By Lizzy Chirkpi
The omission of prominent opposition figures from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) final list of governorship candidates for the February 6, 2027 elections has heightened political tension, with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) absent from the governorship races in Gombe and Ogun states.
Among those affected are former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Professor Isa Ali Pantami, the PDP’s governorship candidate in Gombe; former Ogun State governorship candidate Oladipupo Adebutu; and former Kano State Deputy Governor Aminu Abdussalam-Gwarzo of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).
Adebutu’s running mate, Yemi Sowunmi-Kolapo, was also omitted, alongside the Accord Party’s governorship candidate in Ogun, Olaniyi Agbongboakala.
The development comes weeks after the Supreme Court restored provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing political party membership registers and candidate nominations, raising questions about whether the affected parties met the statutory requirements.
However, INEC’s published lists do not state the specific reasons for the omissions, leaving the affected politicians and their parties facing potentially costly legal and political setbacks.
The central issue is whether the omissions resulted from non-compliance with electoral laws or administrative errors that can be addressed through the appropriate legal process.
PDP Missing from Governorship Races in Gombe, Ogun
The PDP faces a significant setback in Gombe and Ogun, where INEC’s final lists contain no governorship candidate representing the party.
In Gombe, Pantami’s omission has attracted particular attention because he won a fresh PDP governorship primary on September 29 after a Federal High Court nullified his earlier emergence and ordered a rerun.
Pantami polled 2,054 votes, defeating Khamisu Mailantarki, who received 389 votes, and Usman Aliyu Garry, who scored 112.
However, the rerun did not settle all questions surrounding his eligibility.
Pantami defected from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) to the PDP on May 19, 2026, reportedly after the deadline for submitting party membership registers to INEC had passed.
His defection has raised questions about whether his name appeared on the membership register submitted by the PDP and whether he was eligible to participate in the party’s primary under the restored provisions of the Electoral Act.
His omission therefore presents a separate legal question from the earlier dispute over the conduct of the primary.
Reacting to the development, Pantami’s camp urged supporters to remain calm, describing the omission as a temporary setback rather than a final determination of his political future.
In a statement signed by Professor Suleiman Mohammed Gombe, spokesperson for the Pantamiyya Movement, the campaign said its legal and liaison teams were engaging the relevant party organs and INEC to resolve the matter.
“We are aware of the people working behind the scenes to frustrate good and responsible leadership in Gombe State, but our legal and liaison teams are already engaging with the relevant organs of the party and INEC to ensure full compliance and rectification within the window provided by law,” the statement said.
The camp added: “By the grace of Allah, this matter will be resolved.”
However, the allegation of deliberate obstruction remains unsubstantiated, as INEC has not publicly identified anyone as responsible for the omission.
The outstanding question is whether the PDP can establish that Pantami met the membership and nomination requirements, notwithstanding the timing of his defection and the court-ordered rerun.
PDP Accuses APC of Pressuring INEC in Ogun
In Ogun State, Adebutu’s omission has triggered accusations by the PDP against the ruling APC.
The opposition party alleged that the APC pressured INEC to exclude its candidate because it feared losing the governorship election.
In a statement signed by its state Publicity Secretary, Kayode Adebayo, the PDP insisted that Adebutu had been properly registered and remained its duly nominated candidate.
“The public should be informed that the omission of our candidate in INEC’s list is as a result of the undue pressure mounted by the ruling party on INEC out of fear of losing the election to our party,” the statement said.
The party maintained that Adebutu registered during the designated digital membership registration period, obtained a membership card and had his details verified and submitted to INEC within the stipulated period.
It added that “no amount of desperate manipulation, political witch-hunts, or calculated distractions can alter the mandate of the people of Ogun State”.
The allegations raise questions about the circumstances surrounding the omission. However, the PDP has not publicly established that APC interference caused INEC’s decision.
Adebutu’s eligibility has also come under scrutiny.
Two civil society groups, the Ogun Democratic Accountability Forum and Elections Integrity Watch, reportedly challenged his qualification, alleging that his name was missing from the PDP membership register submitted to INEC.
Elections Integrity Watch said a certified copy of the register obtained from the commission did not contain Adebutu’s name.
The PDP has disputed the allegation, insisting that its candidate was properly registered.
Resolving the dispute will require more than competing political statements. The relevant membership register, evidence of submission, registration records and applicable statutory deadlines will be central to determining whether the party complied with the law.
Until the records are examined and INEC explains its decision, the precise reason for Adebutu’s omission remains unconfirmed.
Gwarzo’s Kano Candidacy in Doubt
The third major omission concerns Gwarzo, the NDC’s governorship candidate in Kano State.
His name is missing from INEC’s final list, which contains 17 governorship candidates but no representative of the NDC.
Gwarzo, a former deputy governor, is a prominent figure in Kano politics, and his exclusion has raised questions about the party’s participation in the election.
The NDC’s Kano State Chairman, Hussaini Mairiga, has rejected suggestions that the party has changed its candidate, insisting that Gwarzo remains its flag bearer.
