Pantami, Adebutu, Gwarzo and other politicians await decisions on disputed nominations as a Supreme Court ruling raises wider questions about party membership registers, electoral compliance and candidate eligibility ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 elections.
INEC Chairman Professor Joash Amupitan. The electoral commission is expected to consider petitions challenging the omission of several governorship candidates from its published lists ahead of the 2027 elections.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is expected to examine petitions challenging the exclusion of several prominent governorship candidates from Nigeria’s 2027 general elections at a meeting reportedly scheduled for Thursday, October 29, 2026. Among those affected are former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Isa Ali Pantami, Peoples Democratic Party politician Ladi Adebutu and Kano State Deputy Governor Aminu Abdulsalam Gwarzo. The controversy followed INEC’s publication of its governorship candidate lists on October 10, which omitted nominees from several political parties. Sources within the commission told Daily Trust that petitions received before the October 24 deadline were being examined by relevant departments ahead of consideration by the commission’s leadership. Although the meeting has been reported by sources familiar with the process, INEC has not publicly confirmed that binding decisions on the complaints will be announced on October 29.
The dispute has its roots in a September 24 Supreme Court judgment that restored important provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, governing political party membership records and candidate nominations. In INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026, the apex court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7), reversing an earlier Court of Appeal judgment that had declared the provisions invalid. INEC subsequently explained that the ruling required political parties to comply with statutory membership-register requirements before conducting valid primaries. National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Kudu Haruna, said the commission applied the judgment when preparing the final governorship lists, in accordance with Section 287(1) of the Constitution, which requires authorities to give effect to decisions of the Supreme Court. Affected political parties have nevertheless challenged particular omissions, arguing that their candidates were lawfully nominated or that administrative errors contributed to their exclusion.
Under Section 77 of the Electoral Act, political parties must maintain digital membership registers containing identifying information, including members’ names, photographs, National Identification Numbers and polling-unit details. The legislation requires the registers to be submitted to INEC at least 21 days before party primaries, congresses or conventions, while the commission’s timetable established an April 21 to May 10, 2026 submission window. The law also restricts participation in party primaries to members whose names appear on the submitted register and prohibits parties from substituting a different register after submission. Section 77(7) provides that failure to comply with the prescribed submission requirements renders a political party ineligible to field candidates. These provisions introduce an important distinction between winning an internal party primary and being legally qualified to appear on an election ballot. A candidate may emerge victorious in a primary, but the nomination can still face legal difficulties if the sponsoring party failed to comply with mandatory procedures.
The Supreme Court ruling followed months of litigation over whether the National Assembly could impose these requirements on political parties. The Federal High Court had dismissed the Zenith Labour Party’s challenge on May 5, 2026, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision on July 16 and declared Sections 77(5) to (7), Section 84(2) and the relevant portion of INEC’s electoral timetable unconstitutional. INEC appealed, maintaining that the provisions were valid exercises of legislative authority intended to regulate nomination procedures and strengthen electoral administration. On September 24, a seven-member Supreme Court panel reversed the appellate ruling and restored the disputed provisions. The judgment established the enforceability of the statutory requirements, but it did not individually determine whether every candidate subsequently omitted from INEC’s lists had failed to comply. Those questions depend on the circumstances of each nomination, the records submitted by the parties and any applicable judicial orders.
Former Communications Minister Isa Ali Pantami is among the governorship nominees whose omission from INEC’s final candidate lists has generated legal and political complaints.
In Gombe State, Pantami emerged as the PDP governorship candidate following a court-ordered rerun of the party’s primary election on September 29, but his name was absent from the final list published on October 10. The development created uncertainty over whether the court-directed primary and the party’s nomination records satisfied the requirements subsequently enforced by INEC. In Ogun State, Ladi Adebutu and his running mate, Yemi Sowunmi-Kolapo, were also missing from the published list, prompting objections from the PDP. The party has maintained that its nomination procedures were valid and has sought reconsideration of the omission. INEC’s general clarification, however, did not provide a candidate-by-candidate explanation identifying the particular statutory deficiency affecting each nominee. That omission of individual reasons is significant because a primary conducted following a judicial order, an administrative error and a failure to submit a membership register are legally different circumstances that may require different responses.
