Renowned constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Professor Sebastine Hon, has faulted the demand by the Sharia Council of Nigeria seeking the removal of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan, SAN, describing it as reckless and constitutionally unsound.
Professor Hon argued that the call, which hinges on alleged fears of bias, is not only baseless but effectively urges President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to act in violation of the 1999 Constitution.
In a statement issued in Abuja on Sunday, the 8th of February, 2026, the senior advocate insisted that the justification offered by the Sharia Council lacks both constitutional grounding and empirical merit, dismissing it as an attempt at undue pressure.
He stressed that contrary to the Council’s claims, the removal of an INEC chairman is strictly regulated by constitutional provisions and cannot be carried out arbitrarily or on the basis of speculation. According to him, the President can only initiate such a process in line with the Constitution and subject to legislative approval.
In the statement personally signed by him, Professor Hon stated: “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.”
He further explained that even the President lacks unilateral authority to remove the INEC chairman without Senate concurrence.
“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.”
Hon emphasized that none of the constitutionally recognized grounds for removal had been alleged by the Sharia Council.
“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.”
He noted that the Constitution does not allow for expansive interpretation beyond functional incapacity.
“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.
The senior lawyer further maintained that opinions expressed before assuming office cannot serve as grounds for removal.
“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.
He added that only actions taken while in office can be considered relevant.
“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.
Hon also traced the constitutional process through which Prof. Amupitan was appointed, highlighting the broad institutional support he received.
“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.”
He recalled that Prof. Amupitan’s nomination and confirmation followed due process and enjoyed unanimous approval.
“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.”
The Senate, he noted, also unanimously confirmed the appointment after extensive screening.
“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.
Professor Hon described the Sharia Council’s objection as belated and dangerous.
“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.
READ ALSO: Amupitan: INEC Ready For 2027 Elections Despite Electoral Act Delay
“A very dangerous precedent will also be set if this tendentious objection is accepted.
He argued that expressing concern over violence cannot justify removal from office.
“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.
Hon added that the officials who approved Amupitan’s appointment carried out due diligence.
“All the high officers of the Federation named above presumably carried out proper investigations on his person before 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.
He concluded by firmly rejecting the calls for removal and advising the INEC chairman to remain resolute.
“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.