INEC Reshuffle: Sahara Reporters’ Ethnic Narrative Undermines Merit, Institutional Autonomy -By Adewole Kehinde

The recent publication by Sahara Reporters titled “INEC Chairman Amupitan Faces Questions Over Redeployment Of Northern Director As South-West Officials Head Key Departments Ahead Of 2027 Polls” raises important questions about responsible journalism, institutional independence and the danger of interpreting routine administrative decisions through the narrow lens of ethnicity and political suspicion.

While the media has a legitimate responsibility to scrutinise the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), particularly as Nigeria prepares for the 2027 general elections, such scrutiny must be grounded in facts, context and fairness. It should not be driven by assumptions that portray every administrative decision involving officers from different parts of the country as evidence of an ulterior political motive.

The redeployment of personnel within a public institution is neither unusual nor inherently suspicious. In any well-functioning organisation, changes in assignments are part of the ordinary administrative process through which management responds to operational needs, strengthens institutional capacity, broadens staff experience and positions qualified personnel to deliver on organisational objectives.

Change is the only constant thing in life. This timeless principle applies to individuals, organisations and public institutions. INEC is not an exception. The reported changes at the leadership of two departments central to election administration ahead of the 2027 general elections should therefore be examined within the context of routine institutional management, rather than immediately presented as an ethnic or political controversy.

The real question should be whether the Commission is strengthening its operational capacity to conduct credible elections, not whether an officer from one geographical zone has been moved while another officer from a different zone has been assigned new responsibilities.

Administrative changes are normal, not a scandal

It is unfortunate that Sahara Reporters appears to have placed disproportionate emphasis on two reported changes without adequately examining the broader context of personnel adjustments across the Commission’s departments.

If administrative changes have taken place across several departments, why single out two of them and frame the development primarily around the geographical origins of the officers involved?

A balanced report should establish the scope of the changes, explain the administrative context where information is available, and distinguish verifiable facts from speculation. Reporting only selected changes while ignoring the wider picture risks creating a misleading impression that the decisions were driven by ethnic considerations.

The fact that an officer from Northern Nigeria has been redeployed and officers from the South-West have assumed responsibilities in important departments does not, by itself, establish discrimination, political interference or a departure from merit.

The geographical origins of public officers should not become the principal standard for assessing their professional suitability. What matters is their competence, experience, record of service, integrity and capacity to discharge the responsibilities assigned to them.

In a civil service setting, movement from one position to another whether described as a transfer, redeployment, reassignment, promotion or reclassification is ordinarily governed by applicable public service regulations, established administrative procedures and the operational needs of the organisation.

Such changes may be undertaken to improve efficiency, fill vacancies, distribute expertise, strengthen supervision, broaden professional experience or prepare officers for greater responsibilities. A reassignment does not automatically amount to punishment, demotion or evidence of political manipulation.

Consequently, the reported redeployment of Isah Magaji Gummi, who served as Director of Electoral Operations, to the Voter Registry Department should not be treated as wrongdoing simply because it involves a change in departmental responsibility.

Unless there is credible evidence that the redeployment violated applicable rules, was discriminatory or was undertaken for an improper purpose, it is unreasonable to present the administrative decision as a controversy in itself.

The burden of responsible journalism is to establish what happened, determine what rules apply and present evidence supporting any allegation of impropriety. It is not enough to highlight the identities of the officers involved and invite readers to draw conclusions about their ethnicity or political loyalties.

Where Sahara Reporters missed the point

Sahara Reporters reportedly stated that “the changes have raised questions among those concerned about the management of the electoral process, particularly over the rationale for moving Gummi from his previous position and assigning Adeyemi-Showunmi responsibility for the department”.

This assertion deserves closer scrutiny. Who exactly are the people raising these questions? Are they identifiable electoral experts, serving or former INEC officials, political parties, civil society organisations or other credible stakeholders? Were their concerns independently verified? Did the publication obtain evidence that the redeployments departed from established procedures?

A report that refers vaguely to “those concerned” without identifying the individuals or organisations involved, or providing verifiable evidence of their concerns, risks presenting an editorial interpretation as an established public controversy.

It is perfectly legitimate for journalists to ask why a public institution has reassigned particular officers. Indeed, such questions can promote transparency. But asking a question is different from establishing that a decision is improper, and speculation must never be substituted for evidence.