The controversy extends beyond Gombe and Ogun. In Kano State, Aminu Abdulsalam Gwarzo, the deputy governor and Nigeria Democratic Congress governorship nominee, was omitted alongside his running mate, Mustapha Rabiu Kwankwaso. The NDC has disputed the exclusion and reportedly attributed the problem to an administrative or computer-related error, an explanation that has not been independently established by INEC. Other affected nominees include Senator Danjuma Laah of the NDC in Kaduna State and Social Democratic Party candidate Sebastine Hon in Benue State. In a related dispute, the PDP in Nasarawa State complained about the omission of state assembly candidate Esson Mairiga, arguing that his name had appeared in an earlier certified electoral document. The cases demonstrate that the dispute is not confined to one party or state, while also showing why the validity of each complaint must be examined separately rather than assuming that every missing name resulted from the same violation.
The Electoral Act provides a specific procedure for political parties seeking to challenge omitted nominations. Under Section 32(2), a party that believes its candidate was wrongly excluded may notify INEC within 14 days after publication of the list. The notification must be submitted in writing, signed by the party’s national chairman and secretary, and supported by an affidavit. Following the October 10 publication, INEC fixed October 24 as the deadline for such complaints. Another important provision, Section 32(3), states that failure to submit the notification is not, by itself, a ground for invalidating an election. This does not mean an omitted candidate automatically becomes eligible or that statutory nomination requirements can be disregarded. Rather, it distinguishes the procedure for requesting correction of a published list from the separate legal standards governing the validity of nominations and elections. Political parties dissatisfied with INEC’s eventual decisions may also pursue available judicial remedies, subject to the applicable rules and deadlinesINEC officials and political stakeholders during an electoral engagement. Compliance with party nomination procedures is central to the ongoing disputes over the 2027 governorship lists.
Another significant aspect of the controversy is the timing of the Supreme Court judgment in relation to the publication of different categories of candidates. INEC released its presidential and National Assembly candidate lists on September 12, nearly two weeks before the September 24 ruling, while the governorship lists were published on October 10, after the judgment had been delivered. The commission specifically referred to this sequence when explaining its decision to exclude parties that failed to satisfy the membership-register requirements. The difference in timing raises questions about how the restored statutory provisions have been applied across the electoral calendar and whether the commission has adopted consistent procedures for evaluating nominations at different stages. However, the publication dates alone do not establish unlawful unequal treatment. Understanding the issue requires consideration of the court’s orders, the legal status of nominations at the relevant dates and the commission’s statutory responsibilities.
Beyond the immediate disputes, the legislation raises broader questions about internal party democracy, administrative accountability and the balance between regulation and political participation. Membership registers are intended to establish a verifiable record of who belongs to a political party and who may legitimately participate in selecting its candidates. Such requirements can help limit disputes over unauthorised delegates, disputed primaries and competing membership records. At the same time, failure to meet a documentary requirement can have substantial consequences for candidates and voters, particularly where a party’s nominee has already emerged through a primary election. INEC’s responsibility is to enforce the law consistently, while political parties must ensure that their internal processes comply with statutory requirements. The unresolved complaints illustrate the consequences when these responsibilities become contested and underline the importance of clear explanations, accurate documentation and access to lawful review procedures.
With Nigeria’s governorship and state assembly elections scheduled for February 6, 2027, the anticipated October 29 review represents an important stage in resolving candidate nomination disputes before voting begins. The commission’s decision could clarify whether particular omissions resulted from statutory non-compliance, incomplete documentation or correctable administrative mistakes. Political parties awaiting reconsideration will also be watching for explanations of how the Supreme Court judgment has been applied to their individual submissions. Although officials familiar with the process have indicated that the petitions will be examined, the commission has not formally announced the outcome or confirmed that the reported meeting will produce immediate decisions. Until those determinations are made, the status of Pantami, Adebutu, Gwarzo and other affected nominees remains unresolved. The wider significance of the dispute lies in how electoral law is implemented, how political parties are held accountable for their nomination procedures and how transparently the commission explains decisions that determine which candidates ultimately appear before voters.
