Constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Professor Sebastine Hon has dismissed the call by the Sharia Council of Nigeria for the sack of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Prof Joash Amupitan SAN as an unguided request.
He said the call predicated on possible bias against a particular interest was not only ridiculous but amounts to an invitation to President Bola Tinubu to breach the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.
In a statement in Abuja on Sunday, the senior lawyer maintained that the reasons advanced by the Council to back the call are not tenable constitutionally and empirically but mere blackmail.
Specifically, the Professor of law explained that contrary to the erroneous position of the Sharia Council, the INEC chairman can only be removed from office by the President, acting on the provisions of the Constitution and and the requirements from National Assembly.
The statement he personally signed read “I have observed with shock the call made by the Sharia Council of Nigeria for the removal or resignation of Prof. Joash Amupitan from office as the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
“The reasons advanced by the Council are, with respect, not tenable constitutionally and empirically.
“Subsections (1) and (2) of section 157 of the Constitution provide that the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission “may only be removed from that office by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct.”
“From the above provisions, not even the President has power to remove Prof. Joash Amupitan, SAN from office with the wave of the hand: he has to subject his decision to the approval of at least two-thirds of members of the Senate.
“Secondly, the removal must be based on the stated constitutional reasons: “for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct.”
“The guiding and controlling phrases here are “inability to discharge the functions of his office” and “misconduct.” None of these reasons has been raised by the respected Sharia Council of Nigeria.
“Let me also make it clear that the phrase “or any other cause” in the provision is not at large but owes its origin to the parent phrase “for inability to discharge the functions of the office.”
“This means that Prof. Amupitan must, for this provision to affect him, have been unable to perform the functions of his office due to any other cause apart from “infirmity of mind or body.” No other permissible interpretation, to the best of my knowledge, could be made of these extant provisions.
“To be more specific, the Nigerian Constitution, in particular, section 157(1) and (2) – the only provisions dealing with removal from office of the INEC Chairman – does not contemplate such removal being based on a prior public opinion expressed by the occupant of that office.
“It will amount to doing grave and damaging violence to the Constitution if such interpretation is imputed to those crystal-clear provisions.
“Further still, those provisions contemplate removal from office for actions or inaction of the occupant thereof while in office and not for infractions that took place prior to his assumption of office.
“Pray, how did Prof. Amupitan assume office in the first place? Again, resort would be had to the provisions of the Constitution and empirical facts. Section 153(1)(f) of the Constitution has established INEC, while section 158(1) thereof makes the said INEC, inter alios (amongst others), “not to be subject to the direction or control of any authority or person.”
“INEC having been so established, section 154 of the same Constitution makes it mandatory that its Chairman shall “be appointed by the President and the appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Senate.”
“From facts undeniable, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu had, on November 9, 2025, nominated Prof. Amupitan to that office. On October 10, 2025, the National Council of State, made up of the President (a Muslim), the Vice President (also a Muslim), all former Presidents/Heads of State (some of whom are Muslims), the Chief Justice of Nigeria (herself a Muslim), the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives (also a Muslim), the Attorney-General of the Federal (another Muslim) and Christian and Muslim State Governors, unanimously approved the appointment.
“State House press statement issued on that same October 10, 2025 quoted Governor Ahmed Usman Ododo of Kogi State (himself a Muslim) as describing Amupitan as “a man on integrity.”
“After the unanimous clearance by the National Council of State, the Senate, in compliance with the above-adumbrated provisions of the Constitution, also unanimously confirmed the appointment on October 16, 2025.
“It is remarkable to note that the Senate of Nigeria is made up of a large number of Muslims; but none raised objection at all to this confirmation during the over two hours’ screening exercise.
“The sudden realisation by the Sharia Council that Prof. Amupitan had decried genocide against Christians in Nigeria by Muslim extremist; hence is not fit to occupy that office, therefore, amounts to an afterthought.
“A very dangerous precedent will also be set if this tendentious objection is accepted.
Save if the Sharia Council has any other reason to oppose the continued functioning of Prof. Amupitan as INEC Chairman, the fact that he decried genocide against Christians in Nigeria is not strong enough to make him leave office.
“All the high officers of the Federation named above presumably carried out proper investigations on his person beforel unanimously proposing and or confirming his appointment are not inferior Muslims.
“Besides, Prof. Amupitan has not committed any of the listed infractions that would make him lose office – as spelt out under section 157(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
“Consequently, I vehemently oppose calls for the removal from office of Prof. Amupitan as INEC Chairman. I also strongly counsel him not to succumb to this blackmail, by voluntarily resigning from that office.
“Rather, I hereby suggest to him to take this unfounded suspicion of possible bias against Muslims in the conduct of affairs of his office as a springboard that would spur him to side more with justice, fair play and neutrality, which are the basic and compulsory requirements of his office”, he said.
