October 17, (THEWILL) – For political parties and candidates omitted or delisted from the recently published governorship and Assembly list by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, the court is the final arbiter of their fate. But the aggrieved parties and their candidates must seize the chance within the 14- day remedial window given by the electoral umpire for political parties to make substitutions or resolve eligibility complaints.
“At the end of the day, we are not the courts. Any position we take is based on our own interpretation of a case. If somebody is not happy with what we have done, of course they can go to court. If the courts say INEC, you are wrong, even if we think we are right, we have no choice but to obey the court order.”
That is the view of the National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Haruna, in an interview with THEWILL on the decision of aggrieved candidates of parties to sue the Commission over the removal of their names in the published list of candidates for the Governorship and Assembly polls.
He explained further that the Commission did not disqualify candidates, but the political parties disqualified themselves by falling short of the Constitutional requirement, as affirmed by the Supreme Court judgement mandating them to submit a membership register that contains the names of their candidates.
“If you recall,” he said, “the original date for the submission of the register was April 21, but we extended it to May 10. So, if the names of the candidates were not found in the register submitted by them, it means the parties were not qualified to submit the name of the candidate. We have given them a 14-day rule, saying that if they think we were wrong in removing the names of their candidates, they should write a petition to us, and so many petitions have been coming in already. We will re-examine them and ensure the proper thing is done.”
A LEGAL VALIDATION
Dr Monday Ubani, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, said that, from his understanding of the Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court ruling, it lies within the power of the court and not INEC to determine the candidate of any party in the upcoming 2027 general election.
In a detailed analysis he sent to THEWILL after an interview, he argued strongly that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party & Others did not authorise the automatic disqualification of any candidate, based on the provisions of section 77(5)-(7) of the Electoral Act 2026.
According to him, the Supreme Court’s reasoning makes an important distinction between the personal qualification or disqualification of a candidate and the statutory eligibility of a political party to field a candidate. INEC, he maintains, cannot administratively disqualify any candidate of political parties.
“Where a candidate’s name is not contained in the party’s membership register, the consequence is a matter relating to irregularity in the nomination/primary process. It does not, by that fact alone, constitute a personal qualification or disqualification of the candidate under the Electoral Act,” he said, adding, “Similarly, where a political party fails to submit its membership register within the time prescribed by section 77, the statutory consequence under section 77(7) is directed at the party’s eligibility to field a candidate. It does not transform the failure into a personal disqualification of every candidate associated with the party. This distinction, Ubani explained, is fundamental.
“Sections 77(5) and (6) regulate participation in the party primary by reference to the membership register submitted to INEC. Consequently, where a candidate participated in a primary notwithstanding an alleged failure to comply with those provisions, the question that arises is whether the party complied with the statutory requirements governing the conduct of its primary and whether the candidate validly emerged from that process.
“That is a question concerning the validity of the nomination process. It should not be confused with the separate question whether the candidate personally possesses the constitutional or statutory qualifications to contest the election.
“The Supreme Court’s treatment of section 77(7) reinforces this distinction. The failure of a political party to submit its register within the prescribed period affects the party’s statutory eligibility to field a candidate. It does not, without more, constitute a personal disqualification of the candidate.
“Is there a legal remedy for non-compliance?
“This is where section 88(2) of the Electoral Act becomes particularly important.
“Where there has been non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the applicable party rules in the conduct of a primary, an appropriate claimant may invoke the judicial process and seek the appropriate relief. The claimant’s entitlement to maintain such an action will, of course, depend upon the facts of the particular case, including who instituted the action, the claimant’s locus standi, the nature of the complaint, the reliefs sought and the applicable statutory limitation or procedural requirements.
Therefore, it is legally unsafe to transform every breach of section 77 into an automatic disqualification which INEC can impose administratively.”
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria further explained that the fact that a candidate’s name was not contained in the membership register does not, by itself, mean that INEC has acquired a new power to summarily disqualify that candidate.
Likewise, the failure of a political party to submit its register within the prescribed period does not mean that INEC has thereby acquired an unfettered power to determine, administratively and conclusively, the fate of every candidate sponsored by that party.
