The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is facing questions over the omission of some governorship candidates from its final list ahead of the 2027 general elections, with political parties, legal practitioners and political analysts calling for greater transparency in the electoral process.
The controversy centres on the exclusion of Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) governorship candidate Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo in Kano State and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Isa Ali Pantami in Gombe State.
The omissions have raised concerns about electoral fairness, political participation and the circumstances surrounding the commission’s decisions. The NDC has alleged a political conspiracy over its candidate’s exclusion, insisting that it complied with the requirements for nomination.
Political scientists and opposition party officials have also called on INEC to explain the omissions and demonstrate that its rules are being applied consistently across political parties.
A political scientist in Kano, Dr Kabiru Sa’id Sufi, said the presence of some candidates on the final list and the absence of others had raised questions about the commission’s neutrality.
Sufi noted that the situation had fuelled speculation about possible bias, particularly in the treatment of candidates from different political parties.
He said comparisons involving candidates listed in Rivers and Nasarawa states had also prompted questions among political observers.
According to him, INEC needs to provide a clear explanation of the omissions to help the public determine whether they resulted from electoral requirements or administrative issues.
Sufi warned that without satisfactory answers, doubts about the commission’s neutrality and the thoroughness of its procedures could persist.
The Kano State chairman of the NDC, Usaini Isah Mairiga, also alleged political interference following the omission of his party’s governorship candidate.
In an interview, Mairiga maintained that the party had met the relevant requirements and said it was surprised that its candidate’s name was missing from the published list.
He said the party had submitted a complaint and was awaiting a resolution, adding that it remained determined to secure its candidate’s inclusion on the ballot.
Mairiga insisted that the omission would not discourage the party from pursuing the matter and expressed confidence that the candidate would eventually be reinstated.
Meanwhile, the acting publicity secretary of the PDP in Kano State, Kabiru Sani Mai Kwanika, warned that excluding eligible candidates could weaken democratic participation.
Mai Kwanika said all political parties should have a fair opportunity to nominate candidates and contest elections, provided they comply with the law.
He urged INEC to protect its credibility by ensuring that decisions concerning candidate nominations were transparent and applied consistently.
The PDP official also advised political parties to work closely with legal practitioners and pay closer attention to electoral laws and nomination procedures to avoid problems that could affect their candidates.
A legal practitioner, Barrister Nura Ahmad Muhammad, said the omissions had raised concerns about electoral justice and public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic process.
However, Muhammad cautioned against treating the exclusion of candidates as automatic proof of bias, noting that INEC has a legal responsibility to enforce electoral laws and relevant court decisions.
He said the key question was whether the affected candidates had been excluded on valid legal grounds or because of administrative mistakes, arbitrary decisions or the improper application of the law.
Muhammad explained that INEC could lawfully exclude candidates whose political parties failed to meet mandatory requirements. However, he maintained that candidates who believed they had been wrongly excluded should be able to challenge the decisions through the appropriate legal channels.
He called on the commission to provide clear reasons for every exclusion, apply the law equally to all parties and establish transparent procedures for correcting genuine errors within the legally prescribed period.
The lawyer added that political considerations and administrative mistakes should not prevent eligible candidates from participating in elections, stressing that electoral decisions must be guided by the rule of law.
The dispute 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 relating to political party membership registers.
The provisions require political parties to submit their membership registers to INEC within the stipulated period and use the submitted registers for primaries, congresses and conventions.
Following the judgment, INEC said it had 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 parties that believed their candidates had been wrongly omitted could notify it of the alleged errors by October 24, 2026, in line with Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The controversy has raised concerns about voters’ ability to choose from competing candidates and the effect of procedural requirements on political representation.
As preparations for the 2027 general elections continue, the commission’s handling of candidate nominations and requests for corrections is expected to remain under scrutiny, particularly as affected parties seek clarification over the omissions.