Re: When Fair Process Is Branded Injustice

Yola, Adamawa State - April 16, 2026

We have read with due attention the article authored by Professor Abdullahi Liman Tukur titled “When Fair Process Is Branded Injustice.” Let us state, without hesitation or equivocation, that we recognize his right to offer a defence of the process over which he presided. The right to explain and justify is an essential part of democratic engagement, and on that score, his intervention is both expected and legitimate.

However, while his exposition is noted, the central issue raised by Chief Vunobolki remains unaddressed in substance. It is not a question of theoretical fairness or procedural articulation; it is a question of confidence in a process whose credibility must be evident not only in design, but also in its composition and execution.

Chief Vunobolki’s concerns did not arise from conjecture or retrospective dissatisfaction. They are rooted in observable patterns (past and present) which continue to shape legitimate apprehension about internal political processes. His reference to prior experiences was not incidental, but instructive, providing context for why present developments must be approached with the seriousness they deserve.

Professor Tukur has asserted that the Committee was carefully structured to embody impartiality, balance, and integrity. While such assertions speak to intention, they do not fully address a fundamental concern: the participation of individuals who are themselves active stakeholders in the very contest for which the framework was being designed. We however chose not to dwell on specifics regarding names or positions. It is sufficient to state that where such circumstances exist, they introduce a reasonable basis for concern.

This is not a trivial matter. It goes to the very heart of process credibility.

Where individuals with direct interests in an ongoing political contest are involved in shaping the rules that govern that contest, questions of objectivity inevitably arise. This is not an allegation of wrongdoing, nor is it an attempt to impugn character. It is a recognition of a basic and widely accepted principle: that fairness must not only be achieved, but must also be seen to be beyond reasonable doubt.

In such situations, even well-intentioned contributions may be perceived as self-serving, and that perception alone is enough to weaken confidence among stakeholders. It is precisely this concern that forms the core of Chief Vunobolki’s position, and it is one that calls for careful and direct engagement.

Furthermore, while the Committee’s alignment with the Electoral Act has been emphasized, it is important to reiterate that legality does not, in itself, resolve questions of fairness. A process may be procedurally compliant, yet still raise legitimate concerns regarding inclusiveness, transparency, and competitive equity in practice.

It is also worth noting that public service at senior levels often involves complex intersections of responsibility and influence. For this reason, claims of impartiality are best sustained not merely by assertion, but by structures that eliminate even the possibility of perceived conflict.

Chief Vunobolki’s decision, therefore, should be properly understood. It is not a rejection of individuals, nor a dismissal of institutions. It is a principled withdrawal from a process in which confidence has been eroded guided by both experience and present realities. His position has remained consistent: that democratic participation must be grounded not only in rules, but in trust.

We acknowledge Professor Tukur’s right to defend the Committee and its work. In the same spirit, we urge that the concerns raised by Chief Vunobolki—and by many stakeholders across the state—should not be dismissed as mere personal dissatisfaction, but engaged with in good faith and with the seriousness they deserve even if it is belated.

That said, it must be clearly stated that this engagement, however necessary, does not alter the present reality. Chief Vunobolki has already taken a considered and definitive decision on the issue.

In the final analysis, as rightly observed, time remains the ultimate arbiter. It will judge not only the processes we defend, but the confidence they inspire. Until then, the responsibility of leadership lies not merely in asserting fairness, but in ensuring that it is beyond reasonable question.

Signed

Hon. Abubakar Bala Umar esq, LLM 

for the vunobolki team