December 07, (THEWILL) — When President Bola Tinubu forwarded his list of ambassadorial nominees to the Senate on November 29, one name stood out with uncomfortable prominence. Professor Mahmood Yakubu, who had stepped down as chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission barely two months earlier, appeared alongside political commentators and former ministers on that hallowed roster. The timing of the appointment raised questions and touched the fragile architecture of democratic trust.
Indeed, constitutional authority gives the President clear power to nominate ambassadors, subject to Senate approval. Yet legality and legitimacy do not always travel the same path. Nigeria finds itself approaching the 2027 electoral cycle with wounds from the last contest still unhealed, and this nomination arrives as a test of whether the country values the appearance of impartiality in those who manage its most fundamental democratic exercise. The question is not whether Yakubu is qualified, which of course he is, it is rather what his swift political appointment signals about the relationship between electoral service and political reward.
Yakubu’s decade at INEC, beginning in November 2015, brought notable changes to Nigerian elections. He became the first chairman to complete two full terms, presiding over the introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, which combined biometric and facial recognition to reduce multiple voting. During off-cycle elections in 2021, this technology helped cut such irregularities by up to 80 per cent in certain areas. The commission also launched the INEC Results Viewing Portal ahead of the 2023 polls, promising real-time uploads from polling units. Under his leadership, the voter register swelled beyond 93 million, the largest on the continent, whilst stakeholder consultations with political parties and civil society became routine practice.
These achievements, however, sit alongside failures that have left many Nigerians questioning the commission’s independence. The 2019 election faced accusations of manipulation when smart card readers failed to function and were bypassed in a host of polling units. Four years later, the controversies deepened significantly. Despite promises of full electronic transmission, the results portal experienced glitches and delays during the presidential vote, with many results failing to upload promptly. Collation processes stretched over days, fuelling claims of interference that domestic and foreign observers documented as systemic weaknesses that undermined the results. Public trust in INEC, which had taken a thorough beating through the preceding years, had fallen to 23 per cent by Yakubu’s departure, according to Afrobarometer surveys.
Against this backdrop, the ambassadorial nomination takes on symbolic weight that cannot be dismissed through procedural correctness. The perception it creates is that of political patronage, a quid pro quo, which further erodes trust in our electoral and democratic process.
Defenders of the nomination argue from different premises. Some hold it as merit-based recognition of patriotic service, whilst others emphasise Yakubu’s capacity and loyalty. The party in power, the All Progressives Congress, APC, dismissed critics as mischievous, questioning why service at INEC should disqualify someone from subsequent public office. These voices stress that no law forbids such appointments and that capable individuals should not face permanent exclusion from state service.
The legal argument holds water yet misses the larger point. Democracies function on more than statutory compliance. They require habits and customs that sustain public belief in institutional fairness. Many democracies impose cooling-off periods between electoral leadership and political appointments precisely because they recognise how quickly perception can corrode trust. Nigeria lacks similar protections, leaving interpretation to depend upon the political will of those in power.
The practical consequences extend beyond this single appointment. If electoral chiefs come to view their tenure as an audition for future rewards, the incentive structure governing their decisions becomes fundamentally corrupted. Future officials may prioritise alignment over impartiality, transforming what should be neutral arbitration into a transaction. Voter turnout has already declined by 10 per cent since 2015, and further erosion could breed apathy or unrest in 2027. Projected campaign spending exceeds 500 billion naira, and any hint of bias could inflate costs through litigation and protests whilst deterring the foreign investment that views compromised democracies with caution.
The Senate now holds the responsibility of determining whether constitutional power will be exercised with ethical restraint. My counsel is that the Senator Godswill Akpabio-led 10th Senate should seriously consider the appropriateness of Yakubu’s nomination. A confirmation would validate the practice of rapid transitions from electoral oversight to political appointment, establishing a precedent that subsequent presidents will cite. Rejection, conversely, would signal that the independence of electoral institutions matters more than partisan loyalty or individual career prospects. The choice represents more than judgement on one nominee. It constitutes a statement about the value Nigeria places on the credibility of its democratic processes.
Electoral bodies must stand apart from systems of reward if they are to function effectively and build public trust. The 2027 cycle demands institutions that inspire confidence rather than cynicism. What remains clear is that trust, once lost, proves far harder to rebuild than to maintain. The country cannot afford a democracy where those who manage elections seamlessly transition into roles bestowed by the declared winners. My vote on this nominee if I was a member of the 10th Senate would have been NO. As leaders, we should always avoid anything that casts doubts on the integrity of our institutions.
The Senate’s decision will reveal whether Nigeria’s political class understands this fundamental truth or whether institutional integrity will be sacrificed for expedience.
