By On Saturday, October 10, the Independent National Electoral Commission published its list of candidates for the February 6, 2027 governorship elections. Three names tied to major opposition tickets were not on it. The list omitted Professor Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami, the PDP’s candidate in Gombe. So were Ladi Adebutu, the PDP’s candidate in Ogun, and his running mate. So was Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo, the NDC’s candidate in Kano. The list, signed by INEC Secretary Rose Oriaran-Anthony, carried no explanation for any of them.
The ruling everyone is pointing to
The omissions are widely linked to a September 24 Supreme Court judgment in INEC v Zenith Labour Party, which restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. Those provisions bar a party from fielding candidates whose names were not on the membership register it filed with INEC within the stipulated period.
Days before the list appeared, INEC National Commissioner Mohammed Haruna said affected parties could neither field such candidates nor substitute them, and that no party would be allowed to benefit from breaking the rules. However, commentators infer a link between that judgment and these three omissions. INEC has not confirmed it for any of them in a candidate-specific statement. One outlet reported that the commission cited the judgment as the basis for dropping Pantami and Adebutu, but it quoted no INEC statement, and others reported that the published lists state no ground at all.
Three camps, three stories
AfrikTimes notes that this part matters because the three camps are telling three different stories. Pantami left the APC in May and was declared the PDP’s candidate after a primary in which he was the only aspirant. On September 24, the same day as the Supreme Court judgment, a Federal High Court in Gombe nullified that outcome in a suit by a rival aspirant and ordered a fresh primary, which he won on September 29.
His camp says the name from that court-ordered rerun was not published. It calls the omission “a temporary challenge and a normal part of the electoral process” and says its legal and liaison teams are working with the PDP and INEC to secure compliance with the court order. His challengers argue he was not on the register filed in time. Whether his name is on it has not been confirmed.
Adebutu says he is a duly registered member who completed digital registration within the period, that his card was printed and verified, and that his documents reached INEC on time. He points out that the party’s other candidates in Ogun were all listed and says the circumstances raise “serious questions.” Two civic groups alleged his name was missing from the register, and one says a certified copy it obtained from INEC did not carry his name. The party denies this and insists the name was submitted. The Ogun PDP goes further and accuses the APC of pressuring INEC. That is an allegation, and the APC calls it baseless, and no evidence for it has surfaced in the statements reported so far.
In Kano, the NDC insists Gwarzo remains its candidate and calls the omission an INEC mix-up. Its Kano spokesman says INEC blamed a computer glitch and promised a corrected list by Monday, which would be a different explanation from the register rule. No corrected list had been reported at the time of writing. The Kwankwasiyya Movement, which backs Gwarzo, has demanded an explanation.
A list that may not be final
There is a dispute about the list itself, too. The Ogun PDP says INEC has told them that the authentic final list will be released on November 3, which would mean the October 10 document is not final. That is the party’s claim, not INEC’s, yet the October 10 list has been widely reported as the final one. Either the party is misinforming its supporters or the commission has published something it does not regard as final. The commission knows which, and it has not said.
A window closing quietly
Under Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, a party that finds its candidate missing has 14 days from publication to notify INEC in writing, supported by an affidavit. That window closes around October 24. A party cannot make a useful case when it has not been told what it is contesting. It can only guess at the ground and plead on several at once.
Why silence is the real problem
Removing a party’s flagbearer from a ballot about 17 weeks before polling day is among the heaviest decisions the commission can take, and the rule it is applying allows no substitution. A decision of that weight needs a stated reason that can be tested. A register is a document INEC already holds, so for each affected candidate the commission can say whether the name was on it and when it was filed. Two parties now give opposing accounts of what the PDP’s register contains, and INEC can settle that in a line.
Pantami’s case raises a further question that only INEC can answer. The rerun primary took place five days after the Supreme Court’s judgment. A primary and a membership register are different things, and the commission has not said which one governs.
Silence also feeds the suspicion INEC can least afford. The Ogun PDP’s accusation of political pressure is unproven. However, a commission that explains nothing makes it easier to believe and harder to rebut.
The commission’s likely defence
INEC will say it announced the rule beforehand, and the law offers a 14-day route to complain. That is true, and the law may well not oblige it to explain each omission. However, announcing a rule is not the same as showing how it was applied. Whether a name was on a register is a question of fact, and here it is disputed. In its own list, INEC marked one Ogun candidate as included pursuant to a court order, so it knows how to annotate.
Ahead of the 2023 elections, its Ogun resident electoral commissioner publicly explained a party’s omission. A short ground for each of these three would cost the commission little. It would spare voters a guessing game.
The case against telling candidates to stop
Former Senator Shehu Sani’s advice to excluded candidates, to stop spending money in court, deserves a second look.
On the Supreme Court’s reading of the law, he may well be right. Nevertheless, Adebutu’s party is moving to challenge the omission, and Pantami’s camp is working to enforce a court order. Candidates cannot sensibly be told to accept a decision whose basis has not been put on the record.
What INEC should do now
Nothing here calls for relitigating the Supreme Court. Frankly, the law is settled, and rules are rules. What is not settled is how INEC applied it, to whom, and why. The commission should publish, for each of the three candidates, the specific ground for the omission and the date the relevant register was filed. It should also say plainly whether the October 10 list is final, and it should do so before the 14-day window closes. Voters in Gombe, Ogun and Kano are entitled to those answers before February, and until that is done, some Nigerians’ belief that INEC is a tool for some individuals will continue to rend the air.
