With the October 24 deadline for challenging their exclusion from the 2027 governorship candidates’ list just hours away, 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) face a critical test.
The test is whether their parties can secure their return to the ballot.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the NDC have threatened legal action against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) if the omissions are not resolved.
But the latest developments suggest that the parties’ efforts to engage the commission have yet to produce a breakthrough. INEC’s October 13 clarification gave affected parties until October 24 to notify it of alleged omissions.
INEC: Results with discrepancies won’t be uploaded on IREV
APC accuses Atiku of politicising ebola response, says N10bn untouched
This follows the publication of the final governorship candidates’ list on October 10.
The commission said the deadline was in line with Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which provides a 14-day window for parties to report candidates they believe were wrongly excluded.
But the window is not an automatic reprieve. The question is whether the affected parties can demonstrate that their candidates were wrongly omitted or whether the exclusions arose from a failure to comply with a statutory requirement that the Supreme Court has upheld.
For Pantami, the immediate challenge comes despite his emergence as the PDP’s governorship candidate in Gombe State. This comes amid a court-ordered rerun of the party’s primary on September 29. He had appeared on INEC’s provisional list published on August 29, but his name was missing from the final list released in October.
The PDP’s national publicity secretary, Mohammed Jungudo, was reported to have said that the party and the candidate’s legal team had contacted INEC over the issue.
Pantami’s lawyers had also subsequently written to the commission.
However, the party said there had been no breakthrough and was considering legal remedies if the matter remained unresolved after the statutory window.
Adebutu’s predicament is similar
The PDP candidate and his running mate, Kolapo-Sowunmi, were both absent from the final list for Ogun State.
The issue raised questions about the party’s ability to field its preferred ticket in the contest. The Ogun PDP has insisted that Adebutu complied with the party’s membership-registration requirements. It accused the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of exerting pressure on INEC. But INEC’s stated explanation for the omissions centres on compliance with the statutory membership-register requirements.
Gwarzo’s case presents another dimension
The NDC’s Kano State chairman, Hussaini Mairiga, has maintained that the party duly submitted the details of Gwarzo and his running mate, Mustapha Rabiu Kwankwaso. He attributed their absence from the list to a possible administrative mix-up.
The party’s national publicity secretary, Osa Director, said the NDC had written to INEC and received acknowledgements but was yet to receive a substantive response. He said the party would pursue lawful remedies if the omission was not addressed. The legal complication behind the three cases is the Supreme Court’s September 24 judgment in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026.
The apex court 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 provisions, 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 requirement and the statutory consequence that a party which failed to comply would be ineligible to field candidates.
INEC said it applied the judgment when finalising the governorship candidates’ list. It cited Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which requires authorities to give effect to judicial decisions.
The commission also pointed out that the presidential and National Assembly candidates’ lists had been published on September 12, before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, whereas the final governorship list came afterwards.
That timing explains why the controversy has centred on the governorship list.
It does not, however, settle whether INEC correctly applied the judgment to each affected party.
Crucially, the Supreme Court’s reasoning distinguishes between an individual’s personal qualification to contest an election and a political party’s eligibility to sponsor a candidate. The judgment did not treat a party’s failure to submit its membership register as an automatic personal disqualification of every member. Instead, the statutory consequence under Section 77(7) concerns the party’s eligibility to field candidates.
The distinction becomes important as the candidates cannot necessarily resolve their predicament simply by demonstrating that they won their primaries. Even a validly conducted primary may not be sufficient if the sponsoring party is ineligible under the law.
Conversely, if a party complied with the relevant requirements and can establish that INEC wrongly omitted its candidate, the commission would need to consider the evidence and the applicable legal provisions.
The October 24 deadline offers a procedural opportunity rather than a guarantee of reinstatement.
The parties must formally notify INEC within the prescribed period and substantiate their complaints.
If the commission maintains its position, litigation could follow, although the outcome would depend on the specific facts, the legal grounds advanced and any applicable procedural requirements.
There is also a broader political implication.
The continued exclusion of the PDP’s candidates in Gombe and Ogun could affect the opposition party’s prospects in two important governorship contests, while the NDC faces uncertainty over its Kano ticket.
Yet the political significance of the candidates cannot substitute for proof of compliance with electoral law.
As the deadline approaches, the available evidence offers neither a firm basis for declaring the three politicians’ ambitions over nor sufficient grounds to promise their return to the ballot.
Their best chance lies in establishing that the omissions are legally correctable, not merely politically contentious.
Ultimately, October 24 may mark the end of the initial window for notifying INEC, but it need not resolve every dispute surrounding the candidates. Whether the commission corrects the list or the parties proceed to court, the decisive issue remains the same. Which is can the affected parties demonstrate that their exclusion was unlawful in the circumstances of their respective cases?
(Daily Trust)
