The dispute over the Nigeria Democratic Congress candidates for the 2027 Anambra State House of Assembly elections has shifted from political accusation to a question that can potentially be settled by electronic records, as the Independent National Electoral Commission says its candidate nomination system contains an audit trail capable of showing how the disputed names entered its records.
The NDC alleged that INEC officials replaced candidates produced through its internal nomination process with people the party did not recognise or authorise. The allegation concerns 10 names appearing against various Anambra constituencies on the published candidate list.
INEC, however, has rejected the claim that it has the legal authority to select or substitute candidates for political parties and has asked the NDC to provide evidence and identify any commission officials it believes were involved.
The commission’s Chief Press Secretary and Media Adviser to the INEC Chairman, Adedayo Oketola, said the matter should be determined from documentary and electronic evidence rather than accusation.
According to Oketola, political parties are responsible for nominating their candidates, while INEC’s role is to receive the submissions, monitor the prescribed processes and publish candidates in accordance with the law.
The controversy is particularly significant because the 2027 election timetable has already moved into the candidate nomination stage. INEC fixed February 20, 2027 for the presidential and National Assembly elections and March 6, 2027 for governorship and State House of Assembly elections.
Under the Electoral Act 2026, political parties are required to submit the names of candidates who emerged from valid primaries, while INEC is responsible for publishing the candidates’ particulars. The law also provides mechanisms through which political parties can raise concerns over published nominations.
The NDC’s allegation centres on 10 candidates listed for Anambra constituencies. They are Umennaajiego Jude Ezenwa for Onitsha South 1, Akpotue Obinna Chibuike for Onitsha South 2, Nwankwo Chiemerie for Orumba North, Maduagwu Eric K for Anaocha 1, Ngoebisi Obinna for Idemili North, Isintume Charles for Njikoka 1, Nwachukwu Nonso for Nnewi South, Okeke Ifeanyi Akunne for Nnewi South 2, Nnonyelu Samson E for Ayamelum and Azotani Chuks Francis for Dunukofia.
The party’s National Chairman, Moses Cleopas Zuwoghe, said the names were neither authorised nor submitted by the party. He also claimed that the disputed entries appeared after the conclusion of the party’s primaries and appeal process, which he said produced a final list approved by relevant party stakeholders.
The party has called for an investigation into how the names appeared on the commission’s platform and indicated that it believes similar problems may have occurred in other states, including Benue and Imo.
INEC’s response introduces an important distinction in the dispute. Monitoring a political party’s primary does not amount to INEC conducting the party’s nomination. The commission has also maintained that its officials cannot simply choose a preferred candidate for a political party.
The Electoral Act 2026 reinforces the central role of political parties in candidate selection. Section 84 provides that parties seeking to nominate candidates must conduct primaries, which are monitored by INEC. The Act recognises direct primaries and consensus as nomination methods.
The law also places obligations on parties concerning the submission of candidates and provides a formal process for publication. This means that disputes over whether a candidate was properly nominated can potentially be traced through the party’s primary records, nomination documents, affidavits and INEC’s electronic records.
That is where the current controversy could become less political and more evidential.
INEC has said activities conducted through its candidate nomination portal are electronically recorded. The commission’s position is that the audit trail can establish the history and source of entries relating to candidates whose names appear on the platform.
For the NDC, therefore, the immediate issue is not simply whether the disputed names appeared on the published list. That fact is already identifiable. The more consequential questions are who submitted the names, what credentials were used, when the entries were made, what documentation accompanied them and whether the submissions corresponded with documents authorised by the party.
The answers could determine whether the dispute arose from an unauthorised intervention, an internal party process, an administrative error or another explanation.
The timing also matters. With the 2027 elections approaching, disputes over candidate nomination can have consequences beyond party embarrassment. The identity of a party’s lawful candidate determines who is entitled to appear on the ballot and potentially contest the election under that party’s platform.
INEC has consequently said it will examine credible evidence and investigate any established misconduct through the appropriate procedures.
For now, neither side has publicly established the allegation against the other as fact. The NDC has made a specific claim of unauthorised substitution, while INEC has denied possessing the legal authority to nominate or replace candidates.
The decisive evidence is therefore likely to be found not in competing public statements, but in the nomination records, party documentation and electronic audit trail that both sides can be expected to rely upon.