The Electoral Act provides a judicial mechanism through which such complaints may be ventilated and determined. He said, “Section 29 requires a political party to submit to INEC the list of candidates who emerged from its validly conducted primaries.
“That provision undoubtedly imposes obligations upon political parties. But it should not be interpreted as conferring upon INEC a general judicial jurisdiction to determine, conclusively and without recourse to the courts, every disputed question concerning whether a party primary was validly conducted.
“Where the validity of the primary is challenged based on non-compliance with section 77, the question becomes one for determination through the appropriate judicial process.
INEC’s administrative role cannot be equated with the judicial power to finally determine disputed questions of law and fact concerning the validity of a nomination.”
Furthermore, he argued that where an interested and legally competent claimant challenges a candidate’s emergence based on non-compliance with section 77, the appropriate judicial process under section 88(2), subject to the claimant’s locus, the reliefs sought, limitation provisions and the facts of the particular case, remains available. The court may then determine the legal consequence of the proved non-compliance.
“What the Supreme Court did not do was to confer upon INEC an automatic judicial power to disqualify a candidate merely because INEC considers that section 77(5), (6) or (7) has not been complied with. The ultimate determination of a disputed nomination, where properly brought before the court, remains a matter for the judiciary. That distinction is fundamental to a proper understanding of the judgment,” he said.
PARTIES, CANDIDATES REACT
INEC, on October 9, 2026, published the names of Governorship and Assembly candidates on its website. The report, signed by INEC Secretary, Rose Oriaran-Anthony, showed the clearance of some prominent candidates, such as Rivers State governorship candidate, Kingsley Chinda, despite controversy surrounding his membership of the governing APC, and the omission of others, including the governorship candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party for Ogun and Gombe States, Ladi Adebutu and Isa Ali Pantami, respectively.
Equally affected are the Kano State candidate of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Aminu Abdulsalam Gwarzo, and his Nasarawa counterpart, Musa Shugaba- Abdullahi. The published list sparked wild allegations that INEC was not thorough enough in its publication, prompting the Commission to give a 14-day window, ending on October 24, for aggrieved parties to petition the electoral umpire for redress, if any.
One of the most affected parties, the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC) said it had since petitioned INEC and was also litigating for redress.
“The NDC has formally written to the INEC to restore the names of our governorship candidates on the list. They met all the constitutional and legal requirements. Therefore, we are going to use all legal means to ensure the right thing is done,” National Publicity Secretary of the NDC, Mr Osa Director, told THEWILL at the weekend. But some of its members appear to have taken matters into their own hands through a protest at the weekend. Mr. Director thinks otherwise.
On Friday, the supporters of the Kwankwasiyya movement staged a protest in Kano over the alleged omission of the National Democratic Congress(NDC) governorship candidate, Comrade Aminu Abdulsalam Gwarzo, from the list released by the electoral umpire.The protesters, led by the NDC deputy governorship candidate, Mustapha Kwankwaso, on behalf of the candidate, Comrade Aminu Abdulsalam Gwarzo, marched to the commission’s office and submitted a formal petition demanding the reinstatement of their candidate.
Kwankwaso said the group had fulfilled all rules and regulations laid down by the commission regarding the nomination of candidates, describing the exclusion as unjust. Reacting, Mr. Director said, “The demonstration of our party members from Kano State was an exercise of their rights to lawful protest.”
For former Minister of Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, whose emergence as a member and governorship candidate of the PDP had been adjudicated upon by and validated by the court, his counsel, Ahmed Raji, last week petitioned INEC to include Pantami’ s name as a candidate of the PDP.
“It is settled law, binding on the Commission, that the removal of a nominated candidate’s name is exclusively a judicial act: DINGYADI & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2011) LPELR-950(SC); RAYMOND v. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR-61366(CA); AC & ANOR v. INEC (2007) LPELR-66(SC). The Commission’s role in primaries is to attend, observe, monitor and report, not to disqualify, and not to cherry-pick,” the counsel said in his petition to the Commission.
Asked about this case, INEC National Commissioner, Haruna, said, “If the courts say tomorrow, put back Pantami, of course, we will have no choice but to put his name back on the list.”
Amos Esele is the Editor of THEWILL Newspaper. He has over two decades of experience on the job.
