I just read Farooq Kperogi’s latest column on the appointment of Professor Joash Amupitan as INEC Chairman. As always, it’s an engaging read – witty, historically rich and provocative. But I think it also suffers from the very thing it warns against: over-interpretation through the lens of ethnicity.
Kperogi argues that Tinubu’s choice of Amupitan, a Yoruba man from Kogi, fits into what he calls a “pan-Yoruba project” – a strategy to expand Yoruba visibility in the North while consolidating control of key institutions. His comparison to Buhari and Mahmood Yakubu (both “Hausa-Fulani”) is meant to show a symmetry of ethnic politics. But that comparison is weak.
For one, there’s no evidence that Tinubu and Amupitan share the kind of political or personal link that existed between Buhari and Yakubu. Amupitan’s career has been that of an academic and SAN with no known partisan history. To reduce his appointment purely to Yoruba identity ignores merit, religious balance, and the broader politics of credibility around INEC after the 2023 elections.
For one, there’s no evidence that Tinubu and Amupitan share the kind of political or personal link that existed between Buhari and Yakubu. Amupitan’s career has been that of an academic and SAN with no known partisan history. To reduce his appointment purely to Yoruba identity ignores merit, religious balance, and the broader politics of credibility around INEC after the 2023 elections.
Then comes the contradiction: Kperogi warns the North not to “take the ethnic bait” – but later urges it to embrace the appointees as “northern sons” and turn Tinubu’s parochialism into regional advantage. That’s a clever political spin, but morally confusing. If a thing is wrong in intent, can it become right by reaction?
And while invoking Ahmadu Bello’s inclusive vision is nostalgic, the analogy doesn’t quite fit. Bello worked within a regional structure that no longer exists. Comparing 1950s Northern regionalism with today’s federal appointments under a unitary presidency is anachronistic.
At the core, Kperogi’s argument leans too heavily on identity and too lightly on evidence. We all know ethnicity colours our politics, but sometimes a legal scholar can be appointed because he is competent – not because he speaks Yoruba.
As citizens, we should be less obsessed with who a public official is, and more with what he does with the office. The real issue is whether INEC under Amupitan will restore public trust, not where his father’s village lies on the map.
Tinubu’s politics may be many things – transactional, tactical, sometimes ethnic – but to call every appointment a Yoruba project risks turning analysis into stereotype.
The truth is Yoruba centrism has not worked in Nigeria. Yoruba centric parties did not succeed in Nigerian politics. UPN and AD are good examples. APC with a Yoruba candidate won in only 4 out of the 6 South West states. It would probably have been worse, if not for the deal that the President appeared to have done with Makinde in Oyo state, sacrificing the APC governorship candidate.
Abiola and Tinubu learnt one lesson from the first and second republic: it is not possible to win a presidential election by following a Southern approach, talk less of a Yoruba centric one. This is why both departed from Chief Awolowo, who opted for South East vice president in 1979. Instead, they followed Chief Ladoke Akintola, who worked with the North.
When any news hit, it seems that as Nigerians, we perceive it from ethnicity, religion, or an amalgamation of both. Even our most erudite intellectuals seem to also be locked into this thinking.
Efforts should go into scrutinizing the records of this INEC leader. If people find links between him and Tinubu/APC, those should be exposed. Is he a man who has a mind of his own? Is he a man of integrity who will not bend to pressure? Time should not be wasted on projecting a Yoruba centric agenda from sparse data.
oyebode.com 