INEC: One Law, Different Standards?

By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D

In a democracy, the ballot is supposed to determine who governs.

But before Nigerians choose their leaders, another contest takes place within political parties, where membership registers and nomination procedures determine whose names eventually appear on the ballot.

Increasingly, the controversy is not merely about who qualifies to contest, but whether the same electoral rules are being applied equally to everyone.

That question has acquired urgency ahead of the 2027 elections.

The Independent National Electoral Commission’s candidate lists have omitted prominent opposition aspirants while retaining a ruling party candidate whose eligibility has also been questioned.

The resulting controversy goes beyond individual ambitions to the credibility and impartiality of electoral administration.

The dispute follows the Supreme Court’s judgment of 24 September 2026 restoring provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 concerning membership registers and nominations.

Section 77 requires political parties to submit and use membership records within prescribed timelines, with consequences for noncompliance.
The principle is defensible.

Internal democracy requires reliable records identifying who belongs to a party and who may participate in its primaries.

Without such safeguards, influential politicians could manipulate membership and nomination processes to suit themselves.

But a safeguard becomes dangerous when records are unreliable or the rules appear unevenly enforced.

Consider Gombe State, where former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy Isa Pantami was omitted from INEC’s published governorship list.

His initial PDP nomination had been invalidated by a Federal High Court following complaints about the selection process.

The party subsequently conducted another primary, which he reportedly won, yet his name did not appear on the list.

In Ogun State, PDP governorship aspirant Ladi Adebutu was likewise omitted amid allegations that his name was absent from the membership register submitted to INEC.

His party disputes the allegations and insists that he was properly registered and nominated.

Neither dispute should be resolved by assumption rather than documentary evidence.

The controversy extends to Kano, where the Nigeria Democratic Congress governorship candidate, Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo, and his running mate were missing from the published list.

The party claims electoral officials attributed the omission to a computer error and promised a correction.

INEC should publicly confirm or refute that explanation, because a technical mistake must not be confused with statutory disqualification.

Rivers State presents the most politically sensitive comparison.

Kingsley Chinda, the All Progressives Congress governorship candidate, remains on INEC’s list despite questions about his compliance with the same membership requirements.

He reportedly registered with the APC on 27 April 2026, before its 21 May primary, although his formal defection from the PDP was publicly announced later.

His supporters argue that his earlier registration makes the nomination lawful.

But the decisive question is not merely when he joined the APC or announced his defection.

Was his name included in the legally operative membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period?

That is a question of records, not political preference.

INEC National Commissioner Mohammed Haruna has explained that the commission must enforce the Supreme Court judgment and that parties failing to meet statutory requirements risk losing candidates.

Yet this general explanation does not establish why individual candidates received different treatment.

What specific legal or administrative grounds explain the omissions in Gombe and Ogun?

Was Kano’s omission a computer error?

When did INEC receive the Rivers APC register, and did it contain Chinda’s name?

Were relevant court orders or other distinct circumstances responsible for the different outcomes?
These questions deserve documented answers.

Different outcomes do not automatically prove double standards.

Candidates may have different registration histories, party records, court orders and procedural defects.

An omitted name does not necessarily establish disqualification under Section 77, just as an included name does not conclusively establish compliance. Fair scrutiny requires examining each case on its merits.

Nevertheless, where ostensibly similar legal requirements appear to produce different consequences, INEC must demonstrate why.

Its credibility depends not only on impartial decisions but also on the public’s ability to understand the basis for them.

The APC has itself demanded strict enforcement of the Supreme Court judgment against parties that failed to comply. That demand is legitimate.

But a ruling party cannot insist upon uncompromising scrutiny of opponents while expecting its own nominations to escape equivalent examination.

Opposition parties, for their part, must resist the temptation to characterise every adverse decision as persecution.

They must maintain accurate registers, conduct lawful primaries and accept responsibility for administrative failures.

A party seeking to govern Nigeria should first demonstrate competence in managing its own affairs.

INEC bears a distinct responsibility because its decisions affect the choices available to voters.

When a candidate is excluded, the consequences reach beyond an individual’s political career.

Supporters may lose the opportunity to vote for their preferred party or candidate, and the resulting suspicion can undermine confidence before polling begins.

This is why membership registers must never become weapons controlled by political gatekeepers.

Parties need verifiable records of registration, corrections and submissions.

Members need fair opportunities to challenge errors before deadlines expire.

INEC should provide clear reasons for consequential decisions, consistent with the law and pending litigation.
None of this requires weakening statutory safeguards.

Consistent enforcement protects genuine party members from arbitrary nominations and shields elections from avoidable litigation.

But procedural discipline loses legitimacy when the public cannot distinguish neutral enforcement from selective accommodation.

The Supreme Court’s judgment should strengthen internal democracy, not generate fresh uncertainty about who may compete.

The 2027 elections will test not only INEC’s ability to count votes but also its willingness to apply the same rules before voting begins.

One electoral law cannot credibly produce different standards merely because the candidates belong to different political parties.

If INEC’s decisions rest on legitimate distinctions, it must demonstrate them.

Otherwise, the suspicion of selective enforcement will continue to erode public confidence in the very institution entrusted with protecting the ballot.

Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D, FIMC, CMC
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645