Legal scholar criticizes Dalung’s claims, says ‘Amupitan is not corrupt’

A legal scholar and alumnus of the University of Jos, Dr. John B. Mahwel, has come to the defense of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Amupitan (SAN), amid continued public criticism from the former Minister of Youth and Sports, Hon. Solomon Dalung.

In a detailed account made public, Mahwel, a member of the University of Jos Faculty of Law’s graduating class of 2009, rejected allegations questioning Prof. Amupitan’s integrity, describing them as “false, misleading and unacceptable.”

Mahwel, who holds numerous law degrees from the institute, including a PhD, said his intervention was necessary to “set the record straight” given his first-hand experience both as a student and later as a lecturer under Prof. Amupitan.

He recognized both Amupitan and Dalung as distinct products of the Faculty, but emphasized that his position was based on facts rather than sentiment or shared state origin.

Providing insight into his relationship with both men, Mahwel recalled learning the Law of Evidence from Prof. Amupitan and subsequently working alongside him for over a decade. He described the INEC President as a mentor who supported his academic career based strictly on merit.

On the Hon. Dalung, Mahwel recounted his time as a course coordinator known for a distinctive teaching style before moving into politics, eventually becoming a minister.

Addressing the crux of the controversy, Mahwel rejected claims that Amupitan was involved in any form of academic misconduct during the 2009 academic session. He explained that results manipulation issues had occurred at the time, but had been traced to errors in administrative processes involving non-academic staff.

According to him, it was under Amupitan’s leadership as principal that the discrepancies were discovered and corrected through internal investigation. The process, he noted, led to the nullification of improperly assigned grades and, in some cases, delayed the graduations of affected students.

He described the action as a “demonstration of institutional integrity” rather than evidence of wrongdoing.

Mahwel also refuted claims that a serving deputy inspector general of police graduated in 2009 with a controversial result, saying that, to his knowledge, there was no such individual in his class.

On allegations that Amupitan frustrated Dalung academically, Mahwel argued that the timeline did not support such claims, pointing out that Amupitan was not Principal when Dalung pursued his postgraduate studies. He also emphasized that academic decisions are made collectively, limiting any single official’s ability to victimize a student.

While expressing respect for both figures, Mahwel warned against politicizing sensitive institutional issues, especially in a period of intense political activity.

He urged public figures to exercise restraint in their statements, warning that unverified claims could mislead the public and undermine confidence in key national institutions.

Mahwel concluded by reaffirming his position that Prof. Amupitan’s record reflects integrity and professionalism, calling on the public to rely on verifiable facts rather than politically charged narratives.