Goodbye, Professor Isa Ali Pantami

Sometimes politics ends at the polls. Sometimes you end up at the negotiating table. And sometimes, before the electorate even has the opportunity to decide, the law threatens to bring down the curtain.

For Professor Isa Ali Pantami’s Gombe State governorship ambition by 2027, the problem may no longer be just one of political arithmetic. It is increasingly about the 2026 electoral law.

And when the relevant provisions of that law are considered together with the Federal High Court ruling in the Gombe case and the Supreme Court decision in the INEC v Zenith Labor Party case, the legal path before Professor Pantami appears increasingly narrow.

Perhaps, then, the time has come to ask yourself a difficult question:

Goodbye, Professor Isa Ali Pantami?

First of all, the Gombe ruling.

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

Justice Amina Aliyu Mohammed found that the primaries did not comply with party procedures and applicable provisions of the Electoral Law 2026. The court then ordered new primaries.

The Democratic Party is back on the field.

He conducted direct primaries in the 11 local government areas of Gombe State on September 29. Pantami reportedly received 2,054 votes, Khamisu Mailantarki received 389, while Aliyu Garry received 112.

Pantami was back.

Or had he?

Because there is one thing that a repetition cannot automatically repeat: time.

And there is one document that political enthusiasm cannot produce retroactively: 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 register of members to INEC no later than 21 days before the date fixed for primaries, conventions or conventions.

Then comes Section 77(5).

Only members whose names appear in the relevant register are entitled to vote or be voted for in primaries, congresses or conventions of the party.

Article 77(6) further limits the use of a different register of members for the exercise.

These are not provisions that political parties can simply ignore at will. Their precise application, however, depends on the legislative text and the facts established before the court.

And this brings us directly to Professor Pantami.

The original PDP governorship primaries were held on May 26, 2026.

Yet Pantami was still publicly associated with the APC governorship contest earlier that same month. In fact, on May 3, he reportedly contested the APC’s proposed consent agreement and supported direct primaries under the electoral law.

The irony is hard to miss.

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

The question is simple:

Was Professor Isa Ali Pantami’s name in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the legal period applicable to the primaries?

If the evidence showed that it was not, Section 77(5) could present a substantial barrier to its admissibility.

You cannot vote to circumvent a legal requirement.

You cannot repeat the route.

And you can’t negotiate your way around it.

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

Then came the Supreme Court

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

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

His challengers would invoke the Supreme Court decision in their challenge to the aspect of the Gombe ruling that allowed him to participate in the new primaries.

Their contention is that Pantami was not included in the register of PDP members submitted to INEC within the prescribed period and, consequently, should not have participated in the re-run.

It is no longer simply a disagreement over who should control the PDP ticket.

It is a question of respect for the law.

However, the precise scope of the Supreme Court ruling and its application to Pantami’s circumstances are to be determined by the ruling itself. The existence of a precedent does not automatically lead to a subsequent dispute without examination of the relevant facts and legal principles.

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

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

There’s another problem.

Article 84(2) of the Electoral Law 2026 concerns the regulatory framework governing political party primaries and the nomination of candidates.

The original process that produced Pantami was reportedly conducted via vocal affirmation. This trial was subsequently quashed by the Federal High Court.

The new vote was therefore held as a direct primary, with Pantami emerging with 2,054 votes.

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

This distinction is fundamental.

A primary conducted by an otherwise permitted method cannot automatically make an ineligible participant eligible.

If Article 77(5) applies as the challengers claim, holding new direct primaries does not, in itself, remove the membership register requirement.

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

Not even two million.

The number of votes matters politically. Whether these votes produce a legally valid appointment is a different question.

And then comes Section 88(3)

We now come to perhaps the most important provision cited in this controversy.

Reliance is placed on Article 88(3), arguing that where a court finds that a political party has not complied with electoral law in the conduct of primaries, the candidate concerned may be excluded from the elections for the office in question.

The consequence, if the provision were to apply as the appellants claim, could be far-reaching.

This would not simply be another warning for the party.

It could threaten the candidate’s participation in the elections themselves.

However, there is an important distinction between alleged non-compliance and obtaining a judicial finding that triggers a particular legal consequence.

The fact that the original primary was canceled does not, in itself, establish that the new primary is invalid or that Pantami is automatically disqualified.

The court must determine the exact legal effect of the original sentence, the circumstances of the repetition, the evidence from the register of members and the applicable provisions of the law.

However, the potential implications cannot be ignored.

Put the problems together.

The first primaries that produced Pantami would have been canceled due to failure to comply with current regulations and electoral law.

His challengers claim that his name was not contained in the register of PDP members submitted to INEC within the time limits prescribed by law.

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

Article 77, paragraph 6, further regulates the use of members’ registers for business purposes.

The challengers invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in INEC v Zenith Labor Party to support 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 happens, then, if the registry confirms the plaintiffs’ allegations and the courts accept their interpretation of the law?

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

You can’t produce yesterday today

This is where replication becomes problematic.

The PDP may conduct another primary.

You can print another ballot.

It can mobilize thousands of members.

He can announce another result.

What it cannot do is simply ignore a legal deadline or retroactively change the legal meaning of a membership register that had to be submitted to INEC within a prescribed deadline.

This is the crux of the matter.

If Pantami was not legally eligible to participate in the primaries in question under the applicable provisions on the register of members, the number of votes he subsequently obtained would not, in itself, be sufficient to remedy the defect.

The law comes before the votes.

Fitness comes before winning.

And respect comes before the political celebration of an appointment.

Goodbye, Professor Isa Ali Pantami?

For now the final verdict rests with the courts.

The crucial questions remain: Was Pantami’s name included in the relevant register of PDP members? What exactly did the Supreme Court decide in INEC v Zenith Labor Party? How does this ruling apply to the new primaries? And what consequences follow if the alleged non-compliance is ascertained?

These are questions that political loyalty, electoral enthusiasm and the party machine cannot resolve.

They require evidence, legal interpretation and a judicial decision.

If the challengers manage to prove their case and the relevant provisions work as they claim, Pantami’s path to election as Gombe governor could become exceptionally difficult.

For a politician with a formidable public profile and serious ambition as governor, this would represent a significant setback.

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

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

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

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

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

Goodbye, Professor Isa Ali Pantami?

Shawai can be reached via [email protected]