As the 24th October deadline looms, former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Ali Pantami, along with former Ogun State governorship candidate Oladipupo Adebutu, and Aminu Gwarzo of the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), are at a critical juncture in their bid to be reinstated on the 2027 governorship candidates’ list. The pivotal question remains whether their respective political parties can successfully secure their inclusion on the ballot.
Both the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the NDC have explicitly threatened legal action against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should these significant omissions from the candidate list not be rectified. However, recent developments indicate that efforts by these parties to engage with the commission have yet to yield a breakthrough.
INEC’s clarification issued on 13th October had provided affected political parties until 24th October to formally notify the commission of any alleged wrongful exclusions. This followed the release of the final governorship candidates’ list on 10th October.
The commission justified the deadline by citing Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which permits a 14-day window for parties to report candidates they believe have been erroneously excluded. Yet, this window does not automatically guarantee reinstatement. The core challenge for the affected parties lies in demonstrating that their candidates were indeed wrongly omitted, rather than excluded due to a failure to comply with statutory requirements that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Pantami's Gombe State Candidacy in Limbo
For Isa Ali Pantami, the immediate hurdle arises despite his emergence as the PDP’s governorship candidate for Gombe State. This situation follows a court-ordered rerun of the party’s primary on 29th September. Although Pantami’s name was initially present on INEC’s provisional list, published on 29th August, it was conspicuously absent from the final list released in October.
Mohammed Jungudo, the PDP’s national publicity secretary, reportedly confirmed that both the party and the candidate’s legal team had contacted INEC regarding this matter. Pantami’s lawyers had also subsequently submitted written correspondence to the commission. Despite these efforts, the party has reported no resolution and is contemplating legal remedies if the issue remains unresolved after the statutory period.
Adebutu and Kolapo-Sowunmi Missing from Ogun List
Oladipupo Adebutu faces a similar predicament. The PDP candidate and his running mate, Kolapo-Sowunmi, were both omitted from the final list for Ogun State. This raises serious concerns about the party’s capacity to field its preferred candidates in the upcoming contest. The Ogun PDP has steadfastly asserted that Adebutu fulfilled all party membership-registration requirements, accusing the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of exerting undue pressure on INEC. However, INEC's explanation for these exclusions centres on non-compliance with statutory membership-register requirements.
Gwarzo's Case: An Administrative Mix-up?
Aminu Gwarzo’s situation introduces yet another dimension to the controversy. Hussaini Mairiga, the NDC’s Kano State chairman, insists that the party duly submitted the details for Gwarzo and his running mate, Mustapha Rabiu Kwankwaso. He attributes their absence from the list to a potential administrative oversight. Osa Director, the party’s national publicity secretary, confirmed that the NDC had written to INEC and received acknowledgements, but has yet to receive a substantive response. The party has indicated it will pursue lawful recourse if the omission is not addressed.
Supreme Court Ruling on Membership Registers
The legal complexity underpinning these three cases stems from the Supreme Court’s judgment on 24th September in the case of INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026. This apex court ruling reinstated the enforceability of Sections 77(5), 77(6), and 77(7) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which govern the submission and utilisation of political parties’ membership registers.
These provisions mandated parties to submit their membership registers within a timeframe stipulated by INEC’s timetable, specifically from 21st April to 10th May 2026. The Supreme Court affirmed this requirement and the statutory consequence that any party failing to comply would be deemed ineligible to sponsor candidates.
INEC stated that it applied this judgment when finalising the governorship candidates’ list, citing Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which obliges authorities to implement judicial decisions. The commission further highlighted that the presidential and National Assembly candidates’ lists were published on 12th September, prior to the Supreme Court’s judgment, whereas the final governorship list followed afterwards. This timing explains why the current controversy is concentrated on the governorship list.
Crucially, the Supreme Court’s reasoning distinguishes between an individual’s personal qualification to contest an election and a political party’s eligibility to sponsor a candidate. The judgment did not automatically disqualify every member if a party failed to submit its membership register; instead, the statutory consequence under Section 77(7) pertains to the party’s capacity to field candidates.
This distinction is vital, as simply proving they won their primaries may not suffice for the candidates. A validly conducted primary could still be insufficient if the sponsoring party is ineligible under the law. Conversely, if a party genuinely complied with the relevant requirements and can prove INEC wrongly omitted its candidate, the commission would need to consider this evidence and the applicable legal provisions.
Implications and Outlook
The 24th October deadline serves as a procedural opportunity rather than a guarantee of reinstatement. Parties must formally notify INEC within this period and substantiate their complaints. Should the commission maintain its stance, legal challenges are likely to follow, with outcomes dependent on specific facts, legal arguments, and procedural requirements.
Beyond the legal ramifications, there are broader political implications. The continued exclusion of PDP candidates in Gombe and Ogun could significantly impact the opposition party’s prospects in two crucial governorship contests, while the NDC faces uncertainty over its Kano ticket. However, the political prominence of the candidates cannot supersede the imperative of complying with electoral law.
As the deadline approaches, the available evidence offers neither a definitive end to these politicians’ ambitions nor a firm promise of their return to the ballot. Their strongest chance lies in demonstrating that their exclusions are legally rectifiable, rather than merely matters of political contention. Ultimately, 24th October may mark the close of the initial notification window, but it may not resolve all disputes surrounding these candidates. Whether INEC revises the list or the parties escalate to court, the decisive factor remains: can the affected parties demonstrate that their exclusion was unlawful in the specific circumstances of their cases?