AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF INEC.
Subject: Request for Urgent Clarification on Senator Ovie Omo-Agege’s Party Membership, APC Primary Participation, NDC Nomination and Inclusion on the 2027 Senatorial Candidates List
To:
The Chairman,
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC),
Abuja, Nigeria.
Dear Chairman,
I write to respectfully request an official clarification from the Independent National Electoral Commission concerning the inclusion of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate for Delta Central Senatorial District, on its published list of candidates for the 2027 general elections.
This request arises from the Supreme Court judgment of 24 September 2026, which restored important provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 concerning political party membership registers and candidate nomination procedures.
My concern is not to prejudge Senator Omo-Agege’s eligibility or suggest that the Supreme Court specifically ordered his disqualification. Rather, it is to establish whether the Commission examined the relevant documentary evidence and applied the statutory requirements consistently before publishing his name.
The Nigerian public deserves clarity. The integrity of our electoral process requires nothing less.
1. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT: WHAT EXACTLY CHANGED?
On 24 September 2026, the Supreme Court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 after setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision declaring those provisions unconstitutional.
The restored provisions address political party membership registers, participation in party nomination exercises and the procedures for selecting candidates.
Section 77(5) makes inclusion in the relevant membership register submitted to INEC at least 21 days before the applicable party exercise central to eligibility to participate in that exercise. Section 77(6) addresses the use of the submitted register, while Section 77(7) provides consequences for a party’s failure to submit its register within the prescribed period. Section 84(2) concerns the legally prescribed methods of candidate nomination.
These provisions establish statutory requirements that political parties must observe.
The question, therefore, is straightforward: How did INEC apply these provisions when assessing the NDC’s Delta Central senatorial nomination?
The Supreme Court did not specifically name Senator Omo-Agege and order his disqualification. However, neither did the judgment automatically validate every nomination submitted to the Commission.
The law must be applied to the relevant facts of each case.
2. HOW DID OVIE OMO-AGEGE CONTEST A PRIMARY FOR A PARTY HE HAD ALREADY LEFT?
Let us assume as a matter of fact that Senator Ovie Omo-Agege resigned from the All Progressives Congress (APC) on the 5th of May, 2026. That resignation, if duly submitted to his ward and acknowledged, means he ceased to be a member of the APC from that date. The question that follows is simple and logical: how then did the same man contest under the APC primary on the 18th of May, 2026~just 13 days after he had already resigned?
This is a fundamental question that requires clarification, not political rhetoric.
If the reported resignation date of 5 May 2026 is correct, INEC should clarify whether it has examined the resignation letter, the date it was received by the appropriate APC ward authority and any acknowledgment or other official record establishing when the resignation took effect.
The Commission should also clarify the date and circumstances of Omo-Agege’s reported participation in the APC primary on 18 May 2026.
The questions are straightforward:
1. Did Senator Omo-Agege formally resign from the APC on 5 May 2026?
2. Was the resignation delivered to and received by the appropriate party authority?
3. If so, what was his membership status on 18 May 2026, when the APC primary reportedly took place?
4. Did he participate in that primary, and, if so, in what capacity?
5. What records establish the sequence of his resignation, participation in the APC primary and subsequent move to the NDC?
These questions should not be answered through speculation. They require the relevant documents and an accurate chronology.
It is important to distinguish between a resignation date alleged in public commentary and one established by documentary evidence. I therefore ask INEC to verify the dates and explain their implications under the applicable law.
If the reported dates are correct, the apparent contradiction deserves a clear explanation. If any of the dates or descriptions of events is incorrect, the Commission should clarify the correct position.
A candidate’s party membership history is a matter of record. The public should not be left to reconcile potentially conflicting dates through political arguments.
3. THE MEMBERSHIP REGISTER: THE DOCUMENT THAT CAN HELP SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY
Senator Omo-Agege reportedly contested the APC senatorial primary, lost the party’s ticket to Senator Ede Dafinone, subsequently left the APC and joined the NDC, where he obtained its senatorial ticket through a consensus arrangement after receiving a party waiver.
Following questions about his nomination, Omo-Agege publicly maintained that his name appeared on the NDC membership register submitted to INEC before 10 May 2026.
