Follow Us on Google
By Adewale Sanyaolu
The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) is hurtling toward a full-blown internal crisis as outrage spreads over the controversial disqualification of a leading presidential contender, Prof Ofem Enang; a move many doctors now describe as a brazen assault on due process and the association’s constitution.
What should have been a routine build-up to the 2026 national elections has instead ignited threats of protests and deepening mistrust within the ranks of Nigeria’s medical community. At the centre of the storm are allegations that the leadership of the association, under its current president, Prof Bala Audu, may be tilting the scales in a contest scheduled to hold in Kano between April 26 and May 2.
The backlash intensified after the Renaissance 2026 Campaign Team, led by Dr Ezoke Epoke, accused the association of sidestepping its own rules to edge out Enang.
The group insists the candidate fulfilled every constitutional requirement, submitted his nomination forms within the deadline and was never formally notified of any deficiencies, raising serious questions about transparency and fairness in the process.
More troubling for many members is the claim that the alleged disqualification was carried out without any clear constitutional backing.
The campaign team argues that the NMA’s governing document explicitly guarantees eligibility for all qualified members and does not empower any individual or committee to arbitrarily disqualify a properly nominated candidate.
According to the group, Article 11(1) (b) of the NMA Constitution clearly states that “all members shall be eligible to contest election to any office,” provided they meet the laid-down requirements.
It explained that the constitution only requires that nomination forms be properly completed and submitted before the deadline, with a proposer and seconder who are members in good standing of the association.
Other News
The campaign team said Enang personally submitted his nomination forms before the deadline in the company of seven state chairmen, in line.
Enang, they said, even submitted his forms in the presence of multiple state chairmen, further underscoring what they view as a procedurally sound candidacy.
The controversy has since widened beyond campaign circles.
In the Federal Capital Territory, Dr. Akinnagbe Fernandez, openly challenged the rationale behind the decision, dismissing it as constitutionally untenable.
According to him, the disqualification reportedly hinges on the non-submission of photocopies of documents, despite the originals already being in the custody of the NMA secretariat.
For many observers, that justification only deepens suspicions that technicalities are being weaponised to sideline a strong contender.
Across the association, the mood is increasingly volatile. Doctors warn that unless the decision is reversed, the NMA risks setting a dangerous precedent that could erode trust in its electoral system and fracture its unity. Calls are now mounting for past leaders and senior stakeholders to step in before the situation spirals into open confrontation.
At stake, members insist, is more than just one candidacy. For a profession that prides itself on ethics and order, the unfolding dispute is fast becoming a defining test of whether the NMA can uphold the very principles it expects its members to defend or whether it will succumb to the kind of internal power struggles it has long criticised in the broader political space.
