BY TAIBAT UMMI YAKUBU

With the October 24 deadline fast approaching, former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Isa Ali Pantami, former Ogun State governorship candidate Oladipupo Adebutu and Aminu Gwarzo of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) are racing against time to resolve their exclusion from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s final list of candidates for the 2027 governorship elections.

The affected politicians and their parties are seeking answers from INEC over the missing names, with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the NDC threatening legal action if the commission fails to address their complaints.

However, the dispute goes beyond a simple omission from an electoral list. At the heart of the controversy is whether the affected parties can prove that INEC made an error or whether their exclusion resulted from non-compliance with electoral requirements upheld by the Supreme Court.

INEC announced on October 13 that political parties had until October 24 to notify it of candidates allegedly left out of the final list published on October 10. The commission said the deadline was based on Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which provides a 14-day period for parties to report such omissions.

Although the window offers the affected parties an opportunity to challenge their exclusion, it does not guarantee that the candidates will be reinstated. Their complaints must be considered against the applicable electoral laws and the circumstances surrounding their parties’ submissions.

PANTAMI'S GOMBE AMBITION HANGS IN THE BALANCE

Pantami’s exclusion has raised questions over the PDP’s ability to field him in the Gombe State governorship contest, despite his emergence as the party’s candidate following a court-ordered rerun of its primary election on September 29.

His name had appeared on INEC’s provisional list released on August 29 but was missing from the final governorship candidates’ list published in October.

The development prompted the PDP to contact the commission in an effort to establish why its candidate had been left out. The party’s national publicity secretary, Mohammed Jungudo, was reported to have confirmed that both the party and Pantami’s legal team had approached INEC over the matter.

Pantami’s lawyers also wrote to the commission, but the party has indicated that its efforts have yet to produce a breakthrough.

The PDP is now considering its legal options should the matter remain unresolved after the deadline, leaving Pantami’s immediate political future dependent on whether the omission can be successfully challenged.

ADEBUTU AND RUNNING MATE ALSO MISSING

In Ogun State, Adebutu and his running mate, Kolapo-Sowunmi, are facing a similar challenge after both names were omitted from INEC’s final list.

The development has cast uncertainty over the PDP’s intended governorship ticket in the state, with the party insisting that Adebutu complied with its membership-registration requirements.

The Ogun PDP has also accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of exerting pressure on INEC, although the central issue raised by the commission concerns compliance with statutory requirements governing political parties’ membership registers.

The dispute means that establishing whether the party fulfilled its legal obligations could prove more decisive than its political accusations against the ruling party.

NDC SEEKS EXPLANATION OVER GWARZO'S EXCLUSION

The situation involving Gwarzo, the NDC’s governorship candidate in Kano State, presents another challenge for the affected parties.

The NDC’s Kano State chairman, Hussaini Mairiga, has maintained that the party submitted the details of Gwarzo and his running mate, Mustapha Rabiu Kwankwaso, to INEC.

He suggested that their absence from the final list could have resulted from an administrative mix-up.

The party’s national publicity secretary, Osa Director, also said the NDC had written to the commission and received acknowledgements but was still awaiting a substantive response.

According to him, the party is prepared to pursue available legal remedies if INEC fails to resolve the matter.

SUPREME COURT RULING COMPLICATES THE CASES

The legal uncertainty surrounding the three politicians is linked to the Supreme Court’s September 24 judgment in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026.

Advertisement

The judgment restored the operation of Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which regulate the submission and use of political parties’ membership registers.

Under the relevant provisions, political parties were required to submit their membership registers within the period prescribed by INEC’s timetable, which ran from April 21 to May 10, 2026.

The Supreme Court upheld the statutory requirements and the consequence that a party which failed to comply would be ineligible to field candidates.

INEC has said it relied on the judgment when preparing the final governorship candidates’ list, citing Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which requires relevant authorities to comply with judicial decisions.

The commission has also explained that the presidential and National Assembly candidates’ lists were published on September 12, before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, while the final governorship list was released afterwards.

That sequence of events has placed the governorship candidates at the centre of the controversy.

Nevertheless, whether INEC correctly applied the ruling to each affected party remains a question that must be determined by examining the relevant facts and legal requirements in each case.

WHY WINNING A PARTY PRIMARY MAY NOT BE ENOUGH

One of the most significant issues arising from the judgment is the distinction between an individual candidate’s qualification to contest an election and a political party’s eligibility to sponsor candidates.

The court’s reasoning did not treat a party’s failure to submit its membership register as an automatic personal disqualification of every member. Rather, Section 77(7) addresses the party’s eligibility to field candidates.

This distinction could prove crucial for Pantami, Adebutu and Gwarzo.

Even if a politician successfully wins a party primary, that achievement may not be enough to secure a place on the ballot if the sponsoring party is found to have failed to meet a mandatory legal requirement.

On the other hand, if a party can demonstrate that it complied with the relevant provisions and that INEC wrongly excluded its candidate, the commission would have to consider the complaint in accordance with the law.

The outcome, therefore, depends not only on whether the candidates emerged through their parties’ selection processes but also on whether the parties fulfilled their statutory obligations.

OCTOBER 24 DEADLINE COULD OPEN THE NEXT BATTLE

As the deadline approaches, the PDP and NDC face the task of formally notifying INEC of their complaints and presenting sufficient evidence to support their claims.

If the commission maintains its position, the disputes could move to court, although any eventual outcome would depend on the specific facts, the legal arguments presented and the applicable procedural requirements.

The consequences extend beyond the individual politicians. Continued exclusion of the PDP’s preferred candidates in Gombe and Ogun could affect the party’s participation in two governorship contests, while the NDC faces uncertainty over its intended ticket in Kano.

However, the political importance of the candidates cannot replace the need to demonstrate compliance with electoral law.

For now, neither a definitive end to their ambitions nor an assured return to the ballot can be established from the available information.

The immediate question is whether the affected parties can prove that INEC’s decision was legally wrong and that the omissions can be corrected under the applicable rules.

October 24 could close the initial window for notifying the commission, but it may not end the dispute. If the parties fail to secure a resolution from INEC, the courts could become the next arena in a contest that will test the relationship between party compliance, candidates’ rights and the enforcement of electoral law ahead of the 2027 elections.