Headlines
CAN Tackles Shariah Council Over Call to Remove INEC Chair Amupitan
The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in the 19 Northern states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has rejected the call by the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria (SCSN) seeking the removal of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan.
The Shari’ah Council, earlier this week, demanded the immediate removal and prosecution of Amupitan, as members of the Council questioned his integrity over a legal brief in which he reportedly acknowledged claims of persecution constituting genocide of Christians in Nigeria.
Reacting to the development in a statement on Thursday, the Chairman of Northern CAN, Reverend Joseph John Hayab, and the Secretary General of Northern CAN, Bishop Mohammed Naga, questioned the motive behind the demand, asking who was sponsoring the call and why such interests are hiding behind the platform of a religious body.
Describing the call as a dangerous attempt to politicise religion and undermine a critical national institution, Hayab stressed that Professor Amupitan has a constitutional right to freedom of religion, adding that expressing concern over challenges faced by his religion does not amount to bias or disqualification from public service.
He also pointed out that many Muslims who had served in key government positions in the past had troubling religious antecedents, yet were not subjected to similar scrutiny, urging national actors to prioritise competence and national interest over sectarian sentiment.
Hayab, who warned that the controversy further reinforces concerns about persistent religious discrimination against Christians in Nigeria, particularly in appointments to sensitive national offices, recalled that the two immediate past INEC chairmen were Muslims from Northern Nigeria, and warned against narratives suggesting that only adherents of a particular religion are qualified to lead the electoral body.
“Anyone hiding under the guise of the Shari’ah Council to demand the removal of the INEC chairman over political or sectarian interests should come out boldly. Otherwise, the ploy has died naturally, he said.
“”Are they saying that no other religion should serve as INEC chairman except Muslims? The most important question Nigerians should ask is whether Professor Amupitan is competent or not.
That should be the focus, not his faith,” the statement added.
The association commended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for what it described as a deliberate effort to promote national unity by appointing a Christian as INEC Chairman, despite being a Muslim.
It noted that the decision reflected statesmanship and inclusivity, similar to precedents set under the previous administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, who kept a northern Muslim as INEC Chairman against all odds.
The Christian leaders advise the Shari’ah Council to publicly identify any individual or group behind the campaign against the INEC chairman, insisting that religious platforms must not be used as “cheap cover” to pursue political interests or intimidate public officials.They, however, called on the INEC chairman not to be distracted by the controversy, urging him to remain focused on his constitutional responsibility of conducting free, fair and credible elections.
“He should concentrate on doing the right thing for Nigerians and not behave like others who openly manipulated elections in the past and now seek to remain relevant through religious blackmail,” the statement said.
Northern CAN also raised concerns about what it described as emerging signals of a coordinated political agenda ahead of the 2027 general election, citing recent comments by the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Creative Economy, Hannatu Musawa, who warned that the All Progressives Congress (APC) risks electoral defeat if it drops a Northern Muslim-Muslim ticket from President Bola Tinubu’s re-election ticket.
According to the association, such statements, when viewed alongside the sustained attacks on a Christian INEC chairman, raise legitimate questions about whether there is a deliberate effort to undermine Christian participation and confidence in the country’s political process.
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