There is a significant difference between reporting that a personnel change has occurred and suggesting that the change has compromised an electoral institution. The latter is a serious allegation requiring evidence proportionate to its gravity.

The public deserves factual reporting, not a narrative that encourages suspicion before the relevant facts have been established.

Furthermore, INEC’s internal administrative decisions should be assessed against the applicable rules and the Commission’s operational requirements. The absence of a publicly announced explanation for every individual redeployment does not automatically prove that the decision is improper.

The Commission should, of course, comply with applicable disclosure obligations and respond appropriately to credible allegations of wrongdoing. However, it should not be presumed guilty merely because a media organisation has framed an ordinary administrative development as a controversy.

A civil servant’s career should not be judged by a spouse’s political affiliation. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the publication is its emphasis on the political activities of the husband of Adeyemi-Showunmi.

Sahara Reporters reportedly highlighted that her husband, Otunba Segun Showunmi, is a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), convener of The Alternative, and has publicly expressed support for President Bola Tinubu’s re-election bid in 2027.

But what does her husband’s political affiliation have to do with her professional competence as a civil servant?

Should Adeyemi-Showunmi be denied the opportunity to progress in her career simply because her husband is associated with a political party or has expressed a political opinion? Should a public officer be presumed politically compromised because of the lawful political activities of a spouse?

My answer is an emphatic no.

A civil servant is an individual with a professional identity, qualifications, responsibilities and a record of service. A spouse’s political association does not automatically become the civil servant’s political position, nor does it establish that the officer will misuse public office to advance the spouse’s interests.

Unless credible evidence establishes that Adeyemi-Showunmi has breached the public service rules, acted in a partisan manner in the discharge of her official duties or received an appointment through improper political influence, the emphasis on her husband’s political activities amounts to guilt by association.

Such reasoning is unfair, potentially discriminatory and inconsistent with the principle that individuals should be judged by their own conduct.

The same standard must apply to every public servant, regardless of gender, marital status, geographical origin or family connections. If the spouse of a public officer supports the ruling party, that fact alone should not disqualify the officer from professional advancement. Equally, if the spouse supports an opposition party, that should not automatically become grounds for suspicion.

Public institutions must be guided by professional standards, not collective punishment based on family relationships.

The appropriate questions are straightforward: Is the officer qualified for the assignment? Does the officer possess the experience required? Was the decision made in accordance with applicable procedures? Is there credible evidence of a conflict of interest or misconduct?

These questions are relevant. The political identity of a spouse, standing alone, is not an adequate answer to any of them.

Redeployment can broaden experience and strengthen performance

Sahara Reporters should also appreciate that movement between positions within the same organisation is a recognised feature of personnel management.

An officer may be transferred to another department within the same grade and rank to acquire broader experience, break professional monotony, fill a sudden vacancy, address a staffing imbalance or improve the deployment of available expertise.

Such a move does not necessarily signify a loss of confidence in the officer being redeployed. Nor does assigning another officer to a key department automatically establish that the recipient enjoys political protection.

In a large institution such as INEC, which is responsible for managing complex electoral processes across Nigeria, the strategic deployment of personnel is essential to institutional performance.

Electoral administration requires coordination among voter registration, electoral operations, information and communications technology, logistics, planning, legal services, voter education and other functions. These responsibilities are interconnected, and the Commission must be able to deploy personnel in a manner that supports operational effectiveness.

A department head’s effectiveness should therefore be measured by professional competence, leadership, institutional knowledge, adherence to established procedures and the ability to deliver results—not by the state or region from which the officer comes.

It would be unreasonable to insist that an officer must remain permanently in one position simply because the office is important or because the officer’s replacement comes from another geographical zone.

Indeed, allowing public servants to acquire experience across different departments can help build institutional knowledge, strengthen coordination and reduce excessive dependence on individuals occupying particular positions.

If the reported redeployments were made in accordance with applicable rules and genuine administrative needs, there is nothing inherently unusual about them.

What would be unacceptable is the deliberate manipulation of personnel decisions to favour a political party, undermine electoral integrity or discriminate against qualified officers. But such conclusions must follow evidence, not precede it.

The Mahmood precedent: Why was the same standard not applied before?

