Gombe Politics: Farewell, Professor Isa Ali Pantami By Ibrahim Sani Shawai

By Ibrahim Sani Shawai

Sometimes, politics ends at the ballot box. Sometimes, it ends at the negotiating table. And sometimes, before the electorate gets the opportunity to decide, the law raises questions that could reshape a candidate’s ambition.

For Professor Isa Ali Ali Pantami’s 2027 governorship ambition in Gombe State, the challenge may no longer be political arithmetic alone. It is also a question of how the Electoral Act 2026 applies to the process that produced him as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate.

When the relevant provisions of the law are considered alongside the Federal High Court judgment in Gombe and the Supreme Court’s decision in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, the dispute raises important questions about party primaries, membership registers and candidate eligibility.

Perhaps, therefore, it is time to ask a difficult question: Farewell, Professor Isa Ali Pantami?

First, the Gombe judgment

On September 24, 2026, the Federal High Court sitting in Gombe reportedly nullified the process that produced Pantami as the PDP governorship candidate and ordered the party to conduct a fresh primary.

The case followed a challenge to the procedure used in the original nomination process. The ruling meant that the PDP could not rely on that earlier exercise as the basis for Pantami’s nomination.

The Bureau Journal reported the decision in its coverage of the court’s nullification of Pantami’s PDP ticket and the order for a fresh primary.

The PDP returned to the field.

On September 29, the party conducted a direct primary across Gombe State’s 11 local government areas. Pantami reportedly received 2,054 votes, Khamisu Mailantarki received 389, while Usman Aliyu Garry received 112.

Pantami had returned as the party’s candidate following the rerun. The result, however, did not automatically settle every possible legal question surrounding his eligibility or the party’s compliance with electoral law.

Our report on Pantami’s victory in the court-ordered PDP primary rerun provides further details of the result and the circumstances that led to the fresh exercise.

Twenty-one days means twenty-one days

Section 77(4) of the Electoral Act 2026 requires a political party to submit its membership register to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) not later than 21 days before the date fixed for its primaries, congresses or conventions.

Section 77(5) addresses eligibility to vote or be voted for in a party primary, congress or convention by reference to the relevant membership register. Section 77(6) also regulates the use of membership registers for such exercises.

These provisions make the timing and contents of a party’s membership register relevant to disputes over candidate nominations. Their application in a particular case, however, depends on the statutory wording, the evidence and the court’s interpretation.

And that brings us directly to Professor Pantami.

The original PDP governorship primary was held on May 26, 2026. Earlier that month, Pantami had been involved in the APC governorship contest and publicly challenged the party’s proposed consensus arrangement.

The background to that dispute is set out in The Bureau Journal’s report on Pantami’s withdrawal from the Gombe APC governorship primary over alleged electoral irregularities.

The central question now is whether Pantami’s name appeared on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the statutory period applicable to the relevant primary.

If evidence establishes that the statutory requirements were not met, the issue could become significant to the legal challenge. But the allegation must be tested against the actual register, the relevant dates and the law as interpreted by the courts.

The decisive issue is not political speculation. It is what the records establish and what legal consequences follow from those facts.

Then came the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s decision in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, reportedly cited as SC/CV/495/2026, has added another dimension to arguments about membership registers and party primaries ahead of the 2027 elections.

The ruling restored provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 concerning membership registers and the conduct of primaries after an earlier Court of Appeal decision had declared them unconstitutional.

The Bureau Journal has examined the wider implications in its report on how the Supreme Court’s electoral ruling reopened questions about party membership registers and 2027 nominations.

Those provisions may provide grounds for legal challenges where a candidate’s participation in a primary is disputed. But the Supreme Court’s decision should not be read as an automatic disqualification of every candidate whose party membership or nomination is questioned.

There is an important distinction between a legal argument advanced by a challenger and a binding judicial finding about a particular candidate. The precise scope of the Supreme Court’s decision, the facts surrounding the PDP rerun and the relief sought by the parties must all be considered before drawing a conclusion about Pantami’s position.

If Pantami’s challengers contend that his name was not included in the relevant register within the required period, the evidence supporting that allegation will be central to their case. The legal consequences will depend on what the court finds and how the applicable provisions operate.

Section 84(2): There are rules for producing a candidate

Section 84(2) forms part of the statutory framework governing political-party primaries and candidate nomination. The original process that produced Pantami was reportedly conducted through voice affirmation and was subsequently nullified by the Federal High Court.

