FG Silent As INEC Chair’s 2020 ‘Genocide’ Brief Sparks Fresh Outrage

Government, INEC Silent

Efforts by journalists to obtain official reactions have so far proven unsuccessful. According to Daily Trust, calls and messages to the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, went unanswered as of press time.

Similarly, Professor Amupitan has not publicly commented on the matter. Multiple calls and text messages to his mobile line were unacknowledged, while his Chief Press Secretary, Dayo Oketola, was also unreachable.

INEC sources told reporters that the chairman was “preoccupied with the Anambra governorship election” held over the weekend.

Amupitan, a law professor formerly of the University of Jos, was sworn in as INEC chairman on October 23, 2025, following Senate confirmation.

Senate Denies Knowledge of Publication

Reacting to the controversy, Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu said the upper legislative chamber was unaware of the 2020 publication during Amupitan’s screening process.

“I have never seen it. We are not privy to it,” Adaramodu told journalists.
“Something that the Senate has never seen or been presented with cannot be said to have influenced our decision.”

Content of the Controversial Brief

In the 80-page legal analysis, Amupitan reportedly argued that the pattern and scale of violence targeting Christian communities across Nigeria met the threshold for genocide under international law.

He wrote that both Boko Haram insurgents and armed Fulani groups were engaged in “anti-Christian violence,” claiming that elements within the state had, over time, enabled the situation through structural and institutional dominance.

“It is a notorious fact that there is perpetration of crimes under international law in Nigeria, particularly crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide,” Amupitan stated.
“The alleged involvement of state and non-state actors in these crimes has complicated an already complex situation, beckoning urgent intervention by neutral international bodies such as the UN, AU, or ECOWAS.”

The legal brief also urged the United Nations Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, and other global powers to consider referring Nigeria’s situation to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for failure to prevent and punish genocide, as required under Articles 8 and 9 of the Genocide Convention.

He further advised that military intervention by the UN or regional forces could be considered “as a last resort” under Article 42 of the UN Charter.

Tension Over Government’s Silence

The reemergence of Amupitan’s 2020 brief has generated sharp reactions from religious and civic groups. The Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN) has reportedly called for his resignation, describing his past statements as “biased and inflammatory.”

The controversy also comes just days after Nigeria’s Federal Government dismissed similar genocide allegations in response to reports that former U.S. President Donald Trump had again designated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern (CPC)” over alleged religious persecution.

Government spokespersons maintained that the country’s security challenges affect “both Christians and Muslims alike”, blaming terrorism, banditry, and socio-economic instability — not religious motives.

Analysts Warn of Institutional Implications

Security and governance experts have noted that while the legal brief predates Amupitan’s appointment as INEC chairman, its resurfacing raises questions about the neutrality expected of a person overseeing national elections in a religiously sensitive environment.

Dr. Yusuf Suleiman, a political science lecturer at Bayero University Kano, told Naija News that “the issue is less about his academic opinion in 2020 and more about perception — whether Nigerians of all backgrounds can trust him to conduct credible elections without bias.”

Context and Background

The publication Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter — released by U.S.-based advocacy groups in 2020 — alleged systematic targeting of Christian populations in Northern Nigeria and accused the Nigerian government of “silence and inaction.”

At the time, the Federal Government strongly rejected the report, calling it “a distortion of Nigeria’s complex security realities.”

Amupitan’s contribution, however, went further — arguing for international prosecution and third-party intervention, positions that now place him at the center of renewed political and religious scrutiny.

Editor’s Note:
As of the time of this report, both Professor Joash Amupitan and the Federal Ministry of Information had not issued official responses to the controversy. INEC has also not released a formal statement regarding the matter.