Is INEC Becoming Yoruba-NEC? Isaac Fayose Raises Alarm Over Alleged South-West Dominance Of Key Departments Ahead Of 2027 Elections
By Passman Akpos
A fresh controversy has erupted over alleged ethnic imbalance in appointments to key departments of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), following claims that officials from Nigeria’s South-West geopolitical zone dominate several sensitive positions at the commission’s national headquarters.
The controversy was brought into the public domain by Prince Isaac Fayose, who questioned whether the alleged concentration of departmental leadership positions among individuals he identifies as Yoruba from the South-West could undermine public confidence in the electoral umpire ahead of the 2027 general elections.
In a strongly worded statement, Fayose posed the provocative question: “Is I-NEC Now YORUBA-NEC?”
He alleged that individuals from the South-West currently head several important departments at INEC headquarters, including Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Procurement, Planning and Monitoring, Litigation and Prosecution, the Commission Secretariat, Voter Register and Audit.
According to him, the Director of Voter Register has recently been replaced, while he further claimed that another change was being made in the Electoral Operations and Logistics Department, which he described as one of the commission’s most sensitive units.
Fayose alleged that the Electoral Operations and Logistics Department, previously headed by an individual from the North-West, was about to be placed under a South-West official.
However, Tarakirivoice has not independently verified the alleged transfers, the identities and ethnic backgrounds of all the affected officials, or whether the reported changes have been formally approved and implemented.
FAYOSE QUESTIONS CONCENTRATION OF POWER AT INEC
Expressing concern over what he described as a possible concentration of authority in the hands of individuals from one geopolitical zone, Fayose argued that the situation deserved urgent public scrutiny.
He questioned whether it was appropriate for officials from a single region and ethnic group to occupy a disproportionate number of leadership positions in departments responsible for critical aspects of election administration.
His concerns centre on the need for public confidence in the neutrality of the institution responsible for organising elections, maintaining the voters’ register and overseeing electoral activities across Nigeria.
Fayose maintained that his questions should not automatically be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing, but insisted that the reported developments required a transparent explanation from the commission.
He called on INEC to publicly clarify the circumstances surrounding the alleged appointments and transfers, arguing that transparency is essential to maintaining confidence in the electoral process.
The allegations have raised broader questions about the distribution of senior administrative responsibilities within public institutions, particularly those entrusted with protecting the integrity of Nigeria’s democracy.
WHY THE ALLEGATIONS MATTER BEFORE 2027
INEC occupies a constitutionally significant position in Nigeria’s democratic system.
Its responsibilities include organising and supervising presidential, governorship and legislative elections, registering eligible voters, maintaining the voters’ register, monitoring political parties and overseeing other electoral activities.
The commission’s official mandate emphasises the delivery of free, fair, credible, transparent and inclusive elections.
Consequently, the distribution of leadership responsibilities within its headquarters is an issue that deserves scrutiny when credible evidence raises questions about representation, institutional independence or administrative fairness.
With political activities expected to intensify ahead of the 2027 elections, perceptions of ethnic or regional dominance could become a source of public controversy if the commission fails to address legitimate questions with verifiable information.
Nevertheless, the ethnic background of an official, by itself, does not establish political bias, electoral manipulation or a lack of professional competence.
The central questions are whether appointments comply with applicable laws and public-service rules, whether qualified personnel are selected through fair procedures, and whether the commission’s internal arrangements protect the impartial administration of elections.
FAYOSE’S BUHARI-TINUBU COMPARISON RAISES FRESH QUESTIONS
Beyond INEC, Fayose’s statement included a comparative table purporting to show the ethnic backgrounds of individuals heading 17 federal agencies during the administrations of former President Muhammadu Buhari and President Bola Tinubu.
The table lists agencies and institutions including the petroleum sector, Ministry of Finance, Central Bank of Nigeria, Nigerian Customs Service, National Pension Commission, Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, Nigerian Railway Corporation, Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and Federal Inland Revenue Service.
It attributes particular ethnic identities to the respective agency heads under the two administrations and suggests that appointments under Tinubu have become more concentrated among Yoruba officials.
However, the comparison does not provide the names of the officials, the dates of their appointments, the specific positions being compared or documentary evidence supporting every ethnic classification.
As a result, the table should be treated as an allegation requiring independent verification rather than an established statistical account of ethnic representation across the federal government.
A credible assessment would require a complete list of the relevant officeholders during clearly defined periods, verification of their appointments and backgrounds, and consistent criteria for determining which positions are being compared.
It would also need to distinguish between political appointees, career civil servants and officials serving in different capacities within the agencies.
FEDERAL CHARACTER PRINCIPLE UNDER SCRUTINY
Nigeria’s constitutional framework recognises the importance of fairness and national representation in public institutions.
Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, establishes the federal character principle, requiring the composition and conduct of the federal government and its agencies to reflect Nigeria’s federal character and promote national unity.
The principle is intended to prevent the predominance of persons from a few states or ethnic groups in the exercise of governmental powers and the composition of public institutions.
The Federal Government has previously rejected allegations that President Tinubu’s appointments are regionally lopsided, insisting that appointments are made in accordance with the federal character principle.
However, the existence of the constitutional principle does not remove the need for scrutiny of particular appointments.
The relevant question in the present controversy is whether the alleged concentration of departmental leadership positions at INEC can be substantiated through official records and, if so, whether the appointments comply with the applicable legal and administrative requirements.
That assessment cannot be conclusively made from the circulating list alone.
WHAT INEC NEEDS TO CLARIFY
To address the controversy, INEC could provide an updated directory of its headquarters departments, their directors, the dates of recent appointments or transfers, and the administrative criteria governing the allocation of these responsibilities.
Such information would allow journalists, civil society organisations, political parties and interested Nigerians to examine the claims against verifiable records rather than relying on speculation or unconfirmed reports.
The commission should also clarify whether the reported changes involving the Voter Register and Electoral Operations and Logistics departments have taken place.
Where the appointments have been made, an explanation of the relevant procedures and applicable rules would help the public assess the situation more objectively.
INEC’s official website provides information about its leadership and institutional responsibilities, although the specific departmental changes alleged by Fayose have not been independently established in this report.
THE BIG QUESTION: CAN NIGERIANS TRUST THE ELECTORAL UMPIRE?
At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental democratic concern: public confidence in the institution responsible for determining how Nigerians elect their leaders.
Electoral credibility depends not only on the conduct of voting and the declaration of results, but also on public confidence in the institution’s independence, transparency and adherence to the law.
INEC must therefore ensure that its appointments and administrative decisions can withstand public scrutiny, particularly when questions arise about regional representation in sensitive positions.
At the same time, allegations of ethnic domination must be supported by reliable evidence, and individuals should not be presumed biased or unfit for office solely because of their ethnic identity.
The immediate task is to establish the facts: who occupies the affected positions, whether the reported changes occurred, what procedures governed the decisions, and whether the commission’s staffing arrangements comply with applicable rules.
For Fayose, the alleged developments demand urgent attention before the country enters another critical election cycle.
For Nigerians, the broader issue is whether public institutions can demonstrate, through transparent records and accountable decisions, that every citizen is entitled to equal treatment regardless of ethnicity or geopolitical origin.
Until INEC clarifies the reported appointments and the underlying claims are independently verified, the controversy remains an allegation requiring answers—not proof that the electoral commission has been captured by any ethnic or political interest.