A fundamental question that Sahara Reporters must answer is why similar concerns were not raised with the same intensity during the tenure of former INEC Chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu, when Nigeria had a president from Northern Nigeria and senior officers from the same region occupied sensitive positions within the electoral commission.

If the geographical origin of a chairman or departmental director is now being presented as a legitimate basis for questioning the impartiality of INEC, was the same standard consistently applied when the national political leadership and some senior electoral officials came from the North?

If not, why should the public accept a narrative that suddenly places ethnicity at the centre of routine administrative decisions as Nigeria approaches another general election?

The point is not that the previous administration should be presumed to have acted improperly. Nor should Northern officers be collectively blamed for occupying sensitive positions during a period when the president was from the North. The point is precisely the opposite: an officer’s geographical origin should not, by itself, be treated as evidence of bias or misconduct.

The same principle that protects Northern officers from unfair ethnic profiling must also protect officers from the South-West and every other part of Nigeria.

It would be inconsistent to defend appointments made during one administration as normal institutional practice but portray similar administrative arrangements under another administration as suspicious merely because the political circumstances have changed.

If Sahara Reporters believes that the previous leadership’s appointments were ethnically imbalanced or violated established procedures, it should present the relevant evidence and apply the same objective criteria to both periods. If it does not believe so, it should explain why the present changes deserve a different interpretation.

Journalism must be consistent in its standards. The credibility of a media organisation suffers when its treatment of similar events appears to depend on who occupies the presidency or which region the affected officers come from.

Nigeria cannot build a professional civil service if the advancement of public officers is routinely interpreted through ethnic arithmetic.

President Tinubu’s re-election bid does not prove electoral bias

Another troubling element of the Sahara Reporters publication is its suggestion that the reported changes carry particular weight because President Bola Tinubu, a former governor of Lagos State from the South-West, will seek re-election in 2027.

The independence of INEC is undoubtedly essential to public confidence in the electoral process. No responsible Nigerian should dismiss concerns about electoral integrity, and the Commission must continue to demonstrate impartiality through its actions.

However, the importance of electoral independence does not mean that every personnel decision made before an election should automatically be treated as a potential threat to democracy.

President Tinubu’s intention to seek re-election is not evidence that INEC’s administrative decisions are being manipulated to benefit him. Similarly, the fact that officers from the South-West occupy important positions does not establish that they will favour the President or the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Such reasoning confuses political context with proof of political interference.

A credible allegation of bias requires more than geographical coincidence. It requires evidence of conduct, instructions, conflicts of interest, procedural irregularities or other circumstances that reasonably demonstrate an improper purpose.

If the argument is that INEC must be independent because an incumbent president is seeking re-election, that principle applies irrespective of the president’s region, party or personal history. It applied under former President Muhammadu Buhari, and it applied under President Tinubu. It will apply to every future administration.

The constitutional responsibility of INEC does not change according to the identity of the president. The Commission must organise and supervise elections in accordance with the Constitution, the Electoral Act and other applicable laws, regardless of which political party is in power.

But the insistence on neutrality must not become a licence to accuse individual officials without evidence.

The question is not whether the public should scrutinise INEC. It should. The question is whether scrutiny should be based on verifiable facts or on the assumption that officers from a president’s region are inherently more likely to compromise an election.

The latter approach is unfair and potentially dangerous because it encourages Nigerians to distrust public institutions on the basis of ethnic identity rather than demonstrated conduct.

Electoral Operations and ICT require competent leadership

The reported leadership changes in Electoral Operations and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) deserve to be considered in the context of the responsibilities these departments carry.

Electoral Operations is central to the planning, coordination and implementation of activities associated with elections. Its responsibilities require administrative discipline, logistical coordination, effective communication and the capacity to manage complex processes involving personnel, materials and election-day arrangements across the federation.

The ICT department is equally important to the Commission’s electoral infrastructure, particularly in an environment where technology supports voter registration, voter accreditation, results management and other administrative processes.

As Nigeria prepares for the 2027 general elections, the effective management of these functions is critical. The Commission requires competent personnel who can work together to ensure that the systems, processes and logistical arrangements supporting elections operate efficiently.

