Gwarzo’s exclusion: NDC races against time as INEC deadline nears

With the October 24 deadline for reporting omissions from the 2027 governorship candidates’ list fast approaching, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) faces a race against time to resolve the exclusion of its Kano State governorship candidate, Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has given affected political parties until Saturday, October 24, to notify it of alleged omissions from the published list, leaving the NDC with a narrow window to challenge the absence of Gwarzo and his running mate, Mustapha Rabiu Kwankwaso.

The stakes are high. Unless the party can establish that the omission was unlawful and obtain an appropriate remedy, its ambition to contest the Kano governorship election could face a significant setback.

The controversy has already spilled onto the streets, with supporters of the Kwankwasiyya Movement staging a protest in Kano and demanding the reinstatement of the NDC candidates. But beyond the political pressure, the dispute raises a more consequential question: was the omission an administrative error that can be corrected, or does it reflect a legal obstacle that could prove difficult to overcome?

Protest, petition and INEC’s response
About a week ago, hundreds of Kwankwasiyya supporters took to the streets of Kano to protest Gwarzo’s exclusion from the governorship candidates’ list published by INEC.

Read Also:

How INEC’s final list left Kano NDC governorship candidate Gwarzo out

2027: Kano Governor Names Former Education Commissioner Kiru Campaign Spokesperson II

Atiku to Tinubu: Protect Nigerians, not just your billboards

Led by Mustapha Kwankwaso, the party’s deputy governorship candidate, the protesters marched to the commission’s state office, where they submitted a petition demanding Gwarzo’s reinstatement and an investigation into alleged irregularities surrounding the substitution of some candidates.

Addressing the protesters, Kwankwaso maintained that the party had complied with the rules governing candidate nomination and described the omission as unjust.

The Kano state resident electoral Commissioner, Abdu Zango, who received the petition, acknowledged the complaint and said it would be forwarded to INEC’s national headquarters for consideration.

Zango, however, pointed to the commission’s position on the omission and the opportunity available to affected parties to seek redress.

“Basically, what they came to do is to present a complaint about the omission of their candidates. INEC has made the reason for the omission clear, and there is a window of appeal that has been provided up to October 24,” he said.

He assured the protesters that their grievances would receive attention, commended them for presenting their complaint peacefully and urged political actors to pursue their grievances through lawful channels.

While the protest has amplified the party’s demand for reinstatement, INEC’s response suggests that the dispute must be resolved through the prescribed procedures rather than public pressure alone.

The supreme court judgment behind the controversy
At the heart of the dispute is a Supreme Court judgment that has raised questions about the eligibility of political parties to sponsor candidates in the 2027 elections.

On September 24, the Supreme Court, in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, Appeal No. SC/CV/495/2026, restored the operation of Sections 77(5), 77(6) and 77(7) of the Electoral Act, 2026, concerning the submission and use of political parties’ membership registers.

The provisions required political parties to submit their membership registers within the period stipulated in INEC’s timetable, which ran from April 21 to May 10, 2026.

The apex court upheld the statutory requirement and the consequences prescribed for parties that failed to comply, including ineligibility to field candidates.

INEC said it relied on the judgment when preparing the final governorship candidates’ list, citing Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which requires authorities to recognise and enforce judicial decisions.

The timing of the ruling has become a key part of the controversy. INEC published the presidential and National Assembly candidates’ lists on September 12, before the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. The final governorship candidates’ list, however, was published on October 10, after the ruling.

That sequence has placed the governorship candidates at the centre of the dispute, with the commission maintaining that it was required to take the judgment into account when preparing the list.

Yet the legal implications for the NDC depend on more than the timing of the judgment. The critical questions include whether the party complied with the applicable membership-register requirements, how the ruling applies to its circumstances and whether the omission can lawfully be corrected.

Why winning a primary may not be enough
The dispute highlights an important distinction in electoral law: the eligibility of an individual to contest an election is not necessarily the same as the eligibility of the political party seeking to sponsor that individual.

A candidate may emerge victorious in a party primary and satisfy personal qualification requirements, but those achievements may not be sufficient to secure a place on the ballot if the sponsoring party is legally ineligible to field candidates.

Conversely, if a party fulfilled the applicable statutory requirements and can establish that its candidate was wrongly omitted, it may have grounds to request a correction through the appropriate legal and administrative channels.

For the NDC, therefore, the immediate task is to establish the basis of the omission and demonstrate that the commission is legally empowered or required to correct it.

The distinction is crucial because the party’s assertion that it complied with the nomination requirements does not, by itself, settle the matter. The relevant records, the applicable provisions of the law and the commission’s reasons for excluding the candidates will all be central to determining the next course of action.

NDC insists its candidates were properly submitted
The NDC has maintained that the exclusion of Gwarzo and his running mate may have resulted from an administrative error.

The party’s Kano State chairman, Hussaini Mairiga, said the required details of the candidates had been submitted to INEC, disputing any suggestion that their absence from the list resulted from a failure to fulfil the party’s obligations.

The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Osa Director, also said the NDC had written to the commission and received acknowledgements of its correspondence but had yet to receive a substantive response.

He indicated that the party would pursue lawful remedies if the matter remained unresolved.

These claims place the burden of clarification on both sides. While the NDC insists that it fulfilled its obligations, INEC’s stated reliance on the Supreme Court judgment raises questions that the party will need to address with documentary evidence and, if necessary, legal arguments.

The commission’s response to the party’s complaint could therefore prove decisive in determining whether the matter can be resolved administratively or requires judicial intervention.

October 24 deadline
The October 24 deadline represents an important procedural window for affected parties to notify INEC of alleged omissions and present evidence supporting their complaints.

However, meeting the deadline does not automatically guarantee reinstatement. Any correction will depend on the circumstances of the omission, the applicable legal provisions and the commission’s assessment of the complaint.

If INEC maintains its position, the NDC could consider litigation, subject to the relevant legal grounds, procedural rules and applicable deadlines.

Such a move would introduce another dimension to an already sensitive political dispute, with the party seeking to protect its electoral prospects while the commission maintains its responsibility to implement the law and comply with judicial decisions.

The outcome could also have political consequences in Kano, where Gwarzo’s exclusion has triggered protests among Kwankwasiyya supporters and intensified attention on the NDC’s preparations for the 2027 governorship election.

A Test of Law, Procedure and Political Resolve
For the NDC, the challenge is no longer simply about securing recognition for a candidate who emerged through its internal nomination process. It is about establishing that the party met the legal requirements for participation and that the omission can be corrected under the law.

For INEC, the dispute presents a test of how its administrative procedures interact with binding judicial decisions, particularly where the timing of a ruling affects the preparation and publication of candidates’ lists.

As the deadline approaches, neither the protests nor the party’s public assurances can determine the outcome. The decisive factors will be the evidence presented, the legal basis of the omission and the remedies available under the applicable electoral framework.

Whether the NDC secures a correction from INEC or takes the matter to court, the coming days could prove critical to Gwarzo’s ambition to contest the Kano governorship election.

For now, the party’s ticket remains in limbo, and the countdown to October 24 has turned its dispute with INEC into a race against both time and the law.