Nigeria proclaims itself a secular republic, yet religion continues to dominate the national imagination and shape political judgement. The recent calls for the removal of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan, serve as a troubling reminder that public institutions in Nigeria are often assessed less by performance and more by the perceived faith of those who lead them. This tendency poses a direct threat to the stability and credibility of our democratic order.
At the heart of this controversy lies a familiar paradox. While the Constitution clearly affirms the separation of religion and state, public discourse remains deeply infused with religious sentiment. Matters that ought to be resolved through institutional procedures and objective scrutiny frequently devolve into emotionally charged contests of identity, belief and communal suspicion. In the process, confidence in national institutions is eroded even before any substantive inquiry begins.
The present debate was triggered by calls from the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN) for Professor Amupitan’s removal, citing alleged concerns about impartiality linked to his past legal commentary on claims of “Christian persecution”. Other bodies, including the Da’awa Coordination Council of Nigeria (DCCN), echoed similar anxieties. What might otherwise have remained a professional or legal discussion was thus reframed along religious lines, transforming an institutional issue into a matter of sectarian interpretation.
In response, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in Northern Nigeria rejected these calls, warning against the politicisation of religion and the dangerous implications of such demands. CAN argued that competence and integrity—not faith—should remain the benchmark for public office, and described the pressure on INEC as an attempt to undermine a critical national institution. The association further commended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for appointing a Christian as INEC chairman, interpreting the decision as a gesture of inclusivity and national balance.
At first glance, concerns about impartiality in the leadership of electoral institutions may appear legitimate. Vigilant scrutiny of public officials is, after all, a cornerstone of democratic accountability, particularly in a system still striving to consolidate public trust. However, when such scrutiny is driven primarily by religious affiliation rather than demonstrable misconduct or procedural failure, the implications for national cohesion become deeply unsettling.
Nigeria has witnessed this pattern before. The controversy surrounding the Muslim–Muslim presidential ticket in the 2023 general elections illustrated how quickly constitutional debates and political strategy can be overwhelmed by communal fear and religious suspicion. Nuanced discussion was displaced by emotive narratives, leaving behind a residue of mistrust that continues to shape political attitudes.
That legacy persists. Even now, some Christian groups are openly calling for the replacement of Vice President Kashim Shettima as the ruling party’s vice-presidential candidate ahead of the 2027 elections, not on grounds of performance or constitutional breach, but largely because of religious considerations. This persistent fixation on faith as a political litmus test underscores how deeply sectarian thinking has penetrated Nigeria’s body politic.
Against this backdrop, the danger of framing debates about INEC’s leadership in sectarian terms becomes even clearer. INEC is not an ordinary government agency; it is the institutional custodian of the electoral process and, by extension, the legitimacy of democratic governance. Once confidence in its neutrality is weakened, election outcomes are no longer judged by evidence or procedure but by suspicion and perception—a slow, corrosive process that undermines democracy from within.
This is not an argument for shielding public officials from accountability. Those entrusted with overseeing elections must remain answerable to the people they serve, and transparency must always prevail. Yet accountability must be anchored in verifiable evidence of misconduct, abuse of office or procedural failure—not in retrospective interpretations of professional opinions that are weaponised to serve sectarian narratives.
When religious identity becomes the dominant lens through which public service is evaluated, fairness gives way to fear, and institutions lose the neutrality upon which their authority rests. The greater danger, therefore, is not any single individual, but the precedent being established. If leadership of critical institutions is continually contested on sectarian grounds, governance itself becomes hostage to identity politics.
Over time, this dynamic weakens institutional resilience, hampers effective administration and deepens societal divisions. Nigeria’s diversity, which ought to be a source of collective strength, instead becomes a fault line of perpetual contestation.
What Nigerians should demand from INEC—and indeed from all public institutions—is competence, independence and professionalism, not constant reassurance of religious balance. Elections must be transparent, inclusive and credible for all citizens, irrespective of faith.
For a secular democracy to thrive, national issues must be confronted through reasoned debate, respect for institutional processes and evidence-based accountability. Religion, while central to personal identity, must not be allowed to eclipse civic responsibility or undermine public trust.
Ultimately, the survival and sustainability of Nigeria’s democracy will depend not on sectarian victories or religious arithmetic, but on tolerance, mutual respect and an unwavering commitment to strong, independent institutions. Only by resisting the pull of religious polarisation can Nigerians safeguard the quiet but enduring pillars upon which democratic legitimacy and national unity truly rest.

Shu’aibu Usman Leman is a former National Secretary of the Nigeria Union of Journalists-NUJ