By Simpson Global Media News Desk
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is facing calls for clarification from political parties and candidates following disputes over its final lists for Nigeria’s 2027 governorship and State House of Assembly elections, with several political figures absent from the published lists and competing claims emerging over party nominations.
The controversy intensified on Monday, October 12, after political parties sought explanations for missing names and INEC separately warned the public against sharing a fraudulent online publication purporting to be a special announcement about governorship candidates in six states.
The commission said the circulating publication was fake and did not originate from INEC. The affected states named in its warning were Zamfara, Gombe, Delta, Plateau, Yobe and Kano. It urged Nigerians to rely on its official website and verified social media channels for electoral information. [Source: Channels Television, October 12, 2026.]
The dispute follows INEC’s release of its final lists of governorship candidates in 28 states and State House of Assembly candidates across the country ahead of elections scheduled for February 6, 2027. Among the notable omissions reported are former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Isa Ali Pantami, who sought the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) ticket in Gombe State, and the PDP’s governorship candidate in Ogun State, Oladipupo Adebutu. [Sources: Premium Times, October 11, 2026; PUNCH, October 12, 2026.]
The developments have placed renewed attention on candidate nomination procedures, compliance with electoral law, internal party disputes and the process through which discrepancies in official lists may be addressed.
INEC warns against fake candidate-list publication
In a public notice reported on Monday, INEC disowned a document circulating online that purported to be a special announcement concerning governorship candidates in six states.
The commission described the publication as fraudulent and said it had not issued the purported announcement. It called on the public to disregard the document and avoid sharing it further.
INEC also directed citizens to consult its verified communication channels, including its official website, social media accounts and news portal, for authentic electoral updates. [Source: Channels Television, October 12, 2026.]
The warning came as parties and candidates were already questioning omissions from the commission’s final lists. In such circumstances, an unauthenticated document can create further confusion by presenting unverified claims as official decisions.
The commission’s notice concerning the fake publication should be distinguished from the separate, documented disputes over names absent from the final candidate lists. The warning does not, by itself, resolve the cases involving candidates who say they were omitted or those whose nominations are being challenged.
For voters, party members and campaign organisations, the distinction is important. An authentic INEC list, a court order, a party statement and a social media post do not carry the same evidentiary weight. Any claim that a candidate has been added, removed or reinstated should be checked against an official notice or a relevant court decision.
The commission’s challenge will be to communicate clearly while addressing legitimate questions about its published lists. Timely clarification can help candidates understand their status and reduce the circulation of claims that have not been verified.
Pantami and Adebutu absent from the published list
Two prominent omissions have drawn national attention.
In Gombe State, Isa Pantami, a former federal minister who emerged as the PDP’s candidate following a fresh party primary, was not included in INEC’s final list. In Ogun State, the commission’s list did not include the PDP’s Oladipupo Adebutu or his running mate. [Sources: Premium Times, October 10–11, 2026; PUNCH, October 10–11, 2026.]
The omissions have prompted reactions from the affected political camps and raised questions about the eligibility requirements and documentation underpinning the commission’s final publication.
The circumstances are not identical. Pantami’s case involves a court-ordered fresh primary following litigation over the PDP’s earlier nomination process. Adebutu’s case has been linked in media reports to questions about the PDP membership register submitted to INEC.
The commission’s published lists did not provide detailed explanations for every omission, according to the reporting available. Consequently, the absence of a name should not automatically be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing by a candidate or party.
The cases require examination of the applicable law, the relevant party records, court orders where applicable and any subsequent decisions or clarifications issued by the electoral commission.
The PDP says it is engaging INEC
The PDP said it was engaging INEC to address the omission of some of its candidates from the final lists.
The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Jungudo Mohammed, said in a statement on Sunday that the leadership, led by Abdulrahman Mohammed, was treating the issue seriously and pursuing an amicable resolution in line with the law and established electoral guidelines.
The party also urged affected candidates, members and supporters to remain calm while the matter was being addressed. [Source: Premium Times, October 11, 2026.]
The statement indicates that the party intends to pursue clarification through engagement with the electoral commission. However, it does not establish that the omitted names will automatically be restored.
