Gombe PDP Primary: Lawyer Explains Why Court Declined to Disqualify Pantami, Raises Electoral Act Compliance Issues
A legal practitioner, Barrister Ahmad Tukur, has explained why the Federal High Court in Gombe nullified the May 26, 2026, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship primary without disqualifying former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Professor Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami, from participating in a fresh exercise.
Tukur, in a legal analysis of the September 24 judgment, argued that the court distinguished between alleged irregularities in the conduct of the primary and questions surrounding Pantami’s membership of the PDP.
He maintained that although the court found grounds to invalidate the process that produced Pantami as the party’s governorship candidate, it declined the request to disqualify him over allegations of dual membership of the PDP and the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Amina Aliyu Mohammed, had ordered the PDP to conduct a fresh governorship primary within 30 days after finding that some screened and cleared aspirants were improperly excluded from the May 26 exercise. The court also declined the plaintiffs’ request to remove Pantami as a PDP member.
In his analysis, Tukur identified the Supreme Court judgment in Abba Kabir Yusuf v. APC as a central authority for understanding the distinction between party membership disputes and challenges to the conduct of primaries.
He argued that membership of a political party is ordinarily an internal party matter and that an opposition party cannot automatically challenge another party’s membership register.
The Supreme Court’s January 2024 decision in the Kano governorship dispute addressed the limits of judicial intervention in political party membership questions. However, the application of that precedent to the Gombe litigation remains a matter of legal interpretation.
Tukur said the allegation that Pantami remained an APC member had originated from the APC’s publicity secretary, Moses Kyari, before being adopted by the plaintiffs.
According to him, the PDP presented documents intended to establish Pantami’s resignation from the APC and subsequent membership of the PDP.
He identified the documents as a resignation letter dated May 19, 2026, reportedly acknowledged by the APC ward chairman; a PDP membership card and waiver; and a letter forwarding Pantami’s nomination to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Tukur contended that these documents supported Pantami’s position that he had joined the PDP before the disputed primary.
He further argued that the central defect identified by the Federal High Court concerned the exclusion of other aspirants rather than a conclusive finding that Pantami was ineligible to belong to the PDP.
According to the lawyer, the appropriate remedy for an improperly conducted primary was to invalidate the exercise and direct the party to conduct another one in accordance with its rules and applicable electoral legislation.
Read Also:
He maintained that the court’s refusal to disqualify Pantami should be distinguished from its decision to nullify the process through which he initially emerged.
Turning to the fresh primary scheduled for September 29, Tukur said Pantami’s continued participation would depend on compliance with the applicable provisions of the Electoral Act 2026 and the PDP’s nomination procedures.
He identified the submission of the party’s membership register to INEC as a particularly important issue.
The lawyer argued that Pantami’s membership, which he said commenced on May 19, would need to be properly reflected in the register submitted to the electoral commission.
He also raised questions about the documentation required for a politician who recently defected from another party, including evidence of resignation and any applicable waiver.
Tukur maintained that Pantami’s reported membership of the PDP for more than four months before the September 29 primary could be relevant to the question of whether he required a waiver applicable to new members.
He nevertheless advised the party to ensure that its membership records, nomination documents and any necessary clearances were properly documented.
The lawyer also urged the PDP to conduct the fresh primary through a transparent voting process involving all aspirants entitled to participate.
He specifically identified Pantami, Khamisu Ahmed Mailantarki and Usman Aliyu Garry as aspirants whose participation should be addressed in accordance with the court’s judgment and the party’s guidelines.
Tukur argued that compliance with the court’s directives and the applicable electoral procedures would be central to resolving further disputes over the party’s governorship nomination.
However, his interpretation is not uncontested.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs have reportedly filed an appeal challenging the portion of the Federal High Court judgment that declined to disqualify Pantami. Their September 26 correspondence to the PDP also referred to a motion for a stay of execution.
The appeal means that the legal dispute over Pantami’s eligibility has not necessarily ended with the Federal High Court judgment.
Meanwhile, a review of the publicly available text of the Electoral Act 2026 indicates that Section 77(4) provides for submission of a party membership register to INEC not later than 21 days before a primary, rather than the 30-day period cited in Tukur’s analysis. Sections 77(5) and 77(6) address eligibility based on the submitted register and prohibit the use of a different register for the exercise.
The precise application of those provisions to a court-ordered repeat primary, as well as Tukur’s interpretations of the waiver and resignation requirements, would require examination of the relevant statutory provisions and the certified judgment.
Tukur concluded that the PDP should ensure strict compliance with the applicable legal requirements and its internal procedures to minimise the risk of further litigation arising from the fresh primary.
The September 29 exercise is intended to produce the party’s governorship candidate for the 2027 election, while the pending appeal leaves aspects of the earlier judgment subject to further judicial consideration.
