions despite controversial religious antecedents without facing similar scrutiny.
The association also warned that the episode reinforced long-standing concerns about discrimination against Christians in appointments to key national offices. It recalled that the two immediate past INEC chairmen were northern Muslims and cautioned against narratives suggesting that only adherents of a particular faith were fit to lead the electoral body.
“Are they saying no other religion should serve as INEC chairman except Muslims?” Hayab asked. “The most important question Nigerians should ask is whether Professor Amupitan is competent or not. That should be the focus, not his faith.”
Northern CAN praised President Bola Tinubu for appointing a Christian as INEC chairman despite being a Muslim himself, describing the move as inclusive and statesmanlike. It likened the decision to that of former president Goodluck Jonathan, who retained a northern Muslim as INEC chairman despite political pressure.
The association urged the Shari’ah council to publicly identify any individuals or groups behind the campaign and advised Amupitan to remain focused on his constitutional responsibility to conduct free, fair and credible elections.
It also expressed concern over what it described as emerging signs of a coordinated political agenda ahead of the 2027 polls, citing recent remarks by the minister of culture, tourism and creative economy, Hannatu Musawa, on the implications of a non-Muslim–Muslim ticket for the ruling All Progressives Congress. Combined with sustained attacks on a Christian INEC chairman, Northern CAN said, such comments risked undermining Christian confidence and participation in the political process.
Similar concerns were echoed by the Youth Wing of CAN (YOWICAN) and the Christian Media Forum (CMF), both of which condemned the calls for Amupitan’s removal as baseless and divisive.
In a joint statement, CMF leaders Jacob Dickson and Andrew Mshelia warned that the campaign could inflame religious tensions and weaken democratic institutions, urging faith leaders to promote restraint and national cohesion.
Speaking in Kaduna, YOWICAN’s northern chairman, Evangelist Dedan Clifford, described the demand as “unwarranted and politically motivated”, arguing that the Shari’ah council had no constitutional authority to seek the removal of the INEC chair.
“For over 15 years, INEC chairmen — including Professors Attahiru Jega and Mahmood Yakubu — were Muslims, and Christians did not object,” Clifford said. “The position is based on merit, and Prof Amupitan deserves it.”
As Nigeria edges closer to another election cycle, the episode has reignited fears that religion is once again being drawn into the heart of its politics — a move critics warn could deepen divisions and threaten the fragile trust on which the country’s democracy depends.