That assertion is important. If it is supported by the original register and the Commission’s records, it deserves serious consideration.
However, an assertion is not the same as independently verified documentary evidence.
I have not independently examined the original NDC membership register to establish whether his name appeared on it, what membership date was recorded or how the Commission assessed the relevant entry.
INEC is in a position to clarify these matters from its official records.
I therefore respectfully ask the Commission to confirm:
1. The exact date on which the NDC submitted the original membership register applicable to its Delta Central senatorial nomination.
2. Whether Senator Omo-Agege’s name appeared on that original register.
3. The membership date recorded against his name, subject to applicable privacy and disclosure requirements.
4. Whether the Commission verified that his membership satisfied the statutory conditions applicable to the relevant nomination exercise.
5. Whether the register used for his nomination was the same register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period.
If his name appeared on the original register, INEC should explain how it assessed that fact against the applicable law. If it did not, the Commission should explain the legal basis on which it accepted his nomination.
The original register and its supporting records, not political arguments, are central to resolving this issue.
4. THE TIMING OF HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE APC AND HIS NDC MEMBERSHIP REQUIRES CLARIFICATION
The reported sequence of events makes the membership-register question particularly important.
Omo-Agege’s resignation from the APC was reported to have occurred on 22 May 2026 in some accounts, while the question raised above refers to an alleged resignation date of 5 May 2026.
These dates cannot simply be treated as interchangeable. Their accuracy must be established.
If the resignation occurred on 5 May, that raises a different chronological question from a resignation on 22 May, particularly in relation to the reported APC primary of 18 May.
His defence is that his name was already on the NDC register submitted to INEC before the relevant deadline.
If that is the case, the Commission should be able to clarify the documentary basis for that position.
When did his NDC membership commence? What records establish that date? Was he properly included in the original register? And did his participation in the nomination process comply with the statutory provisions restored by the Supreme Court?
The date of his resignation from the APC does not, by itself, establish that he violated the Electoral Act. Equally, the claim that his name appeared on the NDC register should be verified against the original document rather than accepted or rejected on political grounds.
The issue is not merely when he left one party and joined another. It is whether the complete sequence of events and the resulting nomination complied with the applicable law.
5. CAN A PARTY WAIVER OVERRIDE A MANDATORY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT?
Reports concerning Omo-Agege’s nomination have also referred to a waiver granted by the NDC.
A political party’s decision to accept a candidate and that candidate’s compliance with statutory requirements are two distinct questions.
A waiver may address an internal party requirement where the party’s rules and applicable law permit it. However, a party cannot automatically use a waiver to override a mandatory condition imposed by legislation.
I therefore ask INEC to clarify:
– Whether it examined the waiver associated with Omo-Agege’s nomination.
– What legal and documentary basis supported the waiver.
– Whether the waiver addressed an internal party requirement or purported to resolve a statutory membership-register requirement.
– Whether the Commission determined that the waiver and nomination complied with the provisions restored by the Supreme Court.
This request is not an assertion that the waiver was unlawful. It is a demand for clarity on whether the Commission examined its legal implications.
6. WHY IS INEC’S PUBLICATION BEING PRESENTED AS THE END OF THE MATTER?
INEC’s published final senatorial candidates list includes both Senator Ede Dafinone of the APC and Senator Ovie Omo-Agege of the NDC for Delta Central.
The publication is an established administrative fact. But it does not, by itself, establish that a court has examined and conclusively resolved every legal question concerning each candidate’s nomination.
There is an important distinction between publishing a candidate’s name and demonstrating that the nomination satisfies every applicable statutory requirement.
The Supreme Court did not specifically disqualify Omo-Agege. Equally, its judgment should not be presented as having automatically validated every nomination submitted to INEC.
Has the Commission specifically examined the original NDC membership register? Has it verified the membership date recorded for Omo-Agege? Has it considered the waiver and nomination documents against the restored provisions? Has it examined the reported dates surrounding his APC resignation and primary participation?
If the answer is yes, the Commission should explain its findings to the extent permitted by law.
A name on INEC’s list is not, by itself, proof that every legal question concerning the nomination has been conclusively resolved.
