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 title from the ultimate listing of candidates for the 6 February 2027 election.

The aspirant, via his lawyer, Anderson Asemota, demanded that Peter’s title be printed because the social gathering’s duly nominated candidate, threatening authorized motion if the fee failed to handle the matter.

The demand, contained in a letter dated 14 October 2026 and addressed to the INEC (*48*), adopted the fee’s publication of the ultimate listing 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 shopper 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 kinds on 12 May 2026, and took part within the social gathering’s governorship main on 27 May.

He additional maintained that his shopper’s title 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 title or notified of any objection which may have knowledgeable the fee’s resolution.

The lawyer urged INEC to confirm his shopper’s membership standing and study the social gathering’s main election and nomination information 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 regulation and any binding judicial resolution affecting their nominations.

He additionally cited Section 77(5) of the Act, which gives 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 needs to be utilized to the particular details and information regarding his shopper.

“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 ascertain whether or not Peter’s title 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 information confirmed Peter’s nomination and no lawful foundation existed for excluding him, the fee ought to publish a supplementary or amended listing containing his title because the PDP governorship candidate in Ogun State.

He additionally demanded written affirmation of the steps taken and the result of the evaluation throughout the identical interval.

Warning of attainable litigation, Asemota mentioned his shopper had instructed his attorneys to contemplate approaching a reliable courtroom if INEC failed to offer a substantive response or the omission persevered and not using a 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 mentioned.

“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 regulation.