A legal scholar and alumnus of the University of Jos, Dr. John B. Mahwel, has come to the defence of the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Amupitan (SAN), amid ongoing public criticisms by former Minister of Youth and Sports, Hon. Solomon Dalung.
In a detailed account made public, Mahwel, a member of the Faculty of Law’s 2009 graduating class of the University of Jos, dismissed allegations questioning Prof. Amupitan’s integrity, describing them as “false, misleading and unacceptable.”
Mahwel, who holds multiple law degrees from the institution, including a PhD, said his intervention was necessary to “set the record straight” given his direct experience as both a student and later a lecturer under Prof. Amupitan.
He acknowledged both Amupitan and Dalung as distinguished products of the Faculty but stressed that his position was based on facts rather than sentiment or shared state origin.
Providing insight into his relationship with both men, Mahwel recalled being taught Law of Evidence by Prof. Amupitan and later working alongside him for over a decade. He described the INEC chairman as a mentor who supported his academic career based strictly on merit.
On Hon. Dalung, Mahwel recounted his time as a course coordinator known for a distinctive teaching style before transitioning into politics, eventually becoming a minister.
Addressing the core of the controversy, Mahwel rejected claims that Amupitan was involved in any form of academic misconduct during the 2009 academic session. He explained that issues of result manipulation did occur at the time but were traced to lapses in administrative processes involving non-academic staff.
According to him, it was under Amupitan’s leadership as Dean that the discrepancies were uncovered and corrected through an internal investigation. The process, he noted, led to the reversal of improperly awarded grades and, in some cases, delayed graduations for 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 the 2009 set with a disputed result, stating that no such individual existed in his class to his knowledge.
On allegations that Amupitan frustrated Dalung academically, Mahwel argued that the timeline did not support such claims, noting that Amupitan was not Dean when Dalung pursued his postgraduate studies. He further emphasised that academic decisions are made collectively, limiting the ability of any single official to victimise a student.
While expressing respect for both figures, Mahwel cautioned against the politicisation of sensitive institutional matters, particularly in a period of heightened 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 stance that Prof. Amupitan’s record reflects integrity and professionalism, calling on the public to rely on verifiable facts rather than politically charged narratives.
