By Abubakar Abdulkadir Usman, Esq.
Professor Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami’s participation in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) fresh governorship primary in Gombe State has raised fresh legal questions following the Supreme Court’s decision upholding key provisions of the Electoral Act 2026.
At the centre of the controversy is Section 77 of the Act, particularly provisions governing party membership registers and eligibility to participate in primary elections.
A review of the Federal High Court judgment in Gombe, the Supreme Court’s decision and the relevant statutory provisions suggests that the dispute cannot be resolved simply by declaring Pantami either eligible or disqualified.
Rather, the decisive questions include the membership register submitted by the PDP to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the date it was submitted, whether it applies to the fresh primary and whether Pantami’s name appears on the relevant register.
What the Supreme Court Decided
On September 24, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld INEC’s appeal and restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026.
The decision reversed the Court of Appeal’s earlier position invalidating the provisions.
The significance of the judgment is that the statutory requirements concerning party membership registers and participation in party primaries remain legally operative.
Section 77(5), in particular, restricts participation in a party primary to members whose names appear on the relevant membership register submitted to INEC.
However, the Supreme Court did not determine whether Pantami’s name was contained in the PDP register applicable to the Gombe primary.
Neither did it issue an order specifically directing that Pantami be excluded from the fresh governorship primary.That distinction is central to the present controversy.
The Supreme Court’s decision therefore strengthens reliance on Section 77, but does not, by itself, amount to an individual disqualification order against Pantami.
The Case Against Pantami
The strongest legal argument against Pantami is based on Section 77(5).
If his name was not contained in the membership register legally applicable to the fresh primary, the PDP may face a serious statutory compliance problem.
The argument would be that a political party cannot, by its internal decision or administrative clearance, waive a statutory requirement imposed by the Electoral Act.the relevant evidence would include:
The membership register submitted by the PDP to INEC;
The date the register was submitted;
Whether the register was the one applicable to the fresh primary;
Whether Pantami’s name appeared on that register; and
Whether any subsequent alteration or registration was legally permissible.
These facts could become decisive in any subsequent legal challenge.
Pantami’s Legal Defence
Pantami, however, has identifiable legal arguments in response.
First, the Supreme Court did not specifically determine his eligibility. Its decision concerned the validity and operation of the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
It would therefore be difficult to treat the Supreme Court judgment itself as an order automatically disqualifying Pantami.
Second, the Federal High Court judgment in Gombe reportedly nullified the earlier PDP governorship primary and ordered a fresh exercise, but did not grant the plaintiffs’ request for Pantami’s outright disqualification or removal from the PDP on the allegation that he remained an APC member.
That aspect of the judgment provides an important element of Pantami’s legal position.
However, the refusal to grant outright disqualification on one ground does not necessarily settle the separate question of compliance with Section 77(5).
Fresh Primary, Fresh Legal Questions
The fresh primary also introduces an important legal question.
Pantami could argue that the September 29 primary was a new exercise conducted pursuant to a court order and that his eligibility must therefore be determined by reference to the law and membership register applicable to that exercise.
His challengers could counter that a court-ordered fresh primary does not remove the statutory requirements of the Electoral Act.
Both arguments ultimately depend on the precise wording of the court order and the membership register recognised under the law.
This makes the certified judgment and enrolled order particularly important.
Media reports can provide useful information about the proceedings, but they cannot substitute for the authoritative court documents.
The 21-Day Question
Another significant issue concerns the statutory requirement relating to the submission of the membership register.
Section 77(4) ordinarily requires the register to be submitted to INEC at least 21 days before the date fixed for the primary.
With the fresh primary scheduled for September 29, 2026, September 8 would ordinarily be the relevant 21-day point.
The legal question is whether the register submitted ahead of the original primary remained the operative register for the court-ordered fresh exercise.
If the PDP relies on the earlier register, it would have to establish that the register legally applies to the fresh primary.
If a new register was submitted, the date, circumstances and legality of that submission would become relevant.
The fact that the fresh primary was ordered by a court does not, by itself, establish an exemption from the Electoral Act.
At the same time, it does not automatically establish that the PDP was required to submit an entirely new register.
That issue requires interpretation of the Act alongside the terms of the court order.
Role of INEC
INEC also has an important role in the dispute.
The Commission is required to apply the Electoral Act while also complying with binding judicial decisions.
It cannot simply treat either the PDP’s clearance of Pantami or the objections raised by his opponents as conclusive without examining the applicable legal and factual circumstances.
The Commission’s consideration would necessarily include the relevant membership register, the statutory timetable, the Federal High Court judgment and any subsequent appellate orders.
The Supreme Court ruling gives INEC a stronger legal basis for enforcing Section 77, but it does not establish as a matter of fact whether Pantami’s name appeared on the relevant PDP register.
What Could Determine the Case?
At this stage, the dispute appears to turn on a relatively narrow set of documentary and legal questions.
The critical issues are:
Which PDP membership register is legally applicable to the fresh primary?
When was that register submitted to INEC?
Does Pantami’s name appear on the register?
Was any subsequent registration or alteration legally permissible?
What exactly did the Federal High Court order concerning the fresh primary?
Were there any subsequent orders from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court affecting Pantami’s participation?
Answers to these questions would provide a firmer basis for determining the legal consequences of Pantami’s participation.
Conclusion
On the materials presently available, it would be premature to describe Pantami as either conclusively eligible or automatically disqualified solely on the basis of the Supreme Court’s September 24 decision.
The judgment restored the statutory framework governing party membership registers and participation in primaries.
It did not, however, determine Pantami’s individual status under that framework.
His challengers have a substantial legal argument if they can establish that he was absent from the membership register legally applicable to the fresh primary.
Pantami, on the other hand, has a legal basis to resist automatic disqualification if his name appears on the applicable register, if the objection relies on an inapplicable register, or if the terms of the Federal High Court’s order support his participation.
Ultimately, the dispute should be determined by the actual membership register, the date of its submission, the certified judgment and enrolled orders—not by treating the Supreme Court’s general ruling as an individual disqualification order.
Abubakar Abdulkadir Usman, Esq.
Independent Legal Analyst
