Chinda Cleared, NDC Candidates Omitted: INEC Must Explain Its Application of the Supreme Court Ruling

The publication of the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) final list of governorship candidates on Saturday, October 10, 2026, has introduced a new dimension to the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court’s September 24 judgment on political party membership registers. In the immediate aftermath of that ruling, speculation spread that Kingsley Chinda, the All Progressives Congress candidate for the Rivers State governorship election, would be excluded from the ballot. Yet, when INEC released its list, Chinda’s name appeared, while the names of Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) candidates in Kano and Nasarawa were reportedly missing.

This contrast raises a legitimate question about the commission’s interpretation and application of the Supreme Court’s decision. If the judgment restored mandatory rules governing party membership records and participation in primaries, why did the outcome appear to favour one candidate whose eligibility had been publicly questioned while candidates of another party were omitted?

The question deserves a serious answer, but the answer should not be built on the assumption that the three cases are legally identical. The Supreme Court did not specifically disqualify Chinda, nor did its judgment automatically invalidate every candidate whose party membership attracted public controversy. The decisive issue is whether each candidate satisfied the statutory conditions applicable to the nomination process and whether INEC reached its decision on the basis of verifiable evidence.

What The Supreme Court Actually Decided

The Supreme Court’s September 24 judgment restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after the Court of Appeal had invalidated them. The provisions regulate the submission and use of party membership registers and the methods by which political parties nominate candidates. Under Section 77(5), only members whose names appear in the relevant register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period are eligible to participate in party primaries. Section 77(6) requires parties to use the prescribed register, while Section 77(7) provides consequences for failure to submit it.

The judgment was significant because it reaffirmed the binding nature of statutory requirements that political parties might otherwise be tempted to disregard. It did not, however, name Chinda or order his disqualification. That distinction is central to understanding why the Rivers APC candidate could remain on the list even as other candidates disappeared from theirs.

A Supreme Court ruling establishes the legal framework; applying that framework to individual candidates requires examination of the facts. INEC must determine whether a candidate was properly registered, whether the relevant membership register was submitted in compliance with the law and whether the nomination process met the applicable requirements.

Consequently, the viral reports that Chinda would automatically be excluded went beyond what the judgment itself established. The reports reflected concerns about his nomination, but a concern, even one supported by serious legal arguments, is not equivalent to a final judicial determination.

Why Chinda May Have Survived The Screening

The Rivers APC offered a specific defence of Chinda’s eligibility. According to the party, he registered as an APC member on April 27, 2026, ahead of its governorship primary held on May 21. The party argued that the interval satisfied the statutory 21-day requirement.

On that account, Chinda’s inclusion is not necessarily inconsistent with the Supreme Court judgment. If his registration was valid, his name appeared on the membership register submitted to INEC within the required period, and the remaining nomination requirements were satisfied, the commission would have a legal basis for recognising him as the APC candidate.

However, the controversy is not entirely resolved by counting the days between his registration and the primary. The date on which the party submitted its register, whether that register contained his name and whether the nomination process complied with all applicable requirements are also relevant questions.

Chinda’s formal announcement of his defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the APC came on June 2, after the May primary. That chronology has fuelled public suspicion, but the date of a formal announcement does not necessarily settle the separate legal question of when his APC membership became effective. The documentary evidence and applicable law must determine that issue.

There is also a pending legal challenge to aspects of his nomination. The existence of such a case does not automatically invalidate his candidacy, just as his appearance on INEC’s list does not, by itself, establish that every legal objection has been conclusively resolved.

INEC should therefore explain whether Chinda was included because its examination confirmed compliance, because the objections did not establish grounds for exclusion, or because the commission considered that the outstanding dispute required determination through another lawful process.

Why The NDC Candidates Were Omitted

The omission of the NDC candidates in Kano and Nasarawa is more difficult to assess without a clear statement from INEC identifying the specific grounds for each decision.

In Kano, the party’s governorship candidate, Aminu Abdulsalam Gwarzo, and his running mate, Mustapha Rabi’u Kwankwaso, were absent from the final list. The party maintained that Gwarzo remained its candidate, while a representative of the Kwankwasiyya Caucus reportedly said the omission resulted from an error in entering the candidates’ details and that INEC was working to correct the problem.

If the explanation of an administrative error is correct, the Kano case should not be treated as a proven violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling. It would instead raise questions about the accuracy of INEC’s data-entry and verification procedures. The commission must establish whether the omission was indeed an error and, if so, take the corrective steps permitted by law.

The Nasarawa case requires equally careful scrutiny. Musa Shugaba-Abdullahi, who emerged as the NDC’s governorship candidate, was also reported to be missing from the list.

Without an authoritative explanation, it would be premature to conclude that his omission resulted from the same circumstances as Gwarzo’s, or that either candidate necessarily failed to meet the membership-register requirements. INEC must disclose whether the issue concerned party registration, the submission of the membership register, the nomination process, incomplete documentation or an administrative error.

The commission cannot expect Nigerians to accept unexplained omissions simply because the Supreme Court restored the relevant provisions. The ruling provides the legal foundation for enforcing the requirements; it does not remove the obligation to show how those requirements apply in each case.

The Danger of A Double Standard

The central concern is not that Chinda has been included while the NDC candidates have been omitted. Different outcomes can be perfectly lawful when the underlying facts differ. The concern is whether INEC applied the same statutory standards to all candidates and whether the evidence supports the different decisions.

If Chinda met the 21-day membership requirement and the NDC candidates did not, the commission should be able to demonstrate that distinction. If the NDC omissions were administrative mistakes, they should be addressed according to the applicable law. If Chinda’s eligibility remains the subject of a genuine legal dispute, that dispute should be resolved through the appropriate judicial process rather than by political pressure or public speculation.

The commission must also resist any attempt by political parties to weaponise the Supreme Court judgment against their opponents while seeking exceptions for their own candidates. The law cannot be invoked as an instrument of convenience, applied strictly when it threatens a rival and interpreted generously when it affects an ally.

For the same reason, the APC’s defence of Chinda should be judged on its legal merits, not dismissed merely because he belongs to the ruling party. Likewise, the NDC’s objections deserve a fair hearing, but the party must substantiate its claims with the relevant membership records and nomination documents.

INEC Must Restore Public Confidence

The 2027 election is too important for uncertainty over candidate eligibility to be left unresolved. INEC should publish a reasoned clarification of the cases that have generated controversy, particularly where its decisions appear inconsistent. Such an explanation would help voters understand the process and enable affected parties to determine their lawful options.

The commission should also ensure that every complaint is handled within the limits of the law, that corrections are made where legally permissible and that pending litigation is not confused with a final determination of eligibility.

The courts, for their part, must remain available to resolve genuine disputes without allowing political actors to substitute media campaigns for evidence. Political parties should maintain accurate membership records, conduct credible primaries and accept that compliance with electoral legislation is a responsibility, not an optional formality.

Ultimately, Chinda’s inclusion does not automatically prove that INEC has acted inconsistently, but the omission of the NDC candidates makes a transparent explanation imperative. The commission must demonstrate that its decisions rest on the same legal principles, applied to the evidence in each case.

The real test of electoral justice is not whether every candidate receives the same outcome, but whether every candidate receives the same standard of fairness. If Chinda qualified, the law should protect his candidacy. If the NDC candidates qualified, the law should protect theirs as well. And if any candidate failed to satisfy a valid statutory requirement, political influence should not shield that person from its consequences.

That is the consistency Nigerians should demand from INEC as preparations for the 2027 elections continue.