The Independent National Electoral Commission has the authority to enforce electoral rules, but that authority carries an obligation to explain consequential decisions and demonstrate consistency. What precisely disqualified the affected candidates, and have the relevant legal provisions been applied uniformly? Who, ultimately, should be held accountable when the right to appear on the ballot becomes a matter of dispute. Jonathan Eze writes. Democracy begins long before voters approach the ballot box. It begins with the rules governing who may contest, the institutions entrusted with enforcing those rules and the confidence citizens place in the fairness of the process. Against this backdrop, the omission of Ladi Adebutu, Isa Ali Pantami and other candidates from INEC’s published lists for the 2027 governorship elections raises questions that reach beyond party politics into the foundations of electoral legitimacy. While no candidate is above the law, no electoral institution should be beyond scrutiny when its decisions determine who can participate in a democratic contest. Are the omissions the necessary consequences of statutory violations, or do they reveal procedural weaknesses requiring urgent redress? And can an election command enduring legitimacy if the process determining access to the ballot is itself a subject of controversy? That is the controversy confronting the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) following the publication of its governorship candidates’ lists for the February 6, 2027 elections. Among the prominent omissions are Ladi Adebutu, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in Ogun State, and Professor Isa Ali Pantami, the party’s candidate in Gombe State. Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate in Kano State, is also reportedly missing from the list. In Bauchi State, candidates of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP), Action Alliance (AA) and Accord Party were reportedly omitted. The development raises questions that extend beyond the fortunes of individual politicians. Was INEC enforcing the Electoral Act, responding to specific legal impediments or correcting nomination irregularities? Were the same standards applied consistently across parties? And has the commission adequately explained its decisions? These are questions of electoral accountability that demand evidence-based answers rather than partisan conjecture. The law behind the omissions The legal context is central to understanding the controversy. On September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, provisions concerning political party membership registers and participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions. Section 77(5) restricts participation in party primaries to members whose names appear in the membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period. Section 77(6) requires parties to use the relevant register for their primaries, while Section 77(7) stipulates consequences for failure to submit the register within the statutory timeframe. The ruling provides a legal basis for enforcing membership and nomination requirements. It would therefore be premature to conclude that every omission reflects political interference. Equally, citing the law does not, by itself, establish that every individual decision was correctly made. In Adebutu’s case, questions have arisen over whether his name appeared in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC. The Ogun PDP has rejected allegations of non-compliance, maintaining that Adebutu registered within the stipulated period and that the relevant documentation was submitted. Adebutu has similarly maintained that he remains a duly registered member of the party. Pantami’s case presents a different complication. A Federal High Court in Gombe nullified his initial emergence as the PDP candidate and ordered a fresh primary. He subsequently won another primary on September 29, 2026. His camp maintains that the exercise complied with the court’s directive and that the omission is being addressed through legal and administrative channels. These cases should not be conflated. A dispute over membership registration is distinct from one concerning compliance with a court-ordered primary. INEC must explain the specific legal and factual grounds applicable to each candidate. Political intrigue or administrative failure? The omissions have inevitably generated suspicion. The Ogun PDP has alleged that pressure from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) contributed to Adebutu’s exclusion. Such allegations are serious, but they remain claims by an interested political party and should not be treated as established evidence of interference. Nevertheless, unexplained decisions involving prominent candidates create
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