However, the chairman’s position does not resolve the discrepancy between the party’s claim and INEC’s published list.
It remains unclear whether Gwarzo’s omission relates to the membership register, nomination documentation, another legal issue or an administrative error.
Until INEC clarifies the matter, the party’s insistence that Gwarzo remains its candidate should not be taken as confirmation that he has been cleared to contest the election.
Accord Party Candidate Also Omitted in Ogun
The controversy extends beyond the PDP and NDC. Agbongboakala, the Accord Party’s governorship candidate in Ogun State, is also missing from INEC’s final list.
His omission suggests that the issue is not confined to the PDP, although the available information does not establish whether his case has the same legal or administrative basis as those involving Pantami, Adebutu and Gwarzo.
The omission of several candidates makes a detailed explanation from INEC particularly important.
Without the specific reasons for each case, it would be premature to conclude that all the affected politicians were excluded under the same provisions of the Electoral Act.
Supreme Court Ruling Raises Stakes
The controversy follows the Supreme Court’s September 24, 2026 judgment in a case arising from the Zenith Labour Party’s challenge to provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
The apex court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) after the Court of Appeal had earlier declared the disputed provisions unconstitutional.
The ruling reaffirmed statutory requirements governing party membership registers and candidate nominations.
Section 77(5) restricts participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions to members whose names appear on the party membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period.
Section 77(6) requires political parties to use the submitted register for the relevant exercises, while Section 77(7) addresses the consequences of failing to submit the register within the statutory period, including restrictions on a party’s eligibility to field candidates.
Section 84(2) provides for the nomination of candidates through direct primaries or consensus.
The provisions have significant implications for parties whose candidates joined them after the membership register deadline or whose names were absent from the submitted registers.
However, the Supreme Court did not specifically disqualify Pantami, Adebutu, Gwarzo or Agbongboakala. The judgment restored the statutory provisions, while their application to individual candidates depends on the facts and legal requirements governing each case.
The distinction between a candidate’s eligibility and a party’s compliance with statutory requirements is central to the dispute.
INEC Warns Parties Over Compliance
INEC had earlier extended the deadline for political parties to submit their candidates from July 11 to July 14 following appeals by the Inter-Party Advisory Council.
National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, Mohammed Haruna, confirmed the extension.
Haruna also warned that parties that failed to comply with membership-register requirements would not be permitted to field affected candidates or circumvent the consequences of non-compliance through substitution.
Explaining the commission’s position, he said: “It’s like you committed an offence and then, you come and benefit from it.”
He added that allowing a party to replace a candidate in circumstances arising from its own non-compliance would amount to permitting it to benefit from a violation.
However, INEC’s general position does not establish the specific reasons for the omissions under scrutiny. Its published lists do not indicate whether the candidates were excluded over membership records, nomination disputes or other issues.
The absence of individual explanations has raised questions, particularly among candidates whose parties maintain that they complied with the relevant requirements.
Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 provides a procedure for addressing the omission of a nominated candidate’s name from INEC’s published list.
Under the provision, a registered political party must notify the commission in writing, supported by an affidavit, within 14 days of publication if its nominated candidate’s name is missing.
The provision offers a formal avenue for notifying INEC of an omission, but it does not guarantee reinstatement, particularly where the underlying issue involves eligibility or non-compliance with statutory requirements.
The affected parties must therefore establish the circumstances of their cases and pursue whatever remedies are available under the law.
For Pantami, the timing of his defection and his participation in the court-ordered rerun remain central questions.
For Adebutu, the membership register and evidence of timely registration and submission are crucial.
For Gwarzo and Agbongboakala, the immediate priority is to obtain explanations from INEC and establish the legal basis for their parties’ claims that the nominations remain valid.
Meanwhile, the APC criticised opposition parties for seeking additional time, describing the extension of the submission deadline as evidence of their lack of preparedness for the 2027 general election.
Parties Face Legal and Political Test
INEC now faces calls to explain its decisions sufficiently to enable the affected parties and the public to distinguish between administrative errors and legal disqualification.
The omissions have exposed potential weaknesses in opposition parties’ preparations for the 2027 elections.
The PDP faces the prospect of contesting the governorship elections in Gombe and Ogun without candidates on INEC’s published lists, while the NDC’s participation in Kano remains uncertain.
For the affected parties, the immediate task is to address the omissions through lawful procedures. For INEC, the challenge is to demonstrate that the electoral law is being applied consistently and transparently.
The controversy also raises questions about whether political parties adequately verified their membership registers and candidates’ eligibility before conducting primaries and submitting nominations.
If the omissions resulted from failures to comply with the law, the affected parties will have to account for those failures. If they arose from administrative errors, INEC must explain how they occurred and whether they can lawfully be corrected.
Ultimately, the dispute goes beyond who won a party primary. It centres on whether the candidates and their parties satisfied the legal requirements for inclusion on the ballot.