The PDP then held a fresh direct primary, in which Pantami received 2,054 votes.

Changing the method used to conduct a primary does not necessarily resolve a separate question about eligibility or compliance with membership-register requirements. Equally, the fact that the original primary was nullified does not, by itself, establish that the fresh exercise was invalid.

The two exercises must be considered in light of the court’s order, the procedure followed in the rerun and the applicable electoral provisions.

The number of votes matters politically. Whether those votes produce a legally valid nomination is a separate question that can only be resolved by applying the law to the relevant facts.

And then comes Section 88(3)

Section 88(3) has also been cited in arguments about the consequences of non-compliance with electoral law during a party primary.

Its relevance to Pantami’s case must be assessed against the exact wording of the provision and the circumstances established before the court. It would be premature to conclude that the section automatically excludes him from the 2027 election simply because questions have been raised about the original primary or the membership register.

There is a difference between alleging non-compliance, establishing that a party breached a statutory requirement and determining the legal consequence of that breach. The court must identify the applicable provision and decide what remedy, if any, follows.

The Federal High Court’s decision to nullify the original PDP primary did not, on its own, establish that Pantami was automatically disqualified from participating in a fresh primary. Nor does his victory in the rerun, by itself, answer every question that may be raised about his eligibility.

The legal position depends on the court’s orders, the evidence concerning the membership register, the procedure used for the rerun and the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Electoral Act 2026.

Put the issues together

Several issues now sit at the centre of the controversy.

First, the Federal High Court reportedly nullified the process that originally produced Pantami as the PDP governorship candidate and ordered a fresh primary.

Second, Pantami won the rerun conducted on September 29, receiving 2,054 votes against 389 for Mailantarki and 112 for Garry.

Third, questions have been raised about whether Pantami’s name appeared on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the required timeframe.

Finally, the parties may disagree about how Sections 77, 84 and 88 of the Electoral Act 2026 apply to the circumstances of the original primary and the subsequent rerun.

What happens if the register supports the challengers’ allegations and a court accepts their interpretation of the relevant provisions? That is one of the questions that could shape the next stage of the dispute.

But the opposite possibility must also be recognised: the evidence or the applicable legal interpretation may not support the conclusion that Pantami should be excluded from the election. Neither outcome should be treated as settled before the relevant issues are judicially determined.

You cannot manufacture yesterday today

The rerun has changed the immediate political position. It has given the PDP a fresh result after the earlier nomination process was set aside.

What a fresh primary cannot do automatically is resolve every separate dispute about eligibility, statutory deadlines or the contents of a membership register. Those issues depend on the requirements of the law and the facts surrounding the nomination.

If the evidence establishes that a mandatory requirement was breached, the court will have to determine the legal effect of that breach. If the evidence does not establish the alleged violation, the challenge must be assessed accordingly.

That is the heart of the matter. Political support and a strong primary result cannot replace compliance with electoral law. At the same time, allegations of non-compliance cannot substitute for evidence or a judicial decision.

Farewell, Professor Isa Ali Pantami?

For now, the final outcome of any continuing legal challenge belongs to the courts.

The decisive questions remain: Was Pantami’s name contained in the relevant PDP membership register? What did the Supreme Court decide in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party? How does that decision apply to the fresh primary? And what legal consequences follow if a breach of the Electoral Act is established?

These are questions that political loyalty, campaign enthusiasm and party machinery cannot settle. They require evidence, statutory interpretation and a judicial determination.

If the challengers establish their case and the applicable law supports the relief they seek, Pantami’s path to the Gombe governorship election could become more difficult. If they fail to establish the necessary facts or legal basis, the consequences could be different.

For a politician with a prominent public profile and a serious governorship ambition, the dispute represents a significant test. But a definitive political obituary would be premature while the relevant legal questions remain unresolved.

The broader lesson is that votes, popularity and party structures matter, but none can override a binding legal requirement. Equally, a candidate’s political future should not be declared over on the strength of allegations that have yet to be established.

If the courts ultimately determine that the applicable statutory conditions were not met, the consequences will follow from their decision. Until then, the legal questions must be judged on the evidence and the law.

Ibrahim Sani Shawai writes from Gombe. He can be reached via shawai2000@yahoo.com.