Technology-related electoral processes must be secure, reliable and properly managed. Operational planning must be timely, coordinated and responsive to challenges. Both functions require leadership capable of working within established procedures and delivering measurable results.

It is therefore reasonable for INEC management to assess the experience, capabilities and suitability of personnel for these assignments.

However, it would be wrong to assume that the mere appointment or redeployment of a particular officer proves that the Commission has achieved these objectives. The proper assessment should be based on the officer’s qualifications and record, the applicable appointment procedures and the department’s subsequent performance.

The same standard applies to every individual entrusted with a sensitive assignment, irrespective of whether the officer is from the North, South-West, South-East, South-South or North-Central.

The public should demand competent leadership in these departments. It should equally demand that any allegations of improper appointments be substantiated with credible evidence.

What Nigerians do not need is an ethnic contest over who should occupy an office before the relevant officer’s competence has even been assessed.

Where is the evidence of unresolved concerns within INEC?

Sahara Reporters also reportedly suggested that the changes could create unresolved concerns within INEC and fuel suspicion among opposition parties and members of the public, even without evidence that the appointments were made for partisan purposes.

This is a particularly problematic way to frame the issue. If there are unresolved concerns within the Commission, who has raised them? What precisely are the concerns? Have they been documented? Are there credible sources willing to substantiate them? Has the Commission received a formal complaint about a breach of procedure or a conflict of interest?

Without answers to these questions, claims of internal unease risk becoming an exercise in speculation.

A media organisation cannot manufacture a controversy by imagining how unidentified stakeholders might react to an administrative decision and then present that imagined reaction as evidence of a problem.

It is possible that some Nigerians may have questions about the redeployments. It is also possible that some political actors may seek clarification. But the possibility of public suspicion is not proof that the appointments were improperly made.

Likewise, the absence of evidence of partisan manipulation does not absolve any institution from legitimate scrutiny. It simply means that an allegation of partisan manipulation has not been established by the information presented.

The distinction matters.

There is a difference between reporting a documented complaint and predicting that an administrative decision could generate suspicion. There is also a difference between a genuine institutional concern and a media organisation’s interpretation of events.

If opposition parties or civil society organisations have verifiable evidence of irregularities, they are entitled to raise those issues through appropriate channels. INEC should consider credible complaints and address matters that fall within its legal and administrative responsibilities.

But it is inappropriate to attribute concerns to unnamed insiders or stakeholders without adequate verification.

Responsible journalism should clarify what is known, what remains uncertain and what evidence supports the conclusions being advanced. It should not turn hypothetical concerns into a settled narrative of institutional dysfunction.

INEC’s internal management is not a political bargaining process

It is important to distinguish legitimate public accountability from the expectation that every internal personnel decision must be defended publicly against political speculation.

INEC is a public institution and must operate within the law. Its decisions are not beyond scrutiny, and its management must remain accountable for compliance with applicable rules.

Nevertheless, the Commission’s day-to-day personnel management is an administrative responsibility. Political parties and civil society organisations do not acquire a general right to direct individual redeployments simply because an election is approaching.

There must be a clear distinction between matters that affect the integrity of elections and routine administrative decisions that fall within management’s lawful authority.

Where there is credible evidence that an appointment violates the law, breaches established procedures or compromises electoral impartiality, the matter deserves proper examination. Where an officer has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the assignment, it should be addressed in accordance with the applicable rules.

But the mere fact that an officer has been reassigned, or that another officer comes from a different region, does not automatically create a constitutional crisis.

INEC should not be expected to disclose confidential personnel information or provide an elaborate public justification for every administrative adjustment unless the law, applicable regulations or a legitimate accountability requirement demands it.

The Commission should, of course, communicate clearly where clarification is necessary to correct demonstrable misinformation or address a credible concern. Transparency can strengthen public confidence. But transparency must not be confused with an obligation to submit every internal management decision to partisan approval.

Political parties should concentrate on their preparations for the 2027 elections, compliance with electoral laws, candidate selection, voter mobilisation and the development of credible policy alternatives. Civil society organisations should continue to monitor the electoral process and promote accountability.

Neither role requires the presumption that a routine redeployment is improper until INEC proves otherwise.

The Commission’s responsibility is to comply with the law and conduct credible elections—not to manage its workforce according to the ethnic or partisan preferences of every commentator.

