By The Independent National Electoral Commission has now explained, in a formal statement, why some candidates are missing from its final list for the February 6, 2027 governorship elections.
In a press release dated Tuesday, October 13, and signed by National Commissioner Mohammed Kudu Haruna, the commission says it applied a Supreme Court judgment that bars parties that failed to meet membership register rules from sponsoring candidates. The clarification does not name any affected candidates.
What the INEC clarification says
The release points to the Supreme Court’s September 24 judgment in INEC v Zenith Labour Party (Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026). It arose from INEC’s appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling that had nullified Sections 77(5) to 77(7) of the Electoral Act 2026, which require parties to submit membership registers before holding valid primaries.
The Supreme Court held those provisions constitutional and mandatory for all parties. It also upheld Item 2 of INEC’s timetable, which required parties to submit registers between April 21 and May 10, 2026. According to INEC, the court further held that a party that fails to comply is “ineligible to sponsor any candidate for the election.”
Acting under Section 287(1) of the Constitution, INEC says it applied that decision while finalising the governorship list and excluded the parties that failed to comply.
Additionally, it notes that the presidential and National Assembly lists had already been published on September 12, thirteen days before the judgment. It also reminds parties that believe their candidates were wrongly left off that Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act gives them 14 days from publication to notify the commission, a deadline it puts at October 24.
What the release leaves unsaid
The statement names no party and no candidate, and it shows none of the records on which the decision rests. It offers no register, no filing date and no account of what any affected party submitted. That matters because the affected camps contest both the facts and, in one case, INEC’s authority.
AfrikTimes earlier reported that Ahmed Raji & Co., acting for Prof Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami and the PDP, wrote to INEC on October 12 demanding that his name be published by Wednesday, October 14. The lawyers say the Federal High Court in Gombe held that the absence of his name from a particular register was not conclusive proof that he was not a party member. They add that INEC officials monitored the September 29 rerun primary he won, and that INEC had published his name on August 29 under Section 29(3) of the Act without objecting to his nomination at that stage. The release answers none of this.
Ladi Adebutu says he registered within the stipulated period, that his membership card was printed and verified, and that his documents reached INEC on time. Two civic groups have alleged that his name was missing from the register, which his party denies. The Ogun PDP accuses the APC of pressuring INEC, and the APC calls that baseless. Adebutu has also pointed out that the PDP’s candidates for the Ogun State House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the Senate were listed. The release explains the timing of the presidential and National Assembly lists but says nothing about the State Assembly lists.
Lawyers Split on INEC’s Power
Whether INEC needed a court order is itself disputed. Pantami’s lawyers say it did: they describe his omission as unlawful and unexplained, and insist the commission had no authority to exclude a duly nominated candidate without a valid court order.
Other lawyers read the Supreme Court judgment as supplying that authority. In an election law bulletin, legal practitioner P. D. Pius argued that a person whose name was not in the register submitted to INEC cannot be a valid candidate. He wrote that the judgment gives INEC power to remove the names of candidates whose party did not submit a register, and that if INEC fails to act, a court can be asked to compel it by mandamus. He also argued that parties themselves cannot nominate anyone whose name is missing from the register they submitted. The APC has taken a similar position as a party: it wrote to INEC demanding immediate enforcement of the judgment, citing the court’s explanation that a party which misses the register deadline may be barred from fielding candidates.
INEC’s release does not engage either side of this argument directly. It rests its action on Section 287(1), which obliges it to enforce the decisions of superior courts.
A Wider Pattern
The omissions reach well beyond these cases. By one count of the published list, the NDC has no governorship candidate in six states and the PDP has none in three. Candidates reported missing include the NDC’s Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo in Kano, the SDP’s Prof Sebastine Hon, SAN, in Benue, and the Accord Party’s Shuaibu Kubi in Nasarawa. In Kaduna, the NDC’s Danjuma Tella La’ah is missing amid an unresolved dispute within the party over who holds its ticket, and INEC has not said whether that or the register rule is the reason.
The Kwankwasiyya Movement says INEC has advanced no reason in Gwarzo’s case and that it knows of no court order. The NDC says it is relying on the 14-day window, while the SDP says it has served INEC an affidavit.
Where this leaves the dispute
INEC has told the public which judgment it relied on, and it is entitled to say it must follow the Supreme Court. What it has not told the public is how the register rule applied to each affected party, or whether a rerun ordered by a court changes the position. Lawyers disagree on whether the judgment lets INEC act on its own or requires a court order, and the commission has not set out its own answer.
Until INEC shows its working, the clarification will settle which law was applied, not whether it was applied correctly. The affected parties have until October 24 to put their cases to the commission.