Whether an omission can be corrected administratively or requires further legal proceedings will depend on the facts of each case, the relevant statutory provisions and any applicable court orders.
The affected candidates and their parties must also consider the deadlines governing election disputes. Electoral processes operate under specific legal timetables, and the available remedies may depend on when a complaint arises and the nature of the decision being challenged.
The PDP’s engagement with INEC is therefore one part of a process that may involve documentary review, formal correspondence and, where necessary, legal action.
What the Supreme Court ruling means
The candidate-list controversy has unfolded against the background of a Supreme Court judgment concerning provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 governing party membership registers and participation in party primaries.
According to Premium Times, the Supreme Court on September 24 restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after the Court of Appeal had declared the provisions unconstitutional in July.
The restored provisions concern the membership register that political parties are required to submit to INEC and the relationship between that register and participation in party primaries, congresses and conventions. Section 77(5), as reported, restricts participation in party primaries to members whose names appear on the membership register submitted to the commission within the prescribed period. Section 77(7) provides consequences for a party that fails to submit its register as required. [Source: Premium Times, October 11, 2026.]
The judgment has become relevant to questions about whether particular candidates satisfied the statutory requirements for nomination.
However, the effect of the ruling must be assessed in relation to each candidate’s circumstances. The existence of a dispute about a membership register does not, on its own, settle every question about a nomination. The underlying records, the dates of relevant party activities and any court orders must be considered.
Political parties are responsible for complying with applicable nomination rules and maintaining the records required by law. INEC, in turn, must administer the electoral process in accordance with the governing legal framework.
The disputes now emerging illustrate how party administration, statutory requirements and judicial decisions can intersect during preparations for an election.
The Gombe case: a fresh primary and a missing name
Pantami’s omission followed a sequence of legal and party developments in Gombe State.
Premium Times reported that the Federal High Court in Gombe nullified his initial nomination on September 24 and directed the PDP to conduct a fresh primary within 30 days. The case followed challenges by other PDP aspirants who disputed the process that produced Pantami as the party’s candidate.
The court’s decision concerned compliance with party procedures and applicable electoral requirements. Pantami subsequently contested the fresh primary held on September 29 and emerged as the party’s candidate again, according to the report.
His name was nevertheless absent from INEC’s final list, prompting his camp to issue a statement expressing concern and saying the party and its legal and liaison teams were engaging the relevant authorities to seek a resolution. [Sources: Premium Times, October 10–11, 2026; Channels Television, October 10, 2026.]
The sequence raises a practical question: how should a nomination resulting from a fresh primary ordered by a court be reflected in the commission’s final publication?
Answering that question requires examining the court order, the party’s compliance with it, the relevant documentation submitted to INEC and the applicable statutory deadlines. The fact that a fresh primary was conducted does not by itself establish that every administrative and legal requirement was met.
Equally, the omission from the list does not settle the dispute without further information about the commission’s consideration of the documents and the legal position.
The matter is therefore one for clarification through the relevant institutional and legal processes. Any final conclusion about Pantami’s eligibility or the status of the PDP nomination should be based on authoritative records rather than assumptions drawn solely from the published list.
The Ogun case: questions over party membership records
In Ogun State, Adebutu’s absence from the final list has been associated with questions about the PDP membership register submitted to INEC.
Premium Times reported that groups had questioned his eligibility, alleging that his name was absent from the register. The Ogun PDP rejected the allegation, maintaining that Adebutu was a duly registered party member and that the party had complied with the statutory requirements for submitting its membership register.
The commission’s final list did not include Adebutu or his running mate among the 13 governorship candidates published for Ogun State. [Sources: Premium Times, October 10–11, 2026; PUNCH, October 10, 2026.]
The competing positions make the underlying membership records particularly important. A claim about whether a person was included in a register should be examined against the actual documents, submission records and applicable legal requirements.
The party’s rejection of the allegation represents its stated position; it does not independently establish the outcome of the dispute. Similarly, allegations by outside groups should not be treated as proven facts without supporting evidence and a determination through the appropriate process.
