Farewell, Professor Isa Ali Pantami

Sometimes, politics ends at the ballot box. Sometimes, it ends at the negotiating table. And sometimes, before the electorate even gets the opportunity to decide, the law threatens to bring down the curtain.

For Professor Isa Ali Pantami’s 2027 governorship ambition in Gombe State, the problem may no longer be political arithmetic alone. It is increasingly becoming a question of the Electoral Act 2026.

And when the relevant provisions of that law are considered alongside the Federal High Court judgment in Gombe and the Supreme Court’s decision in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, the legal road ahead of Professor Pantami appears increasingly narrow.

Perhaps, therefore, it is time to ask a difficult question:

Farewell, Professor Isa Ali Pantami?

First, the Gombe judgment.

On 24 September 2026, the Federal High Court sitting in Gombe reportedly nullified the process that produced Pantami as the PDP governorship candidate.

Justice Amina Aliyu Mohammed found that the primary did not comply with the party’s procedures and applicable provisions of the Electoral Act 2026. The court consequently ordered a fresh primary.

The PDP returned to the field.

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

Pantami had returned.

Or had he?

Because there is one thing a rerun cannot automatically rerun: time.

And there is one document political enthusiasm cannot manufacture retrospectively: a membership register that the law requires a political party to submit to INEC within a prescribed period.

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 INEC not later than 21 days before the date fixed for its primaries, congresses or conventions.

Then comes Section 77(5).

Only members whose names appear in the relevant register are eligible to vote or be voted for in the party’s primary, congress or convention.

Section 77(6) further restricts the use of a different membership register for the exercise.

These are not provisions that political parties can simply disregard at their convenience. Their precise application, however, depends on the statutory text and the facts established before the court.

And that brings us directly to Professor Pantami.

The original PDP governorship primary was held on 26 May 2026.

Yet Pantami was still publicly associated with the APC governorship contest earlier that same month. Indeed, on 3 May, he was reportedly challenging the APC’s proposed consensus arrangement and advocating direct primaries under the Electoral Act.

The irony is difficult to miss.

The same electoral legislation Pantami invoked when he believed the APC nomination process was working against him is now at the centre of the legal challenge to his PDP candidacy.

The question is straightforward:

Was Professor Isa Ali Pantami’s name on the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the statutory period applicable to the primary?

If the evidence establishes that it was not, Section 77(5) could pose a substantial obstacle to his eligibility.

You cannot vote your way around a statutory requirement.

You cannot rerun your way around it.

And you cannot negotiate your way around it.

But the decisive issue is what the register actually contains and how the law applies to the facts.

Then came the Supreme Court

Any argument that the statutory requirements governing party membership registers can simply be ignored must contend with the Supreme Court’s decision in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party, reportedly cited as SC/CV/495/2026.

The dispute has introduced another dimension to the legal battle surrounding Pantami’s candidacy.

His challengers have reportedly invoked the Supreme Court decision in their challenge to the aspect of the Gombe judgment that permitted him to participate in the fresh primary.

Their contention is that Pantami was not included in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the prescribed period and, consequently, should not have participated in the rerun.

This is no longer merely a disagreement over who should control the PDP ticket.

It is a question of statutory compliance.

However, the precise scope of the Supreme Court’s ruling and its application to Pantami’s circumstances must be established from the judgment itself. The existence of a precedent does not automatically determine a subsequent dispute without examining the relevant facts and legal principles.

If the challengers’ interpretation is upheld, the implications could be significant.

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

There is another problem.

Section 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026 concerns the statutory framework governing political-party primaries and candidate nomination.

The original process that produced Pantami was reportedly conducted through voice affirmation. That process was subsequently nullified by the Federal High Court.

The fresh exercise was therefore conducted as a direct primary, with Pantami emerging with 2,054 votes.

But changing the method of conducting a primary does not automatically cure a separate eligibility problem under Section 77.

This distinction is fundamental.

A primary conducted through an otherwise permissible method cannot automatically make an ineligible participant eligible.

If Section 77(5) applies as the challengers contend, conducting a fresh direct primary does not, by itself, erase the requirement concerning the membership register.

Two thousand and fifty-four votes cannot automatically cure a statutory defect.

Neither can two million.

The number of votes matters politically. Whether those votes produce a legally valid nomination is a different question.

And then comes Section 88(3)

Now we arrive at perhaps the most consequential provision cited in this controversy.

Section 88(3) is being relied upon in the argument that where a court finds that a political party failed to comply with the Electoral Act in conducting its primary, the affected candidate may be excluded from the election for the office in question.

The consequence, if the provision applies as the challengers contend, could be far-reaching.

It would not simply be another warning to the party.

It could threaten the candidate’s participation in the election itself.

But there is an important distinction between alleging non-compliance and obtaining a judicial finding that triggers a particular statutory consequence.

The fact that the original primary was nullified does not, by itself, establish that the fresh primary is invalid or that Pantami is automatically disqualified.

The court must determine the precise legal effect of the original judgment, the circumstances of the rerun, the membership-register evidence and the applicable provisions of the Act.

Still, the potential implications cannot be ignored.

Put the issues together.

The first primary that produced Pantami was reportedly nullified for non-compliance with the applicable rules and electoral law.

His challengers contend that his name was not contained in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the statutory timeframe.

Section 77(5) restricts participation in primaries to members whose names appear in the relevant register.

Section 77(6) further regulates the use of membership registers for the exercise.

The challengers have invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party in support of their case.

And Section 88(3) has been cited as a potential basis for excluding a candidate where the relevant legal conditions are established.

What, then, happens if the register confirms the challengers’ allegations and the courts accept their interpretation of the law?

That is the question that could determine the fate of Pantami’s ambition.

You cannot manufacture yesterday today

This is where the rerun becomes problematic.

The PDP can conduct another primary.

It can print another ballot.

It can mobilise thousands of members.

It can announce another result.

What it cannot do is simply disregard a statutory deadline or retrospectively change the legal significance of a membership register that was required to be submitted to INEC within a prescribed period.

That is the heart of the matter.

If Pantami was not legally eligible to participate in the relevant primary under the applicable membership-register provisions, the number of votes he subsequently obtained would not, by itself, cure the defect.

The law comes before the votes.

Eligibility comes before victory.

And compliance comes before the political celebration of a nomination.

Farewell, Professor Isa Ali Pantami?

For now, the final verdict belongs to the courts.

The decisive questions remain: Was Pantami’s name contained in the relevant PDP membership register? What exactly did the Supreme Court decide in INEC v. Zenith Labour Party? How does that ruling apply to the fresh primary? And what consequences follow if the alleged non-compliance 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 relevant provisions operate as they contend, Pantami’s path to the Gombe governorship election could become exceptionally difficult.

For a politician with a formidable public profile and a serious governorship ambition, that would be a significant setback.

But until the legal questions are authoritatively resolved, a definitive political obituary would be premature.

The message, however, is unmistakable: no political ambition, no matter how formidable, stands above the law.

In politics, votes matter. Popularity matters. Party structures matter.

But where the law imposes mandatory conditions, none can substitute for compliance.

And if the courts ultimately determine that those conditions were not met, the consequences could be decisive.

Farewell, Professor Isa Ali Pantami?

Shawai can be reached via [email protected]