Calling for Amupitan’s resignation is ridiculous and unfounded

Perhaps the most excessive conclusion arising from this controversy is the reported call for INEC Chairman, Professor Joash Amupitan, SAN, to resign over the personnel changes.

On what established grounds should the Chairman resign?

Has it been demonstrated that he violated the Constitution, breached an applicable law, manipulated an appointment process or directed any officer to act in the interest of a political party? Has credible evidence been presented to show that the reported redeployments were intended to compromise the 2027 general elections?

If such evidence exists, it should be presented and examined through the appropriate legal and institutional channels. If it does not, demanding the resignation of the INEC Chairman over administrative decisions that have not been shown to be unlawful is premature, disproportionate and unfounded.

A call for resignation is a serious political demand. It should not be treated as a convenient headline-generating device whenever a public institution makes a decision that a commentator dislikes.

Professor Amupitan assumed responsibility for leading an institution entrusted with one of Nigeria’s most consequential democratic functions. His performance should be assessed against the law, the Commission’s institutional responsibilities, the transparency of its processes and the credibility of the elections conducted under his leadership.

He should be held accountable for established misconduct, not presumed guilty because of the regional origins of officers assigned to sensitive departments.

It would be dangerous to establish a precedent in which every redeployment of a director becomes grounds for demanding the resignation of the head of an entire institution. Such an approach would undermine administrative stability and discourage managers from making legitimate decisions necessary for organisational effectiveness.

The Chairman should not be above scrutiny. But scrutiny must be fair, proportionate and evidence-based.

Accountability without evidence becomes persecution, while criticism without fairness becomes an instrument of prejudice.

Public confidence must be built on facts, not ethnic suspicion

There is no question that Nigerians deserve a transparent, impartial and credible electoral commission. Public confidence is indispensable to democratic legitimacy, and INEC must continue to earn that confidence through its conduct.

However, confidence in democratic institutions cannot be strengthened by encouraging citizens to interpret every appointment through the prism of ethnicity.

When a Northern officer is appointed to a sensitive position, that officer should be judged by professional competence and performance. When a South-Western officer assumes the same responsibility, the same standard must apply. The principle extends to officers from every part of the country.

The geographical composition of an institution may legitimately be examined where there is credible evidence of discrimination, exclusion or a violation of applicable rules. But regional representation should not become an automatic test of an officer’s integrity.

Nigeria’s public institutions belong to all Nigerians. Their effectiveness depends on the ability of qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds to work together in pursuit of national objectives.

The 2027 general elections will require considerable preparation, coordination and professionalism. INEC should be allowed to organise its workforce within the limits of its legal authority while remaining open to legitimate scrutiny.

The media, meanwhile, must recognise that its responsibility goes beyond attracting attention. Headlines influence public perception, especially when they concern elections and institutions whose credibility is essential to national stability.

A headline that emphasises the regional identity of officers while implying political suspicion can create an impression that the facts may not support. Such framing risks deepening divisions at a time when Nigerians need confidence in the rule of law and the impartial administration of elections.

This is why journalists must distinguish between a demonstrable fact, an allegation, an interpretation and an unsubstantiated prediction.

The media should ask difficult questions, but it must also be prepared to accept answers supported by evidence. It should expose wrongdoing where it exists, but it must not manufacture wrongdoing where it has not been established.

Sahara Reporters must separate investigation from insinuation

The central weakness of the Sahara Reporters publication is not that it questioned INEC’s administrative decisions. Such questions are legitimate. The concern is the apparent reliance on regional identities, a civil servant’s family connections and anticipated political reactions to construct a narrative of possible institutional compromise without establishing the underlying wrongdoing.

The publication would have been stronger if it had established the full scope of the reported personnel changes, examined the relevant administrative procedures, investigated the qualifications and professional records of the officers concerned, and obtained verifiable responses from the Commission and credible independent sources.

If there were specific complaints about the redeployment of Isah Magaji Gummi, those complaints should have been investigated on their merits. If there were questions about Adeyemi-Showunmi’s suitability for her assignment, the publication should have examined her qualifications, experience and professional record.

Instead, the emphasis on the political activities of her husband risks inviting readers to infer professional misconduct from a family relationship.

That is not a fair basis for judging a public servant.

