The omission of some governorship candidates from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s final list ahead of the 2027 general elections has raised concerns about electoral fairness, political participation and the credibility of Nigeria’s democratic process.
In Kano and Gombe states, the exclusion of Nigeria Democratic Congress candidate Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo and Peoples Democratic Party candidate Isa Ali Pantami, respectively, has triggered questions about the reasons behind their absence from the list.
The NDC has alleged a political conspiracy, insisting that it complied with the requirements for nominating its candidate.
Political scientists, opposition party officials and legal practitioners have called on INEC to explain its decisions and demonstrate transparency in managing the electoral process.
Sufi Questions INEC’s Neutrality
Political scientist Dr Kabiru Sa’id Sufi said the omission of some candidates, while others were included, had raised questions about the commission’s neutrality.
He noted that the situation had fuelled speculation about possible partiality in the treatment of candidates from different political parties.
“People saw some names and they did not see some names. So that raises serious questions,” he said.
Sufi explained that comparisons between candidates listed and those omitted in states such as Kano and Gombe had intensified concerns among political observers.
He cited the inclusion of the All Progressives Congress governorship candidate in Rivers State and the Social Democratic Party candidate in Nasarawa State as examples prompting further questions.
“Until that explanation is released and people are given satisfactory answers, people will have every reason to begin to see lack of neutrality or due diligence on the part of INEC in the release of the final list,” he said.
He stressed that INEC’s explanation would help establish whether the omissions resulted from the enforcement of electoral requirements or administrative issues.
NDC Alleges Political Conspiracy in Kano
The Kano State chairman of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, Usaini Isah Mairiga, accused unnamed political interests of being behind the omission of his party’s governorship candidate.
Mairiga said the party had fulfilled the relevant requirements and expressed surprise that its candidate was excluded from the final list.
“From the moment we discovered that our governorship candidate’s name was missing, we did not hear anything from the party’s stakeholders because we knew we had not violated any rules. We believe this is a political conspiracy,” he said.
He disclosed that the party had submitted a complaint and was awaiting a resolution, expressing confidence that its candidate would eventually be restored to the ballot.
“But I assure you that we are not discouraged, and our candidate will return to the ballot,” Mairiga said.
PDP Calls for Transparency
The acting publicity secretary of the PDP in Kano State, Kabiru Sani Mai Kwanika, warned that excluding eligible candidates could undermine democratic participation.
He maintained that political parties should be given a fair opportunity to nominate candidates and contest elections if they comply with the law.
“During the PDP’s reign, every political party had the opportunity to present its candidate, but what is happening now is not right,” he said.
Mai Kwanika urged INEC to protect its institutional credibility by ensuring that decisions on candidate nominations were transparent and consistently applied.
“We have given everyone the freedom to participate. INEC should protect its integrity because the eyes of the world are now on Nigeria,” he said.
He also advised political parties to work closely with legal practitioners and pay greater attention to electoral laws and nomination procedures.
“I urge political parties to work closely with lawyers to ensure they comply with the rules and remain vigilant about the law, especially where some people may want to exploit its provisions for personal gain,” he said.
Lawyer Urges Fair Treatment of Candidates
Legal practitioner Barrister Nura Ahmad Muhammad said the omissions had raised concerns about electoral justice and public confidence in the electoral process.
However, he cautioned against treating the exclusions as automatic proof of bias, noting that INEC was legally responsible for enforcing electoral laws and relevant court decisions.
Muhammad said the commission must discharge its responsibilities fairly and transparently, without political considerations.
According to him, the key question is whether the affected candidates were excluded on valid legal grounds or because of administrative errors, arbitrary decisions or improper application of the law.
He explained that INEC could lawfully exclude candidates whose parties failed to meet mandatory statutory requirements. However, candidates who believed they had been wrongly excluded should be able to challenge the decisions through appropriate legal channels.
“To safeguard the integrity of the electoral process, INEC should provide clear reasons for exclusions, apply the law equally to all political parties, and establish transparent mechanisms for correcting genuine errors within the legally prescribed timelines,” he said.
Muhammad maintained that neither political interests nor administrative failures should deprive eligible candidates of the opportunity to participate in elections.
Supreme Court Judgment at the Centre of Dispute
The controversy follows a Supreme Court judgment delivered on September 24, 2026, in the case of INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, which restored provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 concerning political party membership registers.
The provisions require political parties to submit their membership registers to INEC within the prescribed period and use the submitted registers for primaries, congresses and conventions.
Following the judgment, INEC said it excluded some candidates because their parties failed to comply with the membership register requirements and were therefore ineligible to sponsor candidates in the affected elections.
The commission also stated that political parties that believed their candidates had been wrongly omitted had until October 24, 2026, to notify it of the alleged errors under Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The dispute has renewed concerns about voters’ ability to choose among competing candidates and the impact of procedural requirements on political representation.
As preparations for the 2027 general elections continue, INEC’s handling of candidate nominations is expected to remain a major test of electoral transparency and public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic institutions.
