INEC faces two critical tests ahead of the 2027 elections: defending its authority to enforce candidate nomination rules and proving that its voter register is free from manipulation. Legal disputes over omitted candidates and the discovery of questionable registration records have placed the commission’s decisions, internal controls and public credibility under fresh scrutiny.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is confronting a double challenge ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 general election. While the exclusion of some political candidates has triggered questions about the limits of its constitutional powers, the discovery of more than 1.5 million questionable voter registration records has exposed vulnerabilities within the system responsible for determining who can vote.
The two controversies concern different stages of the electoral process, but they lead to one fundamental question: can Nigerians trust the commission to enforce electoral laws fairly, protect eligible voters and prevent manipulation before polling day?
The candidate controversy has divided constitutional lawyers and political analysts. Some maintain that INEC cannot independently disqualify candidates duly nominated by political parties, while others say the commission has a statutory duty to reject nominations that fail to satisfy electoral requirements.
The dispute has become particularly prominent following the omission of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate Oladipupo Adebutu and his running mate from Ogun State’s final list of candidates for the 2027 election.
At the same time, INEC’s Director of Information and Communication Technology, Dr Lawrence Bayode, has disclosed that the commission’s biometric screening system identified 1,545,052 questionable records among 11,088,238 registrations recorded during the 2026 Continuous Voter Registration exercise.
The developments have placed the commission under pressure to demonstrate that its administrative decisions are grounded in law and that its voter database can withstand attempts at electoral manipulation.
RELATED NEWS:
The legal distinction at the centre of the candidate dispute
The central issue in the Adebutu controversy is the difference between an individual candidate’s constitutional qualification and a political party’s compliance with statutory conditions for sponsoring candidates.
Section 29 of the Electoral Act 2026 regulates the submission of candidates’ particulars by political parties. Section 77, meanwhile, establishes requirements for party membership registers and participation in party primaries.
Under Section 77(4), political parties are required to submit their membership registers to INEC at least 21 days before conducting primaries, congresses or conventions.
Section 77(5) restricts participation in party primaries to members whose names appear on the submitted register. Section 77(7) provides that a party which fails to submit its register within the prescribed period will not be eligible to field candidates for the election.
These provisions became the subject of litigation after the Zenith Labour Party challenged their constitutionality. The Supreme Court, in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, delivered on September 24, 2026, restored the disputed provisions after the Court of Appeal had declared them unconstitutional.
The ruling affirmed the legal force of the membership-register requirements. However, its implications require careful interpretation.
The failure of a political party to submit its register within the statutory period affects the party’s eligibility to field candidates. Separately, the absence of an aspirant’s name from a register properly submitted within the prescribed period raises questions about that person’s eligibility to participate in the party primary.
This distinction matters because a party’s failure to comply with a statutory obligation is not automatically the same as an individual candidate’s personal disqualification under the Constitution.
Legal practitioner Emmanuel Umahi Ekwe made this distinction where he noted that INEC can enforce nomination requirements but cannot exercise unlimited authority over candidates.
He said the commission must establish the specific statutory breach, apply the law consistently and allow affected parties to pursue remedies available under the law.
Why Adebutu’s omission raises further questions
Adebutu’s case has attracted attention because of questions surrounding the PDP’s membership register and the treatment of candidates submitted by the party in Ogun State.
A constitutional lawyer, Monday Mawah, questioned INEC’s decision to include 38 of the PDP’s 40 submitted candidates while omitting Adebutu and his running mate.
His concern centres on consistency. If the commission considered the party’s submission defective, he asked why the same decision did not affect all the candidates submitted by the party.
He also questioned why Adebutu’s particulars were initially published before his name was subsequently removed.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Abiodun Layonu said INEC’s role was primarily administrative and supervisory, while disputes over valid nominations and court orders must be handled within the judicial framework.
Another SAN, Francis Amobi Nzelu, maintained that the commission could not arbitrarily remove a candidate duly nominated by a political party. He said disputes over substitutions and contested nominations should be taken to court.
However, other legal opinions point to INEC’s statutory responsibility to enforce the Electoral Act. Wale Obanigba, for instance, said the commission could not validate a nomination where the aspirant failed to satisfy the membership-register requirements governing participation in party primaries.
The disagreement does not mean that the law permits INEC to act without explanation. The commission must identify the provision relied upon, establish the relevant facts and show how those facts justify the action taken.
The decisive questions in Adebutu’s case include whether his name appeared in the PDP register submitted within the statutory window, whether the party complied with the applicable requirements and whether the commission applied the same legal standard to other candidates in comparable circumstances.
The answers are essential to determining whether the omission was a lawful enforcement decision or an administrative action requiring judicial examination.
The 1.5 million voter records under scrutiny
While the candidate dispute unfolds, another development has placed the integrity of the electoral process under examination.
