PDP Ogun Aspirant Gives INEC 48 Hours To Publish Name

The Peoples Democratic Party’s governorship aspirant in Ogun State, Toba Olusegun Peter, has given the Independent National Electoral Commission 48 hours to clarify the omission of his identify from the ultimate record of candidates for the 6 February 2027 election.

The aspirant, via his lawyer, Anderson Asemota, demanded that Peter’s identify be revealed because the celebration’s duly nominated candidate, threatening authorized motion if the fee failed to deal with the matter.

The demand, contained in a letter dated 14 October 2026 and addressed to the INEC Chairman, adopted the fee’s publication of the ultimate record of governorship candidates on 10 October, which excluded the PDP from the race in Ogun State.

In the letter to INEC, Peter’s lawyer argued that his consumer had fulfilled the nomination necessities and deserved an evidence for his exclusion.

In the letter, Asemota said, “Our Client briefed us, and we verily believe him that he is the duly nominated gubernatorial candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, Ogun State.”

The lawyer claimed that Peter obtained the expression-of-interest and nomination varieties on 12 May 2026, and took part within the celebration’s governorship major on 27 May.

He additional maintained that his consumer’s identify appeared as entry quantity 15783 on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC in compliance with Section 77 of the Electoral Act, 2026.

According to the letter, Peter had not been furnished with written causes for the omission of his identify or notified of any objection which may have knowledgeable the fee’s determination.

The lawyer urged INEC to confirm his consumer’s membership standing and look at the celebration’s major election and nomination data in its custody.

Citing Sections 29 and 32 of the Electoral Act, 2026, Asemota argued that the fee had a statutory obligation to publish the particulars of nominated candidates, topic to the relevant legislation and any binding judicial determination affecting their nominations.

He additionally cited Section 77(5) of the Act, which offers that “Only members whose names are contained in the register shall be eligible to vote and be voted for in party primaries, congresses and conventions.”

The lawyer acknowledged the Supreme Court’s judgment in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, with swimsuit quantity SC/CV/495/2026, however maintained that the choice must be utilized to the particular information and data regarding his consumer.

“Our Client does not invite the Commission to disregard that decision. Rather, the Commission is requested to apply the provisions as authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court to the actual facts and records relating to the PDP and our Client,” the letter said.

Asemota requested INEC to determine whether or not Peter’s identify appeared on the membership register submitted by the PDP, whether or not the relevant statutory necessities had been met and whether or not any courtroom order or different lawful foundation existed for excluding him.

He demanded that the fee full the verification inside 48 hours of receiving the letter and supply a written rationalization of its findings.

The lawyer additional requested that, if INEC’s data confirmed Peter’s nomination and no lawful foundation existed for excluding him, the fee ought to publish a supplementary or amended record containing his identify because the PDP governorship candidate in Ogun State.

He additionally demanded written affirmation of the steps taken and the result of the assessment throughout the similar interval.

Warning of doable litigation, Asemota stated his consumer had instructed his legal professionals to think about approaching a reliable courtroom if INEC failed to supply a substantive response or the omission continued with no lawful and adequately defined foundation.

“If the Commission fails to provide a substantive response within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt, or if the omission persists without a lawful and adequately explained basis, our client has instructed us to consider instituting appropriate proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction, seeking such declaratory, mandatory and consequential reliefs as may be available on the facts and in law, together with costs,” Asemota stated.

“For the avoidance of doubt, we do not ask the Commission to usurp the adjudicatory function of the court. We ask it to review the relevant records and perform its statutory functions lawfully,” the letter added. He urged INEC to deal with the matter as pressing and take any corrective motion required by legislation.