7. INEC MUST APPLY THE SAME LAW TO EVERY CANDIDATE
The Commission has a responsibility to administer elections in accordance with the law and maintain public confidence in its decisions.
The requirements governing party membership registers cannot be treated as decisive for one candidate and inconsequential for another because of political status, influence, party affiliation or previous public office.
The same statutory standards must apply to all political parties and candidates.
If questions arise concerning Senator Dafinone’s nomination, his case should be assessed on the evidence and applicable law. If questions arise concerning Senator Omo-Agege’s nomination, the same approach must apply.
Neither candidate should be presumed guilty of a violation merely because questions have been raised. Neither should a candidate be presumed to have satisfied every legal requirement simply because his name appears on a published list.
This is not about protecting one politician or frustrating another’s ambition. It is about equal treatment under the law.
8. MY SPECIFIC REQUESTS TO THE COMMISSION
In the interest of transparency, accountability and public confidence, I respectfully request that INEC provide a formal response addressing the following:
A. THE APC RESIGNATION: Confirm, to the extent supported by records available to the Commission, the date of Omo-Agege’s reported resignation from the APC and clarify whether the Commission examined any relevant documentation.
B. THE APC PRIMARY: Clarify the reported circumstances of his participation in the APC primary on 18 May 2026 and whether the Commission has records relevant to his membership status at that time.
C. THE ORIGINAL NDC REGISTER: Confirm the date the NDC submitted the membership register applicable to its Delta Central senatorial nomination.
D. OMO-AGEGE’S ENTRY: Confirm whether his name appeared on the original register submitted within the prescribed period and what membership date was recorded.
E. VERIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP: Explain how the Commission assessed the relevant membership record against the statutory requirements governing participation in the nomination exercise.
F. THE WAIVER: Clarify whether the Commission examined the waiver reportedly granted by the NDC and the legal basis on which it accepted the nomination.
G. THE NOMINATION PROCESS: Explain whether the relevant primary or consensus nomination documents were examined for compliance with the applicable provisions of the Electoral Act.
H. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT: Clarify whether the Commission reviewed the nomination in light of the judgment of 24 September 2026 and how the restored provisions informed its assessment.
I. THE BASIS FOR PUBLICATION: Explain the administrative and legal basis for including Omo-Agege’s name on the final candidates list, distinguishing publication from any specific determination of compliance with the law.
J. THE STATUS OF ANY REVIEW: State whether any further administrative review or relevant legal proceedings concerning the nomination are pending, insofar as the Commission may lawfully disclose that information.
Where disclosure of personal information or protected material is restricted by law, I ask the Commission to provide the maximum permissible explanation necessary to clarify its decision.
CONCLUSION: THE PUBLIC DESERVES ANSWERS, NOT POLITICAL THEATRE
The 2027 general elections are too important for questions about candidate nominations to be reduced to claims that one political camp has defeated another.
This matter is not about whether Senator Omo-Agege is politically popular, whether Senator Dafinone has performed satisfactorily or which candidate’s supporters are celebrating.
It is about the application of the law.
If the original NDC register contains Omo-Agege’s name and his nomination satisfies the applicable statutory requirements, INEC should be able to explain the documentary and legal basis for its decision.
If questions remain about the register, the waiver, the reported APC resignation date or the nomination process, those questions should be addressed through the appropriate procedures.
The Commission should not allow political arguments from either side to substitute for an official explanation of its decision.
A name on a list is an administrative fact. Compliance with the law is a question that must be assessed against the relevant evidence and statutory requirements.
I therefore respectfully call on the Commission to issue a clear, factual and reasoned clarification of the basis for including Senator Ovie Omo-Agege on the 2027 senatorial candidates list for Delta Central.
Such clarification would help protect public confidence in the electoral process and demonstrate that the law is applied consistently, without fear or favour.
The issue is not whether one candidate should be celebrated or another politically embarrassed. The issue is whether the same law applies to everyone.
I trust that the Commission will treat this request with the seriousness it deserves and provide the necessary clarification in the public interest.
Yours faithfully,
Fegor Ogene, JP
Concerned Citizen, Public Affairs Commentator, and a Political writer.
Delta State, Nigeria.
Fegorogene@gmail.com
