by Abubakar Abdulkadir Usman, Esq.
The recent judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Gombe has materially altered the legal position concerning Professor Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami’s aspiration to become the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate in Gombe State.
The immediate question is no longer simply whether Pantami can defend the validity of the PDP governorship primary conducted in May 2026. More importantly, the issue now is whether he can lawfully secure the PDP ticket through a fresh primary, successfully challenge the judgment on appeal, or pursue both options simultaneously, subject to the applicable law and procedural requirements.
The PDP has reportedly notified the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of a fresh governorship primary scheduled for Tuesday, September 29, 2026, following the Federal High Court judgment delivered on September 24, 2026.
The development has introduced considerable urgency into the matter, given the limited time available for the parties to take further legal steps.
Pantami’s legal position may therefore be examined from two principal perspectives: the legal effect of the judgment on his earlier nomination and his continuing opportunity to seek the party’s ticket through a legally compliant process.
1. What Did the Federal High Court Decide?
The suit was reportedly instituted by Usman Aliyu Garry, a PDP governorship aspirant who challenged the process through which Pantami emerged as the party’s candidate.
According to reports of the judgment delivered on September 24, 2026, the court: nullified the PDP governorship primary conducted on May 26, 2026, through which Pantami emerged as the party’s candidate; directed the PDP to conduct a fresh governorship primary in accordance with its constitution, guidelines and applicable electoral laws; and ordered Pantami to stop presenting himself as the PDP’s duly nominated governorship candidate.
The dispute reportedly centred on the validity of the nomination process, including the manner in which the primary was conducted and the alleged exclusion of other aspirants who had been screened and cleared.
The statutory framework governing party primaries is principally contained in sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act 2022. Section 77 addresses, among other matters, notice of party congresses and meetings, membership registers and the submission of such registers to INEC.
Section 84, meanwhile, governs the nomination of candidates and recognises direct primaries, indirect primaries and consensus, subject to the statutory requirements applicable to each method.
Section 84(2) requires political parties seeking to nominate candidates to conduct their primaries in accordance with their constitutions and guidelines.
Sections 84(5) and 84(6) prescribe requirements applicable to direct and indirect primaries respectively, while sections 84(9) and 84(10) provide requirements relating to consensus arrangements.
An important legal distinction must therefore be drawn between the invalidation of a nomination process and the personal disqualification of a candidate from participating in a future primary. The two are not necessarily synonymous.
Based on the reports presently available, the judgment appears to have invalidated the process through which Pantami obtained the PDP ticket. It does not, on the face of those reports, establish that Pantami was personally convicted of an electoral offence or permanently disqualified from seeking the party’s nomination.
Reports also indicate that the court affirmed his PDP membership. If that account accurately reflects the judgment, the principal defect identified by the court was the process through which he emerged as candidate rather than his membership of the party.
That said, no definitive legal conclusion should be drawn without examining the certified judgment, particularly the court’s findings, the reliefs granted and the statutory provisions upon which the decision was based.
2. Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act
Section 84(2), read together with the relevant provisions of section 77, the PDP Constitution and the party’s applicable nomination guidelines, is central to understanding the controversy surrounding Pantami’s nomination.
Reports concerning the judgment refer to issues surrounding the conduct of the primary, including the use of voice affirmation and the alleged exclusion of other aspirants who had been screened and cleared.
However, a distinction must be maintained between provisions raised by the parties during proceedings and provisions upon which the court actually based its decision.
The available reports do not establish that the court found Pantami personally in breach of sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act, nor do they establish that each of those provisions independently constituted a ground for nullifying the primary.
It would therefore be premature to conclude that Pantami personally contravened all those provisions without examining the enrolled judgment and the record of proceedings.
The certified judgment will be important in determining: the precise statutory provisions considered by the court;
whether any violation was attributed to Pantami, the PDP or the conduct of the primary generally; whether eligible aspirants were unlawfully excluded;
whether the nomination process complied with the Electoral Act, the PDP Constitution and the party’s guidelines; and
the legal basis upon which the court ordered a fresh primary.
The PDP Constitution and the applicable PDP Electoral Guidelines must also be considered alongside the Electoral Act.
The relevant provisions concerning membership, screening, nomination, primaries and internal appeals should be verified against the exact version of the documents relied upon by the parties.
My assessment, based on the reported facts, is that the immediate legal consequence is the invalidation of Pantami’s original nomination.
That consequence should not automatically be equated with a permanent disqualification from seeking the governorship ticket.
3. What Legal Options Are Available to Pantami?
Pantami appears to have three principal options, although the feasibility of pursuing them simultaneously will depend on the precise terms of the judgment and the applicable procedural rules.
