2027 elections: INEC explains omission of governorship candidates from list

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has explained why some political parties and their candidates were omitted from the final list for the 2027 governorship elections, citing a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the mandatory requirement for political parties to submit their membership registers before conducting valid primary elections.

The commission said the exclusions followed the Supreme Court’s decision in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026, delivered on September 24, 2026, which upheld the constitutionality of relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. Blueprint reports

In a statement issued on Tuesday, and signed by Mohammed Kudu Haruna, National Commissioner and Chairman of INEC’s Information and Voter Education Committee, the commission explained that it applied the court’s ruling while finalising the list of candidates for the 2027 governorship elections.

According to INEC, parties that failed to comply with the statutory requirements for submitting their membership registers were not eligible to sponsor candidates for the affected elections.

The clarification comes amid concerns over the absence of some candidates from the final governorship list, with the commission insisting that its action was based on the law and the binding decision of the apex court.

Supreme Court upholds membership register requirement

INEC said the Supreme Court judgment resolved the legal dispute surrounding Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) of the Electoral Act 2026, which prescribe requirements relating to political party membership registers and their submission to the commission.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, the Court of Appeal had nullified the provisions, prompting INEC to challenge the decision at the apex court.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the validity of the disputed provisions, affirming that the statutory requirements were constitutional and mandatory for political parties.

The judgment therefore restored the legal force of the provisions and established that political parties were required to comply with them in the process leading to the nomination of candidates for elections.

INEC said the ruling was central to its decision to exclude parties that failed to meet the stipulated requirements from the final list of candidates for the 2027 governorship polls.

The commission’s position is that compliance with the Electoral Act is not optional and that political parties seeking to participate in elections must satisfy the conditions prescribed by law.

The decision also underscores the significance of party membership registers in the electoral process, particularly in determining whether political parties have fulfilled the statutory conditions necessary to sponsor candidates.

INEC cites April-May deadline for party registers

The commission further explained that the Supreme Court upheld its election timetable, specifically Item 2, which provided the period for political parties to submit their membership registers.

According to INEC, the timetable stipulated that the registers were to be submitted between April 21 and May 10, 2026.

The commission said the apex court affirmed the validity of the timetable and the requirement that parties comply within the specified period.

Consequently, political parties that failed to submit their registers in accordance with Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 were considered non-compliant with the statutory conditions for sponsoring candidates.

INEC maintained that the failure of the affected parties to satisfy the requirements had consequences for their participation in the governorship elections.

The commission’s explanation indicates that the omission of the affected candidates was not presented as an arbitrary administrative decision but as the outcome of applying the law following the Supreme Court’s judgment.

By affirming both the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act and the timetable, the court provided the legal basis on which INEC said it acted during the finalisation of the governorship candidates’ list.

Why the governorship list was affected

INEC explained that the timing of the Supreme Court judgment was significant because the decision was delivered on September 24, 2026, while the commission was finalising the list of candidates for the governorship elections.

The ruling came after the Court of Appeal had nullified the disputed provisions, creating a legal question that was subsequently resolved by the Supreme Court.

Following the apex court’s decision, INEC said it applied the restored statutory requirements in determining which political parties had satisfied the conditions for sponsoring candidates.

The commission consequently excluded parties that had failed to comply with the membership register requirements from the final governorship list.

The explanation places the omissions within the context of the judicial proceedings and the commission’s responsibility to implement the Electoral Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

INEC also made clear that parties’ eligibility to sponsor candidates was tied to compliance with the law, rather than simply the conduct of their primaries or the submission of candidates’ names.

The statement did not identify the affected political parties or individual candidates. Instead, it set out the legal and administrative basis for the exclusions and explained the relevant provisions governing the process.

Presidential, National Assembly lists published before judgment

The commission also addressed the timing of the publication of candidate lists for other categories of elections, noting that the final lists for the presidential and National Assembly elections had already been published on September 12, 2026.

That publication took place 13 days before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on September 24.

The timing is relevant to INEC’s explanation because the commission said the Supreme Court ruling was applied while it was finalising the governorship list.

The statement therefore distinguished between the governorship list, which was being finalised when the judgment was delivered, and the presidential and National Assembly lists, which had already been published.

INEC’s clarification provides the timeline of events surrounding the different lists and the legal decision that informed its action on the governorship candidates.

The commission did not state in the clarification that the September 12 publication of the presidential and National Assembly lists amounted to a general exemption from the Electoral Act. Rather, it highlighted that those lists had been published before the apex court delivered its judgment.

October 24 deadline for complaints over omissions

Despite the exclusions, INEC reminded political parties of the legal procedure available to them if they believe their candidates were wrongly omitted from a published list.

The commission cited Section 32(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which provides that political parties have 14 days from the date of publication of a candidate list to notify the commission of alleged omissions.

Based on the timeline provided by INEC, the deadline for submitting such notifications is October 24, 2026.

The provision gives parties a defined period within which to draw the commission’s attention to alleged omissions and seek the necessary clarification or action under the law.

INEC’s reference to the deadline is significant for affected parties because it establishes the period within which they must raise concerns about the publication of candidates’ names.

Political parties that believe their candidates were wrongly excluded are therefore expected to follow the statutory procedure and act within the stipulated period.

However, the notification process does not, by itself, establish that an omission was unlawful or guarantee that an excluded candidate will be restored to the list. Any complaint would have to be considered in line with the applicable provisions of the Electoral Act and the legal circumstances of the case.

The commission’s reminder also places responsibility on political parties to monitor published lists and pursue any complaints within the time allowed by law.

INEC insists on rule of law and credible elections

INEC reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, adherence to the rule of law and the conduct of credible elections.

The commission said its actions were guided by the Electoral Act 2026 and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the disputed provisions.

Its clarification reinforces the position that political parties must satisfy the legal requirements for participation in elections and that the commission is obligated to implement the law as upheld by the courts.

The dispute over the membership register provisions also highlights the importance of timely compliance by political parties with electoral regulations, particularly where failure to meet statutory conditions could affect their ability to sponsor candidates.

For the affected parties, the immediate concern is the consequence of their exclusion from the final governorship list and whether any alleged omission can be addressed through the procedure provided by the Electoral Act.

With October 24 set as the deadline for notifying INEC of alleged omissions, the commission has pointed political parties to the statutory channel for raising complaints.

The clarification was signed by Mohammed Kudu Haruna, National Commissioner and Chairman of the Information and Voter Education Committee, on October 13, 2026.

INEC said its position remained anchored on compliance with the law, the authority of the courts and its responsibility to administer the electoral process in accordance with the legal framework governing the 2027 elections.