The omission leaves the PDP without a listed governorship candidate in the published Ogun list at this stage. Whether that position changes will depend on the applicable legal procedures and any subsequent official action.
Other parties report discrepancies
The concerns extend beyond the PDP candidates in Gombe and Ogun.
PUNCH reported on October 12 that parties and candidates were seeking clarification over several omissions and discrepancies in the final lists. The reports included concerns involving the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC), African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party and Social Democratic Party (SDP), among others.
In Nasarawa State, the Accord Party’s governorship candidate, Shuaibu Kubi, was reported absent from the list. Bukhari Nata’ala of the Action Alliance, whose name had appeared on an earlier list, was also reported missing from the final publication.
The reports also described disputes over party nominations and candidate substitutions in Lagos State, including cases involving candidates who said they had won primaries but were subsequently displaced on their parties’ final tickets. [Source: PUNCH, October 12, 2026.]
The details differ from state to state. Some disputes concern alleged administrative mistakes; others involve disagreements over internal party decisions, nomination procedures or cases already before the courts.
Those distinctions matter because the remedy for a clerical error may differ from the remedy for a contested primary or a legal question about eligibility.
Candidates who believe their names have been wrongly omitted must establish the basis of their complaint and use the appropriate channels to seek redress. Parties must also ensure that their submissions are complete, accurate and consistent with the law.
For INEC, the challenge is to respond to valid complaints while applying the same legal standards to all parties and candidates.
Candidate lists and the importance of accuracy
The publication of candidate lists is a central part of election administration because it tells voters which individuals have been cleared to contest particular offices.
An omission can have serious consequences for an affected candidate and party. It can create uncertainty among supporters, complicate campaign planning and trigger legal challenges that must be resolved within the electoral timetable.
Errors involving names, party affiliations, running mates or other candidate details can also undermine confidence if they are not addressed transparently.
At the same time, the final list is not simply a political document. It reflects an administrative process governed by law, nomination records and the commission’s assessment of submissions. Candidates and parties cannot assume that an earlier announcement by a party automatically guarantees inclusion in the official list.
A reliable process requires parties to meet nomination requirements, candidates to satisfy the applicable conditions and INEC to publish accurate information. Where a dispute arises, the commission should communicate the basis of its position to the extent permitted by law, while affected parties should use established procedures to challenge decisions they consider incorrect.
The current controversy demonstrates why accurate records and clear communication are essential as Nigeria approaches another general election cycle.
The risk of misinformation during election preparations
The circulation of the fake INEC notice adds a separate information challenge to the candidate-list dispute.
Electoral periods often produce a high volume of claims about candidate eligibility, party defections, court decisions, campaign schedules and official announcements. When unverified documents are presented as genuine notices, people may share them before checking the source.
Such circulation can confuse voters and make it harder to distinguish a genuine institutional decision from an unauthenticated claim.
INEC’s warning is a reminder that citizens should verify election information through the commission’s official website, verified accounts and formal publications. News reports can provide useful context, but claims about a candidate’s legal status should be checked against the underlying official documents wherever possible.
Political parties also have a responsibility to communicate accurately with supporters. Where a candidate’s name is missing, parties should explain what they know, what they are contesting and which formal steps they intend to take.
Journalists and media organisations must distinguish between confirmed information, allegations and claims that remain unresolved. A statement from a political party should be attributed to that party rather than presented as an independently established finding.
These practices are especially important when a story involves named candidates and potentially consequential legal questions.
The legal options available to affected candidates
The path available to a candidate who disputes an omission depends on the facts and the relevant electoral law.
In some circumstances, the candidate or party may seek clarification from INEC and submit documents showing that a record was incorrectly entered or overlooked. Where the dispute concerns a nomination, eligibility requirement or contested primary, the matter may require a more substantive legal assessment.
Any application for correction must comply with applicable procedures and deadlines. A candidate cannot assume that an informal request will be sufficient where the law requires a formal process or judicial determination.
The existence of pending litigation can also affect how a dispute is handled. If a court has already issued an order relevant to a nomination, the terms of that order and the steps taken to comply with it become important evidence.
The current cases should therefore be assessed individually rather than treated as a single dispute with one solution.
