Nigeria’s NDC Challenges INEC Over 10 Disputed Anambra Assembly Candidates.

The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has renewed its challenge against Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over the publication of 10 candidates it says it never nominated for the 2027 Anambra State House of Assembly elections. The party is demanding an immediate electronic audit of INEC’s candidate nomination portal, insisting that the disputed names and their Form EC9E documents did not originate from its nomination or appeal processes.

The dispute has created an unusual confrontation between a political party and the electoral commission more than a year before Nigeria’s 2027 general elections. While the NDC maintains that its approved candidates were rejected and replaced with individuals unknown to the party, INEC has strongly denied altering the party’s candidate list. The commission says its records show that the disputed candidates were submitted on Form EC9E and that the document was duly signed by the party’s National Chairman and National Secretary.

NDC Demands an Electronic Audit of INEC’s Portal.

The latest escalation came on September 2, when NDC Director of New Media and Strategic Communications Agada Abuh Theophilus said the party had never submitted the names or completed EC9E forms of the 10 candidates appearing on INEC’s published list.

According to the NDC, its nomination process produced different candidates, including individuals who emerged through the party’s appeal process. The party alleges that after those candidates were uploaded, INEC rejected them and subsequently published names that had not been approved by the NDC. The party is therefore asking INEC to conduct an electronic audit capable of establishing when the disputed entries were created, who accessed the system and how the associated documents entered the commission’s database.

The demand for an electronic audit is significant because INEC has previously explained that its candidate nomination system records the history of submissions made through the electoral commission’s portal. Such records could potentially establish whether the disputed names were uploaded by authorised party officials, whether changes were made after the original submission and whether any unauthorised access occurred.

Ten Anambra Constituencies Are at the Centre of the Dispute.

The NDC says the disputed candidates appear across 10 Anambra State constituencies. They include Umennaajiego Jude Ezenwa for Onitsha South I, Akpotue Obinna Chibuike for Onitsha South II, Nwankwo Chiemerie for Orumba North, Maduagwu Eric K. for Anaocha I and Ngoebisi Obinna for Idemili North.

The other disputed names are Isintume Charles for Njikoka I, Nwachukwu Nonso for Nnewi South I, Okeke Ifeanyi Akunne for Nnewi South II, Nnonyelu Samson E. for Ayamelum and Azotani Chuks Francis for Dunukofia. The party insists that none of these individuals emerged from its nomination and appeal processes.

The dispute is politically sensitive because Anambra is the home state of Peter Obi, the NDC’s presidential candidate. That has added political weight to what might otherwise have been treated as an administrative disagreement over candidate submissions. The NDC has argued that the issue should not be viewed as a routine nomination error because the publication of unauthorised candidates could directly affect its ability to participate in the 2027 election at constituency level.

INEC Rejects Allegations of Candidate Substitution.

INEC has rejected the NDC’s allegation that its officials replaced the party’s candidates with individuals of their choosing. The commission initially said it was examining its records to determine how the disputed names appeared on the NDC’s list, but subsequently offered a more direct response.

In a statement issued by Mohammed Kudu Haruna, Chairman of INEC’s Information and Voter Education Committee, the commission said its records contained Form EC9E listing the disputed candidates and that the form had been submitted with the signatures of the NDC National Chairman and National Secretary. INEC therefore rejected the claim that it independently inserted or altered the names.

The commission has also stressed that candidate nomination is legally the responsibility of political parties. INEC’s role is to administer and monitor the electoral process within the framework of the Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and other applicable regulations. According to the commission, it has no legal authority to select candidates for political parties or substitute its own preferred candidates for individuals validly nominated by a party.

The EC9E Forms Could Become the Key Evidence.

At the centre of the disagreement is a basic but critical question: who submitted the disputed candidates to INEC?

The NDC says it did not collect or forward completed EC9E forms for the 10 individuals. INEC, however, says it possesses EC9E documentation listing those candidates and carrying the signatures of the NDC’s National Chairman and National Secretary. That creates a dispute that cannot be conclusively resolved through competing public statements alone.

An electronic audit trail could potentially provide the missing evidence. If the commission’s system records when each candidate was entered, which account or authorised user submitted the information and what subsequent modifications were made, investigators could reconstruct the sequence of events. The result could either support the NDC’s claim of unauthorised interference or demonstrate that the disputed candidates were submitted through the party’s authorised channels.

INEC itself previously said that the history and source of candidate entries can be established objectively through its electronic and documentary records. The commission has also invited the NDC to provide evidence if it believes any INEC official interfered improperly with its nomination process.

The Dispute Comes as Nigeria Prepares for 2027.

Although the disagreement concerns state assembly candidates in Anambra, its implications extend to Nigeria’s broader preparations for the 2027 elections. Candidate nomination is one of the earliest stages at which political parties interact with the electoral commission, and disputes over the integrity of that process can undermine confidence long before voters arrive at polling stations.

The controversy also comes at a time when Nigerian electoral stakeholders are already discussing the need to strengthen election administration ahead of 2027. Civil society organisation Enough is Enough Nigeria has called for improvements to electoral systems following the August 15, 2026 Osun State governorship election, arguing that attention should focus not only on election-day performance but also on the systems supporting the wider electoral process.

For INEC, the Anambra dispute therefore presents an opportunity to demonstrate the value of digital records and transparent electoral technology. If the commission can provide a credible audit trail showing exactly how the disputed candidates entered its system, it could help settle the immediate controversy and strengthen public confidence in the nomination portal.

Political Parties Will Be Watching the Outcome.

For political parties, the dispute raises another important issue: control over their candidate nomination processes. Parties depend on INEC’s systems to transmit the outcome of internal primaries and appeals into the official electoral record. Any uncertainty about whether an approved candidate can be replaced, rejected or altered during that process can have serious consequences for the party’s participation in an election.

The NDC’s insistence on an audit also reflects a broader demand for accountability in Nigeria’s increasingly digital electoral environment. As candidate nominations, voter registration and other electoral processes become more dependent on electronic systems, disputes are increasingly likely to revolve around digital records rather than only paper documents.

The challenge for INEC will be to resolve the matter without allowing the disagreement to become another source of political distrust. The commission has said it remains committed to transparency and accountability, while the NDC is demanding evidence capable of explaining the discrepancy between the candidates it says it submitted and the names ultimately published.

Anambra Dispute Could Become an Early Test for 2027.

The immediate question is no longer simply whether the NDC and INEC disagree over 10 candidates. The larger issue is whether Nigeria’s electoral institutions can quickly and transparently resolve disputes involving digital candidate nomination systems.

The NDC wants an electronic audit. INEC says its records already demonstrate that the disputed candidates were submitted through the proper process. Those two positions can ultimately be tested against the same underlying evidence: the commission’s nomination records, Form EC9E documents and digital audit trail.

Until that evidence is publicly examined, the competing claims remain unresolved. But the controversy has already highlighted one of the central challenges facing Nigeria ahead of 2027: ensuring that the increasingly sophisticated technology used to manage elections is matched by equally strong systems of transparency, accountability and public verification.