By Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu (rtd)
As Nigeria edges toward another election cycle, a familiar debate has returned — the neutrality and non-partisanship of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Professor Joash Amupitan. But let us be honest. The issue is bigger than the Chairman. It goes to a more fundamental question: INEC independence. Is attaching the adjective “Independent” to the name of an electoral body sufficient to make it so?
LOOK AT THE NAMES OF ELECTION MANAGEMENT BODIES ACROSS THE WORLD — AND THEN LOOK AGAIN
I did a comparative look at Election Management Bodies (EMBs) across countries. This is not t a deep PhD thesis — just a simple, curious scan of names, structures, and outcomes. The result? Amusing. And instructive.
In Nigeria, we have INEC — “Independent” proudly in front.
Across Africa, we see similar patterns:
• Kenya — Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
• DR Congo — Independent National Electoral Commission
• Chad — National Independent Electoral Commission
• South Sudan — National Independent Electoral Commission
• Mali — Independent Election Management Authority
• Burkina Faso — Independent National Electoral Commission
Then you step into other jurisdictions with advanced democracies and look at the names :
• United Kingdom — Electoral Commission
• Canada — Elections Canada
• India — Election Commission of India
• Australia — Australian Electoral Commission
• Ghana — Electoral Commission of Ghana
No adjectives. No insistence. No persuasion.
Which raises a polite but uncomfortable question: Why do some systems (African mostly) feel the need to say “Independent”… while others simply are?
THE RECORD — NOT THE RHETORIC
Let us leave theory and look at outcomes. Countries where the word “Independent” is boldly attached to EMBs tend to show a pattern:
• Nigeria: Elections are competitive, yes — but routinely contested, litigated, and debated
• DR Congo: Elections occur — but credibility is persistently questioned
• Chad: Elections are held — but often predictable and boycotted
• South Sudan: The commission exists — but elections are repeatedly postponed
• Mali & Burkina Faso: Electoral cycles are interrupted by coups or insecurity
Across these systems elections are frequent but fragile. Credibility of the umpire is contested, not assumed. Political context often overwhelms institutions
Now compare that with countries that do not advertise independence. The adjective “Independent” is not attached to official name : Elections are predictable; Outcomes are accepted; post election legal disputes are exceptions, not rituals. In such countries, sometimes, even pre-election polling tells you how the story will end — and everyone still shows up to vote.
THE ADJECTIVE PROBLEM
There is something quietly revealing about electoral institutions that feel compelled to introduce themselves as “Independent.” It is like you see a shop with the signboard “HONEST BUSINESS LTD.” Or. a man who begins every sentence with “Let me be very sincere…” Or a football referee who walks onto the pitch wearing a badge that says “NEUTRAL”
In all three cases, you don’t relax. You adjust your expectations. Because in mature systems, independence is designed into the system , not declared . Independence is assumed, not advertised.
In advanced democracies no one needs to say “Independent Judiciary” or “Independent Supreme Court” or “Independent Central Bank” or “Independent INEC ” or “Independent ICPC”- They simply are.
WHAT GLOBAL STANDARDS ACTUALLY SAY
When you turn to international best practice — from International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United Nations, and the Venice Commission — these form what practitioners treat as the “gold standard” on EMB independence- you discover something striking: Nowhere do they recommend putting “Independent” in the name. Instead, they focus on less glamorous, but decisive questions:
• Who appoints the commissioners?
• Who screens, vets and confirms?
• Who controls the funding?
• Who manages logistics and security?
• Who can remove them — and how easily?
That is where independence lives or dies.
NIGERIA — WHERE THE GAP ACTUALLY IS
On paper, INEC is strong, constitutionally established and clearly mandated. But structurally and procedurally from appointment , senate confirmation and funding, the pressure points are evident:
a. Appointment: Largely executive-driven, with limited independent vetting (IF not Prof Amupitan would probably not have been appointed by Mr President in the first place.
b. Screening and Confirmation by Senate -perfunctory by a rubber stamp senate eager to please Mr President (IF not Prof Amupitan would probably not have passed Senate screening and the President’s initial mistake in picking him would have been corrected by an awake Senate in the sort of check and balance envisioned in a democracy ) .
c. Financing: Approved, yes — but often released at executive discretion
d. Operations: Dependent on external security architecture controlled by the Executive.
e. Staffing: Heavy reliance on ad hoc personnel
So the paradox emerges: The same system that appoints, funds, and surrounds the institution is the one it is expected to be independent from. You cannot appoint an institution and expect it to forget who appointed it. That is not how institutions behave. That is not even how human beings behave.
With all these gaps, the adjective “Independent” in INEC becomes less a description and more an aspiration.
THE REAL LESSON
The issue, therefore, is not only about the Chairman , or his past partisan tweets (he has disowned them) or alleged but still unconfirmed professional misconduct in UNIJOS. It is not only about the alleged but yet unconfirmed gifts of parcels of land to the INEC Chair and Commissioners . It is not even about INEC alone. It is about the architecture of independence built around INEC (ditto ICPC). Because you cannot appoint an institution and expect it to forget who appointed it . You cannot fund an institution and expect it to ignore who funds it . You cannot control the environment and expect neutrality to emerge by declaration. That is unrealistic optimism.
THE QUIET CONCLUSION
Perhaps the long-term goal is not to defend the word “Independent.” In INEC (ICPC). It is to build a system where:
• appointments are insulated
• nominees are screened by an independent (not rubber stamp) Senate
• funding is automatic and protected
• operations are fully controlled by the EMB
• outcomes are accepted without ritual litigation
And then, one day, quietly and without ceremony:
The word “Independent” can disappear from INEC’s name. And from ICPC name. Not because we lost independence in INEC. But because we finally achieved “Independence” for INEC. After all, no referee who begins a match by explaining his neutrality should be surprised when everyone watches him more than the ball.
FINAL LINE.
In some countries, the adjective “Independent” in the name of their electoral body is not whispered — it is announced, declared, advertised, branded. Almost like a warning label.
Then you look elsewhere — countries where elections are free, fair, and accepted.
There is no need for the adjective. No emotional appeal. No need to convince anybody.
And then comes the part that should make us pause. In many systems like ours — where “Independent” is written in bold — the same government:
• appoints the leadership,
• funds the institution,
• controls the security environment,
…and then steps back to say: “Don’t worry — they are independent.”
At that point, independence is no longer a constitutional principle. It becomes a public relations strategy.
The credibility of elections is not written in the name of the commission. It is not secured by inserting the adjective “Independent.” It is written in the behaviour of the system around it.
And until that behaviour changes, the most contested part of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission will remain the smallest letter: “I.” for “Independent.”
Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu (rtd) is a Security & Defence Analyst/Conflict Security & Development Consult Ltd