Bayode disclosed that INEC subjected the 11,088,238 registrations recorded during the 2026 Continuous Voter Registration exercise to its Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS).
The system flagged 1,545,052 records for suspected irregularities, including possible multiple registrations and questionable identity details. Of these, 1,277,252 were reportedly confirmed invalid and removed, while approximately 268,000 were still awaiting human verification.
These figures require an important distinction. The 1.5 million records flagged by the system should not all be described as proven fake voters. A biometric alert identifies a record that requires examination. It does not, by itself, establish fraud.
Bayode explained that the commission’s procedure requires human adjudication before a flagged registration can be rejected. This safeguard is important because an eligible citizen should not lose the right to vote simply because a computer system identifies an unusual feature in their registration.
The commission has therefore faced two responsibilities: removing fraudulent entries while protecting genuine voters whose records may have been mistakenly flagged.
How officials allegedly exploited the system
The most troubling aspect of the investigation concerns allegations that some registration officials used their authorised access to introduce questionable records into the database.
Bayode said some officials allegedly abused a special registration provision designed to accommodate persons with disabilities who have incomplete or missing fingers.
The provision allows eligible applicants who cannot provide complete fingerprints to register through an alternative process. However, officials allegedly exploited this facility to create fictitious voter profiles.
The commission also identified cases involving identical photographs attached to different voter profiles, as well as images reportedly taken from calendars and picture frames and used to deceive its web-based registration platform.
Bayode said the commission was investigating the suspected misconduct and had withdrawn access from officials under scrutiny.
He also explained that digital access records and one-time password authentication could help establish responsibility. Officials receive verification codes through registered email addresses or telephone numbers before accessing the system.
The ICT director said he was taking time to establish sufficient evidence before submitting his investigative report, to avoid implicating innocent personnel.
His position, thus, reflects an important principle: allegations of internal misconduct must be investigated thoroughly, and disciplinary action should follow established procedures rather than assumptions.
Why BVAS cannot solve every problem
INEC has pointed to the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) as an important safeguard against electoral fraud. The technology uses biometric verification to confirm the identity of voters at polling units.
However, BVAS and the voter register perform different functions.
The register establishes who is recognised as an eligible voter, while BVAS helps verify the person presenting themselves to vote. Biometric accreditation can prevent someone from voting under another person’s identity, but it does not remove the need for an accurate register.
A questionable entry can still create administrative problems, distort the apparent size of the electorate in a polling unit and complicate the production and distribution of Permanent Voter Cards.
Bayode illustrated the risk with a hypothetical polling unit containing 800 registered voters, 400 of whom were fictitious. Such a situation could create opportunities for manipulation if the false records were allowed to progress through the electoral process.
The commission’s biometric safeguards may reduce the possibility of impersonation, but they cannot replace accurate registration, internal supervision and credible investigations.
December 15 deadline raises the pressure
INEC is expected to complete its verification and cleaning exercise before December 15, 2026, when the final register is scheduled to be certified.
The deadline makes the outstanding 268,000 records particularly important. The commission must establish which entries are genuine, which require correction and which should be removed.
It must also provide sufficient information for Nigerians to understand the exercise. A detailed breakdown of the flagged records, the grounds for their rejection and the number of cases still awaiting adjudication would help the public assess the scale of the problem.
Bayode acknowledged that the controversy had complicated INEC’s efforts to rebuild public confidence, saying: “We are trying to build the trust, whether you like it or not, the trust is on the ground zero.”
He also expressed willingness to allow independent scrutiny of the voter database, including possible engagement of a third party. Such an exercise could help establish whether the commission’s corrective measures are effective.
The accountability test ahead of 2027
The candidate-list dispute and the voter-register investigation should not be treated as the same legal problem. One concerns the interpretation and enforcement of nomination requirements; the other concerns the accuracy of voter records and alleged misconduct by registration officials.
Still, both demand transparency from the electoral commission.
On candidate nominations, INEC must explain the legal basis for exclusions, demonstrate consistency and comply with binding court decisions. On voter registration, it must publish credible findings, protect genuine registrants and ensure that officials implicated in misconduct face appropriate disciplinary or legal consequences where evidence supports such action.
Political parties also have responsibilities. They must maintain accurate membership registers, follow nomination procedures and resolve internal disputes through lawful channels rather than expect the commission to overlook statutory breaches.
The stakes extend beyond the candidates and officials directly involved. Nigerians at home and abroad have an interest in an electoral system that recognises legitimate candidates, protects eligible voters and produces results that citizens can trust.
INEC’s credibility will not be secured by technology alone or by insisting that its decisions are correct. It will depend on the quality of its evidence, the fairness of its procedures and its willingness to subject disputed decisions to lawful scrutiny.
As the final voter register approaches certification and candidate disputes gather legal attention, the commission has a narrowing window to demonstrate that the rules governing who contests and who votes will be applied transparently in 2027.
For More News Updates, Visit New Daily Prime News
