Kano 2027: The Missing Ticket And The Courtroom Confusion
By Engr. Bello Gwarzo Abdullahi, FNSE
bgabdullahi@gmail.com
Those who have followed Nigerian politics for long are rarely surprised by its dramas. Even so, what is happening to the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) governorship ticket in Kano should concern every citizen, whatever party they belong. Look at it this way: A major candidate has vanished from the published list, and voters are left to guess whether he will appear on the ballot at all. This is grossly unfair to the candidate and his teeming supporters.
The backdrop matters. Bola Tinubu came to power promising renewed hope, and Emi Lokan became the rallying cry. More than three years on, many Nigerians describe a very different experience: hardship in the market, insecurity on the road, and thinning confidence in public institutions. A ruling party facing that mood has an uphill task asking for another four years. In such seasons, the fight for a place on the ballot tends to become as fierce as the fight for votes, and nowhere is that more consequential than in Kano.
Here is what the record shows. On 10 October, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) published its final list of governorship candidates. Comrade Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo and his running mate, Mustapha Rabiu Kwankwaso, were not on it. The NDC blamed a computer error and expected a quick correction. Instead, Comrade Gwarzo went to court. INEC then reviewed 130 petitions, upholding 66 and rejecting 64. National Commissioner Mohammed Haruna said Gwarzo’s petition succeeded, but that publishing his name depended on the final outcome of an ex parte order of a Federal High Court in Kano. On 31 October, INEC’s updated list left the NDC slots blank, with “Court Order” in the remarks column. A senior INEC official then told Daily Trust that the commission had no issue with Comrade Gwarzo. That distinction is the heart of the matter. A candidate rejected for failing the legal requirements stands in a different position from one whose name is withheld because a court has said so. On the available information, this is the second case, not the first. Confusing the two only feeds speculation.
There is a puzzle in the dates, too. The order was reportedly issued on 27 October. The omission happened on 10 October. An order made seventeen days later cannot explain why the name was missing in the first place. So there are really two questions, not one. Why was the ticket left off on 10 October? And who obtained the later order, on what grounds, and with what reach? INEC has answered neither in public. The NDC says it was never served, and it intends to apply to join the case and challenge the order.
Let me be plain: I am not accusing the court of wrongdoing. Judicial independence is indispensable, and lawful orders must be obeyed. The information available is not enough to say the order was improperly obtained. But independence is not a licence for opacity. An ex parte order has its place, yet when it removes a leading ticket from public view shortly before an election, the public is entitled to know the applicant, the grounds and the scope. In my own profession, when a system trips, we ask for the fault log before anyone assigns blame. The same discipline should apply here.
The scope question is a test the authorities can easily pass or fail. INEC’s official reportedly said the commission was told not to publish the name of any NDC candidate. If that is the true reach of the order, it should affect every NDC candidate in Kano, not just the governorship ticket. If it does not, someone owes the public an explanation for why this ticket is treated differently.
Why does this matter beyond one party? Because Kano is not just another governorship contest. It has one of the largest electorates in the country, deep political networks and a long history of mass mobilisation. No serious presidential contender can ignore it. What happens to this ticket may shape who governs Kano and also how Kano votes for president.
A prolonged dispute does damage even if the NDC is eventually cleared. Campaign time is lost. Voters who cannot be sure their candidate will be on the ballot drift away. Local structures, hungry for certainty, begin to defect. Meanwhile rivals whose names are secure campaign freely while their opponent sits in court. That is not a level field, and it is why this cannot be waved away as an internal NDC affair. It is a matter of national democratic interest.
Kano has been here before. In 2019, the PDP’s Abba Kabir Yusuf was sacked as governorship candidate by the Federal High Court in Kano just five days before the election. The litigation ran to the wire, and the later appellate ruling turned on a point of procedure, namely that the necessary party had not been joined, rather than on the merits of his candidacy. The lesson is that a legal victory delivered late may not repair what delay has already taken. A candidate restored after weeks of litigation may win in court and still lose visibility, momentum and the trust of voters.
So what should happen now? I would measure the parties against four concrete steps. First, the NDC should obtain the certified true copy of the Kano order, publish it, and move promptly to be joined and to set it aside. Second, INEC should state publicly the exact effect of the order and commit to restoring the ticket to its list within days of the restraint being lifted. Third, the court should hear the NDC’s application on a timetable fixed by the electoral calendar, not by the usual pace of civil litigation. Fourth, the NDC should resist any hurried substitution of candidates. A rushed replacement, made under pressure, could undermine its own case in the very suit it is fighting. If these steps do not happen within the next few weeks, we will know the delay is not an accident; it is deliberate.
Those defending the present position will say the courts are independent, INEC cannot disobey an ex parte order, and the NDC’s own explanation of a computer error raises questions about how it handled its nomination. These points deserve serious consideration. But the NDC and Kwankwasiyya supporters also have a fair question: if INEC itself says the ticket is cleared, why is its publication suspended without a clear public explanation? And if the order was made without the party being heard, what safeguard stops this route from becoming a convenient way to knock out a serious challenger? Neither side can be settled without seeing the order and the proceedings that follow. The right response is not to prejudge the courts but to insist on a fair, open and quick resolution.
The question is not whether the NDC will win Kano. That belongs to the people of Kano. The question is whether they will be allowed to decide freely, with every eligible candidate given a fair chance to compete. If the dispute is resolved openly and on its merits, public confidence in both INEC and the judiciary will be strengthened. If orders made on unclear grounds are left to breed confusion until the campaign clock runs out, the damage will reach well beyond one party and one election. It would teach Nigerians that outcomes can be shaped by procedure rather than by voters.
The courts must do their work. INEC must explain itself. Parties must obey the law. And above all, Kano’s voters must not be made to pay for a dispute that could and should be settled before the campaign season slips away. A stitch in time saves nine.