It is also important to recognise that the Commission’s internal administrative decisions do not automatically become evidence of electoral manipulation simply because they occur ahead of a general election.

The burden of proof rests on those making allegations of wrongdoing. The Commission should answer credible questions, but it should not be compelled to disprove every hypothetical suspicion generated by commentary.

Sahara Reporters should therefore reconsider the framing of its publication and distinguish substantiated facts from assumptions about the motives behind the reported redeployments.

A free press is essential to democracy. So is responsible journalism. Neither freedom nor responsibility is served by turning administrative decisions into ethnic controversies without sufficient evidence.

The real test will be INEC’s performance

Ultimately, the most meaningful assessment of INEC’s leadership will be based on the Commission’s performance, its compliance with the law, its operational readiness and its ability to conduct credible elections.

Can it maintain an accurate and reliable voter register? Can it prepare election materials and personnel effectively? Can it deploy technology securely and transparently? Can it administer accreditation, voting, collation and results management in accordance with the law? Can it respond promptly to complaints and ensure that its officials act impartially?

These are the substantive questions Nigerians should be asking as preparations for 2027 intensify.

The reported changes in Electoral Operations and ICT should be assessed against the Commission’s ability to deliver on these responsibilities. If the new leadership performs effectively and the redeployments comply with applicable rules, the administrative decisions should be judged accordingly. If credible evidence of wrongdoing emerges, the matter should be investigated without fear or favour.

Neither the officers concerned nor the Chairman should receive automatic praise or condemnation based on their geographical origins.

The Commission must earn public confidence through its actions. Political parties must participate responsibly. Civil society organisations must remain vigilant. The media must report accurately. And citizens must be willing to distinguish evidence from insinuation.

These responsibilities are complementary, not contradictory.

Conclusion: Merit, not ethnicity, must guide the debate

Change is inevitable in every institution that seeks to remain effective. Personnel movements, departmental reassignment and changes in leadership are normal features of administration, provided they are undertaken in accordance with the relevant rules and legitimate organisational needs.

The reported redeployment of Isah Magaji Gummi from Electoral Operations to the Voter Registry Department, alongside the reported assignment of Adeyemi-Showunmi to departmental leadership, should therefore be examined on the basis of facts, applicable procedures and professional suitability not reduced to an ethnic contest.

Adeyemi-Showunmi’s husband’s political affiliation should not, without evidence of a relevant conflict of interest or misconduct, become a reason to question her professional advancement. Equally, Gummi’s redeployment should not be portrayed as an injustice simply because of his regional identity.

The same standard must apply to every officer, regardless of where they come from or which political party their relatives support.

Sahara Reporters should also explain the evidentiary basis for attributing concerns to unnamed insiders or stakeholders and for suggesting that the reported changes have compromised public confidence. If there is evidence of improper conduct, the public deserves to see it. If there is none, speculation should not be presented as fact.

Calling for Professor Amupitan’s resignation without establishing a substantive basis for such a demand is equally unjustified. The Chairman should be held accountable for his actions and the Commission’s performance, not subjected to premature condemnation over personnel decisions that have not been shown to violate the law.

INEC must remain accountable, but it must also retain the ability to manage its personnel in accordance with its lawful responsibilities. Political parties and civil society organisations have every right to scrutinise electoral preparations and raise credible concerns. They do not, merely by virtue of their political or civic roles, acquire a general right to demand an explanation for every internal administrative decision.

As the country moves towards the 2027 general elections, Nigerians should resist attempts to turn ordinary administrative developments into evidence of ethnic favouritism without substantiation.

Merit must take precedence over ethnicity. Evidence must take precedence over insinuation. Professional competence must take precedence over political association. And responsible journalism must take precedence over sensationalism.

Nigeria’s democracy will be better served when public institutions are judged by their adherence to the law and their performance, rather than by the regional identities of the individuals who work in them.

The ultimate objective should be a competent, independent and impartial INEC capable of delivering credible elections for all Nigerians. That objective demands rigorous scrutiny, but it also demands fairness, consistency and respect for facts.

That is the standard Sahara Reporters, and every media organisation committed to democratic accountability, should uphold.

Adewole Kehinde is the publisher of Swift Reporters and a Public Affairs Analyst. 08166240846. kennyadewole@gmail.com