Azotani Letter Vindicates NDC Alarm Over Anambra Candidate List, Raises Bigger Questions for INEC

The controversy over the publication of candidates for the 2027 Anambra State House of Assembly election has taken a more serious turn following a formal complaint by Hon. Francis Chuks Azotani, the member representing Dunukofia Constituency in the Anambra State House of Assembly.
Azotani, whose name appeared on INEC’s published list as an NDC candidate for Dunukofia, has now formally written the electoral commission asking that his name be removed.
In the letter dated September 8, 2026 and received by INEC on September 9, Azotani stated unequivocally that he remains a card-carrying member of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), has not defected from the party and has not announced any intention to do so.
More significantly, he said he is not contesting the 2027 general election as a candidate of the NDC or any other political party.
That statement gives a substantial new dimension to the alarm earlier raised by the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).
NDC’s alarm was not without basis
When the NDC first raised the issue after INEC published its candidate list, the party alleged that names it had neither nominated nor submitted had appeared as its candidates in 10 Anambra constituencies.
The party specifically named Azotani alongside nine others and demanded an investigation into how the names entered the commission’s systems.
At the time, the allegation could have been dismissed by some as an ordinary political disagreement over nominations.
But Azotani’s subsequent letter makes the situation considerably harder to explain away.
Here is the critical point: one of the people listed as an NDC candidate has personally written INEC to say that he is not an NDC member, has not defected to the NDC and is not contesting the election under the NDC or any other party.
That does not, by itself, establish who caused his name to appear on the portal. But it does establish that the published candidate information is being challenged by the very person whose name appears on the list.
And that is precisely why the NDC’s earlier demand for an audit deserves serious attention.
But INEC has an equally serious claim
INEC has rejected the NDC’s allegation that it substituted or imposed candidates on the party.
According to the commission, its records show that the disputed candidates were contained in Form EC9E submitted to INEC and signed by the NDC National Chairman and National Secretary. INEC has maintained that it does not have the legal authority to select candidates for political parties.
This creates an extraordinary contradiction that should now be resolved with documents, not political statements.
On one side:
NDC:
“We did not nominate these people and did not submit their forms.”
INEC:
“Our records show the names were submitted on the party’s Form EC9E and signed by the NDC’s National Chairman and National Secretary.”
Azotani:
“I am an APGA member. I did not defect to NDC. I am not contesting the 2027 election under NDC or any other party.”
All three positions cannot comfortably coexist without somebody producing the underlying records.
So, who submitted Azotani’s name?
This is now the central question.
If Azotani is telling the truth that he neither joined NDC nor sought its ticket, who nominated him?
If the NDC is correct that it never nominated him, who submitted his name to INEC?
And if INEC is correct that his name appeared on an EC9E form bearing the signatures of the NDC National Chairman and National Secretary, how did that happen?
There is another question that may be even more important:
Did Azotani sign any nomination document consenting to contest under the NDC?
If he did not, INEC should be able to produce the documentary trail that placed his name on the list.
If such a document exists, its authenticity and provenance should be established.
Why is Anambra producing this controversy?
This is where the matter becomes bigger than Azotani.
The disputed list does not involve one isolated name. The NDC identified 10 names across different Anambra constituencies which it said were not products of its nomination and appeal processes.
The affected constituencies include Onitsha South I and II, Orumba North, Anaocha I, Idemili North, Njikoka I, Nnewi South I and II, Ayamelum and Dunukofia.
That concentration deserves scrutiny.
Why should 10 disputed names emerge from one state and one political party’s candidate list at virtually the same stage of the electoral process?
Is this a technical problem with the nomination portal?
Was there an old or duplicate database containing information from the party’s primaries?
Were names submitted by individuals directly rather than through the party?
Was there an internal disagreement within the NDC over the outcome of its primaries?
Were documents uploaded by someone who had access to the party’s nomination process?
Or was there an administrative error at INEC?
These are questions that cannot responsibly be answered by speculation.
The Peter Obi factor makes Anambra particularly sensitive
Anambra is also politically significant because it is the home state of NDC presidential candidate Peter Obi.
That makes any dispute involving the party’s candidates in the state politically sensitive. The NDC itself has argued that the publication could create confusion among supporters and undermine confidence in its preparation for the 2027 election.
But precisely because of that political sensitivity, the investigation must be independent and evidence-based.
It would be dangerous to jump from an unexplained discrepancy directly to a conclusion that INEC deliberately sabotaged the NDC.
At the same time, it would be equally dangerous to dismiss the NDC’s complaint as mere political rhetoric now that one of the disputed candidates has formally told INEC that he is not an NDC candidate.
The electronic audit trail is now unavoidable
The NDC has called for an electronic audit of the nomination portal to determine how the disputed names entered the system. That may be the most straightforward way out of the controversy.
INEC should be able to establish:
When each disputed name was first entered into the system;
Who uploaded or modified the information;
Which account or access credentials were used;
When the EC9E forms were uploaded;
Who submitted the forms;
Who signed them;
Whether the signatures are authentic;
Whether the affected persons personally consented to the nomination;
Whether any information was subsequently altered;
And what happened to the candidates originally submitted by the NDC.
If INEC’s electronic records support its position, that evidence should settle the matter.
If the records contradict the commission’s position, INEC must explain how and why.
The bigger danger is not NDC versus INEC
The real danger is what this controversy could mean for the credibility of the 2027 ballot.
Candidate nomination is not a minor administrative exercise. The candidate eventually published by INEC is the person whose name appears on the ballot.
A wrong candidate can therefore potentially displace the person who actually won a party’s primary.
That is why the NDC was right to raise the alarm rather than wait until the election period.
Indeed, an electoral commission should welcome such early warnings. If there is an error, early exposure provides an opportunity to correct it before ballot papers are printed and before voters go to the polls.
What should happen now?
The Azotani letter should trigger a full forensic review of the entire 10-name Anambra list, rather than treating his case as an isolated complaint.
INEC should publish or make available to the relevant parties the documentary and electronic trail behind each disputed nomination, subject to applicable privacy and electoral-law requirements.
The NDC should equally make available its original candidate list, evidence of its primaries and appeals process, and the submission records it says it made to INEC.
And the affected individuals should be asked a simple question:
Did you knowingly seek nomination as an NDC candidate for the 2027 election?
In Azotani’s case, his answer is already on record: No.
That answer does not prove who placed his name on the NDC list. But it makes the NDC’s earlier alarm much more consequential and makes a transparent investigation imperative.
The question confronting INEC is therefore no longer merely, “Who are the NDC candidates?” It is: “Who put these names there, when were they put there, under whose authority, and why?”
Until those questions are answered with an auditable documentary trail, the Anambra controversy will remain a serious cloud over confidence in the 2027 candidate nomination process.