Atiku’s Attack on Ex-INEC Chair Yakubu’s Appointment Sparks Fierce Twitter-storm

…Supporters Hail Atiku for Defending Democracy; Others Say it is Selective Outrage

By Yinka Giwa
Nigeria’s political space erupted on Thursday after former Vice President and 2023 presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, publicly condemned the reported nomination of immediate past INEC Chairman, Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, for an ambassadorial position. The comment, made via his official X (formerly Twitter) handle, set off a furious nationwide debate, with supporters hailing his stance as a principled defence of democratic integrity, while critics derided it as selective outrage and political grandstanding.

In his post, Atiku stated bluntly that under no circumstance would he, as president, nominate the former INEC boss for any ambassadorial role. He warned that such an appointment risked looking like “a quid pro quo rather than a recognition of merit,” arguing that it would further damage an administration already struggling with credibility. According to him, it sends “the wrong message to current INEC leadership; that partisan, compromised, or poorly executed elections may ultimately be rewarded.” Calling the situation “morally indefensible,” Atiku said an umpire at the centre of one of Nigeria’s most disputed elections should not become a beneficiary of its outcome.

His remarks immediately drew strong support from many Nigerians who described the alleged nomination as another example of a political system that rewards wrongdoing and weakens institutions. One user, Atobajaye, lamented that “abnormality has become the norm,” noting that people lacking moral integrity were routinely compensated with public positions. Carlo Gambino called Atiku’s stance “absolutely spot on,” insisting that legality must not be mistaken for propriety, and suggesting that past INEC chairmen should be barred from political appointments for eight years to preserve institutional independence. Another commentator, POD, described the move as a simple “thank you for doing a great job to make me president” reward, arguing that Nigerians deserve better leadership.

Others insisted that the former INEC chairman conducted himself more like a partisan operative than an impartial umpire. New Direction Africa argued that the ambassadorial nomination was simply the “final salary for services rendered in 2023,” while Gbolahan Ibrahim likened the idea to “John Terry being the ref in a Chelsea match.” Some supporters even suggested that Atiku would have made a far better president than the current leadership, claiming Nigeria could have become “like Dubai” under him.

But critics quickly pushed back, accusing Atiku of selective outrage. Popular commentator Daniel Regha asked whether Atiku would express the same opinion had he won the 2023 election under Yakubu’s supervision. Others argued that the president has the constitutional authority to make such appointments and that there is nothing improper about rewarding public service. O.G. of Sokoto suggested that if Yakubu helped maintain stability during a tense election, he deserved recognition rather than condemnation.

Some respondents reminded Atiku of past campaign statements, with Billy Ajala recalling his remarks about selling national assets to friends, suggesting that Atiku could “do even worse.” Others dismissed him outright, arguing that he was merely doing what opposition politicians do — criticising every government decision. OlabisiLaw added that competence, not politics, should be the determining factor in public appointments.