INEC’s final publication is an important official record, but parties seeking a change must rely on the applicable legal process. Until an authoritative clarification or decision is issued, claims that an omitted candidate has been restored—or that a dispute has been conclusively settled—should be treated cautiously.
Why the 2027 timetable matters
The disputes are emerging as political parties prepare for the 2027 elections.
INEC’s final candidate lists cover governorship contests in 28 states and State House of Assembly elections scheduled for February 6, 2027. The commission’s publication marks a significant stage in preparations for those polls, but disputes over omissions may require additional attention.
The timetable makes early clarification important. Parties need to know which candidates are officially listed so they can plan campaign activities and communicate accurately with supporters. Candidates need clarity about their status, while voters need dependable information about the choices available in their constituencies.
Prolonged uncertainty can also divert time and resources into disputes that might otherwise be resolved through clear documentation and timely institutional responses.
Nevertheless, the urgency of the election calendar should not replace due process. Any correction or determination must follow the relevant legal requirements, and claims should not be resolved through political pressure or public speculation.
The commission and affected parties will need to work within the rules that govern the electoral process, including any applicable limits on when and how disputes may be brought.
What voters should watch for
For voters, the immediate task is to distinguish confirmed information from unresolved claims.
Citizens should consult official candidate lists and subsequent notices issued by INEC. Where a party says that a candidate has been omitted in error, voters should look for a formal clarification or decision rather than assume that the complaint has already been resolved.
It is also important to understand that different disputes may produce different outcomes. A missing name resulting from an administrative discrepancy is not necessarily the same as a nomination affected by a court order or an eligibility challenge.
Voters can follow the responses from the affected parties, the commission and the courts, while avoiding the circulation of documents whose authenticity cannot be established.
The public also has a legitimate interest in the accuracy and transparency of election administration. Requests for clarification, scrutiny of official notices and responsible reporting can help ensure that electoral information remains accessible and reliable.
The goal is not to prejudge the cases, but to establish the facts and understand how the rules are being applied.
The need for clear and consistent communication
The present dispute places a premium on communication from both INEC and the political parties.
The commission has already warned against the fake publication concerning six states. Separately, the complaints over omitted candidates create a need for clear explanations about the status of individual cases, subject to the applicable law and any ongoing court proceedings.
Where an omission is confirmed to be an error, a transparent correction process could help reduce uncertainty. Where a name is absent because of an eligibility issue or unresolved nomination dispute, the relevant reasons and legal procedures should be made clear to the extent possible.
Political parties should likewise provide accurate information about their submissions, internal decisions and legal actions. Where they disagree with INEC, they should identify the basis of their objections and the remedy they are seeking.
Consistent communication will not eliminate every disagreement, but it can help prevent speculation from filling gaps in public information.
What happens next?
As of October 12, 2026, the reported position is that INEC has published its final lists, several parties and candidates are seeking clarification over omissions, and the commission has disowned a separate fake notice circulating online about governorship candidates in six states.
The PDP says it is engaging INEC over the absence of some of its candidates. The cases involving Pantami in Gombe and Adebutu in Ogun remain central to the dispute, while reports indicate that other parties and candidates are also challenging discrepancies in the published lists. [Sources: Premium Times, October 11, 2026; PUNCH, October 12, 2026; Channels Television, October 12, 2026.]
The next developments to watch are formal responses from INEC, any corrections or further official notices, and legal steps taken by candidates or parties who remain dissatisfied with their status.
The available reports do not establish that all the disputed names will be restored or that every omission has the same cause. Those questions must be resolved through verified records and the relevant legal processes.
For Nigeria’s 2027 elections, the central issues are the accuracy of candidate information, compliance with nomination requirements and the timely resolution of legitimate disputes.
INEC’s warning against fake notices is one part of that responsibility. The broader task is to ensure that candidates, parties and voters can rely on authentic information as preparations for the elections continue.
The final outcome of the current disputes will depend on the applicable law, the evidence in each case and decisions made through the appropriate institutional channels. Until then, the public should follow verified updates and avoid treating allegations or unofficial documents as settled fact.
Comments
Post a Comment