Dare Babalola
Temitope Ajayi, an aide to President Bola Tinubu, on Monday criticised former Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mike Igini, urging him to publicly retract what he described as “unfounded claims” against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Ajayi, in a statement, said Igini should return to the same television platforms where he made the allegations and issue “an unvarnished public apology” for what he termed deliberate falsehoods about the electoral body.
“If Mr. Mike Igini still had any modicum of honour remaining in him, he will go back on same television stations where he made unfounded claims… and recant the deliberate falsehood he put out,” Ajayi said.
He expressed concern that a former official who spent about a decade within INEC would, in his words, join “opposition elements” to discredit the institution.
“I find it really awkward and difficult to understand how a man who spent 10 years or so as a Resident Electoral Commissioner in INEC would join opposition elements on a campaign of calumny against the same institution he served,” he added.
The presidential aide further argued that even where there are disagreements with the system, public commentary should be measured to avoid undermining confidence in the electoral umpire.
“Decency demands that he should exercise better judgment and discretion… without delegitimising INEC and eroding public confidence in the institution,” Ajayi stated.
Igini had reportedly raised concerns about a provision in Section 63 of the electoral law, describing it as “dangerous.” However, available legislative records indicate that the provision in question was not newly introduced.
Findings show that there is no evidence the clause was removed in 2022 or added in any subsequent amendment. Rather, the provision was retained from the Electoral Act 2022, which governed the 2023 general elections, with only a minor wording change in subsection (2) — replacing “if” with “where.”
The clarification effectively counters Igini’s claim, with a verdict that the assertion of a newly introduced “dangerous” provision is false.
