…The Akpoti-Uduaghan Recall Scandal and the Credibility Crisis
By Oyinkan Andu
In the never-ending drama of Nigerian politics, INEC has once again found itself in the spotlight—the electoral body’s role in a recall petition against Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, raises fundamental questions about its impartiality. Despite INECs sudden u-turn where they now state that the Senators Recall did not “meet requirements”. Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan has rightly criticised INEC for accepting a recall petition she claims containing “fictitious signatures and names,” arguing that such a petition should have been dismissed outright. This raises an endlessly looming question: Is INEC a neutral referee, or just another tool for political strongmen to wield at will?
This isn’t just about one senator; it’s about whether INEC is fit to serve as the guardian of Nigeria’s democracy—or if it has simply become an accomplice in the country’s long tradition of political warfare.
INEC’s History
A Pattern of Partisan Shenanigans
INEC’s track record of “selective integrity” is well-documented. While the commission likes to insist on its neutrality, history tells a different story.
2018: The Credibility Debate
INEC Commissioner Mohammed Haruna insisted the commission wasn’t an “appendage” of any ruling party. Yet, accusations of bias persisted, fueled by numerous controversial electoral outcomes.
Several elections in 2018 raised serious concerns about INEC’s neutrality. One of the most infamous was the Osun State gubernatorial election, where the commission’s handling of the poll led to widespread accusations of electoral manipulation. The election was declared inconclusive after the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Senator Ademola Adeleke, initially led in the first round of voting. INEC then conducted a rerun in selected areas—areas predominantly favourable to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). The result? The APC candidate, Gboyega Oyetola, emerged victorious. Critics, including international observers, questioned the legitimacy of the rerun and accused INEC of orchestrating an outcome favourable to the ruling party.
Similarly, in Ekiti State, the governorship election was marred by reports of vote-buying, intimidation, and a heavy military presence—circumstances that some believed were designed to tilt the outcome in favour of the APC. The PDP candidate, Kolapo Olusola, cried foul, alleging that INEC had turned a blind eye to electoral irregularities.In response to these mounting criticisms, Commissioner Mohammed Haruna took to the media to defend INEC’s reputation. He strongly refuted claims that the electoral body was compromised, stating unequivocally that INEC was not an extension of the ruling party. However, given the controversial nature of the elections under its watch, his words did little to assuage public scepticism.
2023 Presidential Election: The Great Betrayal
Nigerians were promised real-time electronic transmission of results. Then, on election day, INEC conveniently “forgot” its own promises, failing to transmit results electronically in what many saw as a deliberate ploy to manipulate the process. Public trust was shattered, and Laolu Akande, spokesperson for former VP Osinbajo, bluntly said INEC had “broken the trust of Nigerians.”
Now: The Recall Ruckus
Fast-forward to today: INEC is, once again, caught in a controversy, entertaining a recall petition that Akpoti-Uduaghan insists should never have seen the light of day. She argues that if the process were truly fair, INEC would have dismissed the petition outright for its obvious flaws. Instead, the commission pressed on, triggering a legal battle that has now forced a Federal High Court in Lokoja to intervene, halting the process.
For many Nigerians, INEC’s credibility crisis in 2018 was not just about one or two disputed elections—it was about a larger pattern of electoral conduct that seemed to repeatedly benefit those in power. The perception of bias was fueled by the commission’s selective enforcement of electoral rules, delayed election results, and last-minute decisions that many believed favoured the incumbent government.
The Recall Process: A Tool for Democracy or a Political Weapon
Recalls are supposed to be a mechanism for constituents to hold their representatives accountable—not a tool for political hit jobs. But in Nigeria, where political vendettas are disguised as democratic processes, recalls can easily become weapons of convenience.
INEC’s role is to prevent this abuse. Yet, by proceeding with a recall petition that is allegedly fraudulent, the commission isn’t acting as an impartial arbiter—it’s acting as a willing participant. If this is allowed to stand, what stops powerful politicians from fabricating recall petitions whenever they want to get rid of an “inconvenient” opponent?
A Pattern of Partisanship
INEC’s history is marred by allegations of bias. In November 2023, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), along with BudgIT and 34 concerned Nigerians, sued President Bola Tinubu over the appointment of alleged All Progressives Congress (APC) loyalists as Resident Electoral Commissioners (RECs) for INEC. The plaintiffs argued that such appointments compromised the commission’s independence and violated constitutional provisions requiring non-partisanship in electoral umpire roles.
Fast forward to March 2025, and INEC finds itself embroiled in another controversy. Critics argue that INEC’s willingness to entertain this petition, despite allegations of fictitious signatures, suggests a susceptibility to political manipulation.
Judicial Intervention: A See-Saw of Justice?
On March 20, 2025, Justice Isa H. Dashen of the Federal High Court in Lokoja issued an injunction temporarily halting INEC from processing the recall petition against Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan. The decision stemmed from concerns that the petition contained fictitious signatures and irregularities that warranted further scrutiny.
However, in a later ruling, Justice Dashen vacated the injunction, allowing INEC to proceed with the recall process, citing the constitutional right of constituents to initiate a recall as long as due process is followed. While this decision aligns with democratic principles, the reversal has fueled debate over the judiciary’s role in electoral matters and its ability to navigate politically sensitive cases without external pressure.
The judiciary, ideally a neutral arbiter, faces growing scrutiny over its independence, particularly under the APC-led government. While courts have historically played a crucial role in upholding electoral integrity, concerns persist about whether political considerations sometimes influence legal outcomes. This back-and-forth ruling highlights the complexities of balancing constitutional rights with procedural safeguards.
Ultimately, the case raises an important question: Is the judiciary maintaining its role as an impartial guardian of democracy, or does the shifting nature of legal rulings reflect broader institutional challenges in Nigeria’s political and electoral landscape?
INEC’s Selective Efficiency
The speed at which INEC moves depends on whose interests are at stake. When it comes to cases that benefit the political elite, INEC is swift, decisive, and unwavering. But when ordinary Nigerians demand electoral accountability? Suddenly, the commission moves at a snail’s pace—if at all.
If INEC were this efficient in tackling electoral fraud, Nigeria wouldn’t have the mountain of post-election court cases it does today. But when a recall process conveniently aligns with the interests of powerful figures, INEC seems all too eager to oblige.
INEC’s role is to prevent this abuse. Yet, by proceeding with a recall petition that is fraudulent, the commission isn’t acting as an impartial arbiter—it’s acting as a willing participant. If this is allowed to stand, what stops powerful politicians from fabricating recall petitions whenever they want to get rid of an “inconvenient” opponent?
INEC stands at a crossroads. To restore public confidence, it must demonstrate unwavering commitment to impartiality, ensuring that its actions are guided by the principles of fairness and justice, free from political influence. The integrity of Nigeria’s democracy hinges on an electoral body that upholds the sanctity of the electoral process, irrespective of the individuals or parties involved.
INEC’s credibility crisis is bigger than Akpoti-Uduaghan’s recall battle. It cuts to the heart of Nigeria’s democratic future. If the electoral umpire is seen as compromised, then elections—and by extension, democracy itself—become nothing more than a stage-managed farce.
The solution is simple: INEC must adopt radical transparency. Every recall petition must be subjected to rigorous verification, free from political influence. The commission must prove, through its actions—not just its words—that it is an independent body, not a puppet of the highest bidder.
Because if INEC continues on this path, Nigerians won’t just lose faith in one failed recall—they’ll lose faith in the entire democratic process.And when that happens, who will recall INEC?
