Nigeria’s democracy is approaching a dangerous crossroads. As the country moves towards the 2027 general elections, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the institution constitutionally entrusted with protecting the people’s mandate, is facing growing questions over its neutrality, transparency and commitment to electoral fairness.
The reported omission of Aminu Gwarzo, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) governorship candidate in Kano State, from INEC’s final list of governorship candidates has added fresh fuel to the controversy. For a country with a long history of disputed elections, this is not a minor administrative matter to be dismissed with silence. It is an issue that demands urgent clarification, transparency and accountability.
**When the electoral umpire becomes the subject of controversy, public confidence in the entire contest is placed at risk.**
## When the umpire becomes the opposition
Why should Nigerians begin to question the neutrality of the institution responsible for conducting their elections? Why should political parties and their supporters be left to speculate about whether their candidates will be allowed to participate in an election? And why should any candidate’s absence from a final list become a source of anxiety rather than a matter explained clearly by the electoral commission?
These are questions INEC must answer.
The description of INEC as the main opposition ahead of the 2027 general elections reflects a growing political concern: that the commission’s decisions, rather than merely the competing political parties, could become a central battleground in the struggle for power.
This is a serious accusation, and it must not be treated as an established fact without evidence. But neither should the commission dismiss public concerns as mere political noise. The appropriate response to suspicion is transparency, not silence; to controversy, explanation, not evasion.
INEC must understand that its credibility is one of Nigeria’s most important democratic assets. Once voters begin to believe that the umpire may be favouring some contestants over others, the legitimacy of the entire electoral process suffers.
## Aminu Gwarzo’s reported omission demands answers
The reported absence of Aminu Gwarzo from the final governorship list raises questions that deserve immediate answers.
Was the candidate properly nominated by the NDC? Were all statutory requirements fulfilled? Was there a court order, a procedural irregularity or another legal reason for the omission? Has the commission communicated its decision to the affected party, and what remedies are available under the law?
These questions should be answered with documents, clear explanations and reference to the applicable electoral provisions.
INEC must neither be presumed guilty before the facts are established nor be allowed to escape scrutiny simply because it is a constitutional institution.
The NDC, for its part, should promptly publish the relevant nomination records and any correspondence received from the commission. If it believes that the omission is unlawful, it should pursue the appropriate legal remedies without delay.
The objective must be to establish the truth and protect the rights guaranteed by law, not merely to win a political argument.
## Kano is too important for electoral uncertainty
Kano is one of Nigeria’s most politically consequential states. Its enormous voting population, intense political competition and influential grassroots movements mean that decisions affecting the governorship contest will inevitably attract national attention.
The reported omission is therefore particularly sensitive for supporters of the NDC and the Kwankwasiyya political movement, who deserve clarity about the status of their preferred candidate.
Democracy cannot function properly when voters are left uncertain about who is eligible to contest or when political parties cannot obtain prompt explanations for decisions affecting their participation.
Every eligible political party must be treated according to the same legal standards. Every candidate must be assessed using the same rules. Every decision must be capable of being explained and, where necessary, subjected to judicial scrutiny.
INEC must demonstrate that these principles apply equally to the ruling party, opposition parties and independent electoral stakeholders.
## Democracy is bigger than political parties
The greatest danger is not simply that one candidate may be missing from a list. It is that repeated controversies, unexplained decisions and inadequate communication could deepen public distrust in the electoral system.
Nigeria cannot afford another election in which the legitimacy of the outcome is overshadowed by avoidable questions about the process.
The right to vote is meaningful only when citizens have confidence that political competition is fair, that candidates are treated lawfully and that votes will be counted and protected.
An electoral commission does not earn public trust by demanding it. It earns trust by demonstrating impartiality through its conduct, decisions and willingness to account for its actions.
INEC must therefore recognise that transparency is not a favour to opposition parties. It is a constitutional and democratic responsibility owed to every Nigerian.
## The 2027 election must not be decided before election day
Nigeria’s next general election should be a contest of ideas, policies, competence and public trust. It should not be a contest in which administrative controversies overshadow the candidates or create suspicions that some contestants are being denied a fair opportunity.
INEC must immediately clarify the circumstances surrounding Aminu Gwarzo’s reported absence from the final Kano governorship list, publish the applicable reasons for its decision and explain the lawful avenues available to the affected candidate and party.
If the omission was an error, it should be addressed through the appropriate legal and administrative procedures. If it arose from a lawful decision, the commission should demonstrate the legal basis clearly. If a dispute exists, the relevant parties should be allowed to seek a timely determination through the proper channels.
There must be no shortcuts, selective standards or unexplained exceptions.
The commission must also ensure that its communication with political parties is timely and that its published candidate lists accurately reflect decisions made in accordance with the law.
## Our verdict: INEC must prove its neutrality
Calling INEC the main opposition ahead of 2027 is a powerful political indictment. But the commission has the opportunity to answer that criticism through verifiable actions rather than public relations.
The responsibility is enormous. INEC must not merely insist that it is neutral; it must make neutrality visible, measurable and beyond reasonable suspicion.
Nigeria’s democracy cannot be held hostage by uncertainty surrounding the institution charged with safeguarding it. Political parties must be free to compete within the law, candidates must receive fair treatment, and voters must be confident that their choices will count.
The exclusion of any candidate from an electoral list must never be treated casually. Equally, allegations of deliberate exclusion must be investigated against the facts and the law.
**The central question is no longer whether INEC can organise an election. It is whether INEC can organise an election that Nigerians across political divides will regard as transparent, impartial and credible.**
If the commission wants to silence its critics, the answer is simple: publish the facts, explain the decisions, apply the law equally and protect the democratic rights of every eligible contestant.
In 2027, Nigerians must choose their leaders at the ballot box—not have their confidence shaken by unanswered questions before they get there.
**INEC must be the guardian of the people’s mandate, never a substitute for the political opposition.**
