By The Merit Newspaper Editorial Board
The exclusion of Pantami, Adebutu and Gwarzo from the 2027 governorship candidates’ list exposes the dangers of internal party disputes, poor compliance and uncertainty over electoral procedures.
The exclusion of prominent politicians Professor Isa Ali Pantami, Oladipupo Ladi Adebutu and Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) final list of governorship candidates for the February 6, 2027 elections has raised important questions about political party administration, electoral compliance and the protection of democratic rights in Nigeria. Their absence from the published lists for Gombe, Ogun and Kano states respectively is a development that deserves serious public attention, not merely because of the political stature of the affected individuals, but also because of what it reveals about the responsibilities of political parties and the electoral umpire.
For a country preparing for another general election, the credibility of the electoral process must begin long before voters arrive at polling stations. It begins with transparent party membership registration, credible primaries, adherence to electoral laws and the timely submission of accurate documents to INEC. When prominent aspirants are missing from the final candidates’ list despite having reportedly emerged from party primaries, the public is entitled to ask what went wrong, which rules were breached, who bears responsibility and what remedies remain available under the law.
The circumstances surrounding the three politicians are not identical, and it would be misleading to treat their cases as though they arose from precisely the same circumstances. In Gombe State, Pantami, a former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, secured the Peoples Democratic Party’s governorship ticket after a Federal High Court nullified his earlier nomination and ordered a fresh primary. He won the rerun conducted on September 29, 2026, but his name was subsequently absent from INEC’s final list. The sequence raises questions about the relationship between compliance with a court-ordered primary and compliance with other statutory requirements governing candidate nomination. Winning a rerun does not necessarily resolve every separate legal question concerning a candidate’s eligibility or a party’s documentation.
In Ogun State, Adebutu’s omission, alongside that of his running mate, has brought the Peoples Democratic Party’s membership register into focus. Allegations were raised that his name was missing from the register submitted to INEC, while the Ogun PDP rejected the allegations and maintained that he was properly registered and that the party had complied with the relevant requirements. These competing positions underline the need for documentary evidence rather than political speculation. If the party submitted a valid register containing the candidate’s name within the statutory period, the relevant records should help establish that fact. If there was a deficiency, the party should explain how it occurred and what steps, if any, can lawfully address it.
Gwarzo’s case in Kano State presents a different question. His name and that of his running mate, Mustapha Rabiu Kwankwaso, were also missing from the final list. Reports have raised the possibility of an administrative or technical error, although INEC’s published list did not provide an individual explanation for the omission. An allegation of a computer or administrative error should neither be accepted as established fact nor dismissed without investigation. The commission should clarify whether the omission arose from a technical problem, a documentation issue, a question of statutory compliance or another identifiable cause. Transparency is particularly important where a simple administrative failure, if established, could affect a party’s participation in an election.
A significant legal background to the controversy is the Supreme Court’s September 24, 2026 decision restoring provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 relating to party membership registers and participation in primaries. The provisions, including Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2), address the use and submission of party membership registers and the conditions under which political parties may field candidates. The judgment followed an earlier Court of Appeal decision that had invalidated the disputed provisions. The Supreme Court’s intervention therefore restored a statutory framework that political parties must take seriously as they prepare their candidates for the 2027 elections.
The lesson is clear: political parties cannot afford to regard membership registers, primary-election procedures and nomination documents as routine paperwork that can be handled carelessly or corrected at the last minute. These are matters with direct consequences for political participation. Party leaders and officials must ensure that membership records are accurate, registers are submitted within the prescribed period, aspirants are treated in accordance with applicable rules and nomination procedures are properly documented. A party that fails to meet statutory obligations risks harming not only its candidate but also its members, supporters and the voters who expect to have a meaningful choice at the ballot box.
At the same time, INEC must discharge its responsibilities with transparency, consistency and procedural fairness. The commission has a duty to enforce the law, and it must not compromise statutory requirements merely because an affected politician is prominent or commands a large political following. Equally, enforcement should be accompanied by clear explanations that enable the affected parties and the public to understand the basis of consequential decisions. Where the law permits clarification or correction of an administrative error, the relevant procedure should be applied consistently. Where a statutory deadline or legal restriction makes a remedy unavailable, the commission should explain that position within the limits of the law. Fairness does not mean ignoring electoral requirements; it means applying them impartially and accountably.
The affected politicians and their parties also have responsibilities. They should make relevant membership records, submission acknowledgements, primary-election documents and court orders available through appropriate legal channels where necessary. Their claims should be tested against verifiable evidence, not simply against public declarations that they won party primaries. If they believe INEC acted unlawfully, they should pursue the remedies provided by the law. The public, in turn, should resist the temptation to interpret every omission as proof of political persecution or to assume automatically that every decision by the electoral commission is beyond question.
READ ALSO:Ajadi Celebrates Chief Ogunlade at 85
The wider implication extends beyond the three politicians. Other political parties and aspirants must examine their own compliance with the Electoral Act and INEC’s requirements rather than wait until final lists are published before discovering deficiencies. The 2027 elections should not become a contest in which avoidable administrative failures, internal party rivalries and unresolved nomination disputes deprive voters of legitimate choices. Political parties are essential institutions of representative democracy, and their credibility depends substantially on how responsibly they manage their internal affairs.
There is also a need to protect the distinction between a party’s political decision and a candidate’s legal status. A primary election may produce a declared winner, but the declaration alone does not guarantee inclusion on the final list if applicable legal requirements have not been satisfied. Conversely, a candidate’s omission should not automatically be interpreted as a final judicial determination of personal wrongdoing or permanent ineligibility. The precise legal position depends on the circumstances, the relevant statutory provisions and any decisions of competent courts.
As Nigeria approaches the February 6, 2027 governorship elections, INEC should provide the clearest permissible explanations for the omissions, while the affected parties should substantiate their claims with documentary evidence. Any dispute must be addressed promptly through lawful procedures, without special treatment for political heavyweights and without unnecessary barriers to legitimate participation. Electoral credibility is strengthened when rules are clear, decisions are reasoned and remedies are accessible in accordance with the law.
READ ALSO:Ayra Starr Makes History at NFL Show in London
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Pantami, Adebutu and Gwarzo is a reminder that democracy requires more than political ambition, campaign rallies and victory declarations at party primaries. It requires disciplined political parties, an impartial electoral commission, respect for judicial decisions and a system that treats all participants according to the same legal standards. The overriding objective must be to protect the integrity of the electoral process while ensuring that every consequential decision is grounded in law, supported by evidence and open to appropriate scrutiny. That is the standard Nigerians should demand of both their political parties and INEC as the country prepares for the 2027 elections.
