By DAYO ADESULU
A 2020 legal brief by Prof Joash Amupitan, Tinubu’s new INEC Chairman, described Nigeria’s mass killings as genocide, urging UN intervention.
A Controversial Past Comes to Light
Nigeria’s political and human rights landscape is once again under scrutiny following revelations that Prof Joash Ojo Amupitan (SAN), newly appointed by President Bola Tinubu as the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), once authored a legal brief describing the country’s internal conflicts as “acts of genocide.”
The document, titled “Legal Brief: Genocide in Nigeria – The Implications for the International Community,” forms part of a 2020 report published by the International Committee on Nigeria (ICON) — a coalition of human rights advocates based in Nigeria and abroad.
1. The 2020 Report: “Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter”
The 2020 ICON report, “Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter,” included a legal submission by Prof Amupitan, then a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and head of Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan (SAN) & Co. Legal Practitioners & Corporate Consultants, with offices in Jos and Abuja.
In the paper, Amupitan asserted that it was “a notorious fact that crimes under international law — including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity — were being perpetrated in Nigeria.”
2. Strong Accusations: Government Failure to Protect Minorities
Prof Amupitan’s legal analysis was a direct indictment of the Nigerian state. He accused successive governments of failing to prosecute offenders and protect vulnerable groups, especially Christians and minority communities in northern Nigeria.
He warned that Nigeria risked repeating the mistakes of Rwanda and Sudan, where international hesitation led to mass atrocities.
3. Boko Haram and Fulani Herdsmen in Focus
The brief identified two extremist movements — Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen — as major perpetrators of violence, responsible for widespread killings and displacement.
Amupitan criticized the government for recognizing Boko Haram as a terrorist organization in 2013 while failing to officially label Fulani herdsmen as terrorists, despite their violent campaigns across several states.
4. Constitutional Neglect and Moral Responsibility
Amupitan wrote that Nigeria’s constitutional failure to protect its citizens had made international intervention both a legal and moral necessity.
“The victims of the crises are mainly Christians and minority ethnic groups,” he argued, calling for “remedial actions under international law.”
He emphasized that the Nigerian government’s neglect of its duty to provide welfare and security violated the fundamental principles upon which the state is built.
5. Historical Roots: From Jihad to Modern Extremism
In tracing the roots of Nigeria’s ethno-religious conflicts, Amupitan linked modern-day violence to the Fulani-led jihad of Uthman Dan Fodio in 1804, describing it as a “full-blown Islamization agenda.”
He argued that the legacy of the Sokoto Caliphate’s expansionism continues to influence Nigeria’s political and religious tensions today, with the same ideological motivations fueling extremist groups.
6. The Politics of Denial: Why “Genocide” Is Avoided
Amupitan accused Nigerian authorities — and by extension, the international community — of deliberately avoiding the use of the word “genocide” to escape accountability under global law.
“States are skeptical of naming genocide because doing so obligates them to act,” he wrote. “Concealing genocide becomes a strategy to guard sovereignty and protect ego — at the expense of innocent lives.”
7. The Legal Argument: When Sovereignty Fails, Intervention Is Justified
Prof Amupitan’s legal conclusion was unambiguous: when a state fails to protect its own citizens, international law permits external intervention.
“In a globalized world,” he wrote, “state sovereignty diminishes to accommodate the collective interest of humanity through consent, consensus, and compelling norms.”
This stance places Amupitan firmly within the school of thought supporting the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine — a controversial principle in international law.
8. International Appeal: Call for UN and Global Action
The legal brief made a direct appeal to the United Nations, international courts, and global powers to take neutral action in Nigeria’s crisis.
He urged “neutral and impartial third-party intervention”, suggesting that the UN Security Council, regional peacekeepers, and economic superpowers had a legal obligation to prevent further bloodshed.
9. Implications for Tinubu’s Administration
The revelation of Amupitan’s authorship raises questions about how his past human rights advocacy will shape his tenure as INEC Chairman.
Observers argue that his outspoken views on government accountability could either reinforce his image as a principled reformer or spark political friction in Nigeria’s already divided landscape.
10. National Reaction: Mixed Responses from Civil Society
Human rights groups have praised Amupitan’s earlier stance as bold and intellectually consistent, while political analysts express concern about possible perceptions of bias in his new role.
For now, both supporters and critics await how his previous calls for justice will align with his new responsibility of safeguarding electoral integrity under Tinubu’s leadership.
Conclusion: Between Law, Morality, and Leadership
Prof Amupitan’s 2020 legal brief remains one of the most explicit academic indictments of Nigeria’s internal violence.
Now, as the nation’s chief electoral umpire, his challenge will be to translate his past advocacy for justice into transparency, fairness, and accountability in Nigeria’s democratic process.
FAQs on Tinubu’s Newly Appointed INEC Chairman Prof Amupitan
1. Who is Prof Joash Amupitan?
He is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), lawyer, and academic, recently appointed by President Bola Tinubu as INEC Chairman.
2. What was the 2020 report about?
Titled “Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter,” the report detailed mass killings in Nigeria and described them as acts of genocide under international law.
3. Who published the report?
The International Committee on Nigeria (ICON) — a human rights consortium advocating religious freedom.
4. What did Amupitan recommend in the report?
He called for urgent international intervention, warning of state complicity and moral failure in preventing ethnic and religious violence.
5. Why is this report resurfacing now?
Because of Amupitan’s appointment as INEC Chairman, which has drawn attention to his earlier writings on justice and governance.
6. How has the public reacted?
Opinions are divided — some see him as a defender of truth, others as a potential political lightning rod.
External Authority Link:
For more on the International Committee on Nigeria (ICON), visit https://www.iconhelp.org