Option One: Participate in the Fresh Primary
The most immediate option is for Pantami to participate in the fresh PDP governorship primary reportedly scheduled for September 29, 2026.
This would provide him with an opportunity to seek the PDP nomination through a process intended to comply with the court’s directive and applicable electoral requirements.
The crucial questions are whether he remains eligible to participate, satisfies the party’s requirements and is permitted to contest under the terms of the judgment.
If those conditions are met, Pantami may seek the ticket afresh. The setting aside of his previous nomination does not, on the reported terms of the judgment, necessarily prevent him from participating in a properly conducted fresh primary.
The new exercise must comply with section 84 of the Electoral Act and the applicable PDP Constitution and Electoral Guidelines. The requirements will depend on whether the party adopts direct primaries, indirect primaries or consensus.
The PDP must also comply with the applicable provisions of section 77 concerning notice to INEC and the party membership register.
Any fresh primary conducted in breach of the Electoral Act, the PDP Constitution, the applicable guidelines or the court’s order could itself become subject to legal challenge. Option Two: Appeal Against the Judgment
The second option is to challenge the Federal High Court judgment at the Court of Appeal.
Section 241(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, provides for appeals from decisions of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal in specified circumstances. Where an appeal is not as of right, section 242 provides for leave of the Federal High Court or the Court of Appeal.
The procedural requirements are governed principally by the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, including provisions concerning the notice of appeal, service, compilation and transmission of the record and prosecution of the appeal.
Potential grounds of appeal could concern the interpretation and application of sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act, the court’s evaluation of the nomination process, the evidential basis for its findings and the reliefs granted.
These, however, are potential areas for legal examination rather than established grounds of appeal. Their viability can only be determined after a careful review of the judgment, pleadings, evidence, written addresses and enrolled order.
The central question would be whether the trial court committed a material and reversible error of law or fact.
Option Three: Appeal While Participating in the Fresh Primary
A third possibility is to pursue an appeal while als
o participating in the fresh primary, provided that the two courses of action are legally compatible.
From a practical perspective, this could preserve Pantami’s opportunity to seek the PDP ticket afresh while allowing his legal team to challenge the judgment that nullified his earlier nomination.
However, this approach requires careful legal consideration. Counsel would need to examine the terms of the judgment, the consequences of participation in the fresh exercise and any procedural issues that could arise from pursuing both courses simultaneously.
It is also important to note that the filing of an appeal does not, by itself, automatically operate as a stay of execution of the judgment.
If Pantami seeks to stop the fresh primary pending the determination of an appeal, his legal team would need to consider the appropriate application for a stay under the applicable procedural rules and the circumstances of the case.
Such an application would ordinarily require counsel to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the court to preserve the subject matter pending appeal. The court may also impose appropriate conditions.
Given the reported September 29 date for the fresh primary, timing will be critical.
4. Does Being the Sole Cleared Aspirant Strengthen Pantami’s Position?
One of the arguments surrounding Pantami’s emergence is the reported claim that he was the only aspirant cleared to contest the May 2026 primary.
The PDP and Pantami’s supporters have reportedly maintained that he emerged through a process conducted in accordance with the party’s guidelines and received the support of the delegates.
However, whether Pantami was the sole cleared aspirant cannot be considered separately from the process through which that status was established.
The critical legal question is whether the party lawfully determined the eligibility of the aspirants, afforded those entitled to participate the required opportunity to do so and conducted the nomination in accordance with the Electoral Act and its own rules.
Section 84(2) makes compliance with the party’s constitution and guidelines a statutory requirement. Consequently, the PDP’s screening and appeal procedures are legally relevant.
If the court found that other eligible aspirants were unlawfully excluded, the fact that Pantami was subsequently declared the sole candidate would not necessarily cure the procedural defect.
Conversely, if the documentary evidence and applicable rules establish that the screening and nomination process was lawful, that could form part of the basis for challenging the trial court’s findings on appeal.
The strength of either position ultimately depends on the documentary evidence, the applicable party guidelines and the precise findings contained in the judgment.
5. Pantami’s Remaining Legal Options
A. Seeking the PDP Ticket Through the Fresh Primary
On the reported terms of the judgment, this avenue appears to remain legally open in principle.
The court reportedly ordered the PDP to conduct a fresh primary rather than permanently barring Pantami from seeking the party’s nomination.
Therefore, if he remains eligible and is allowed to participate under the court’s order and the applicable rules, he may seek the ticket again.
The decisive factors will include compliance with the requirements governing the fresh primary, the treatment of all eligible aspirants and the eventual outcome of the nomination exercise.
B. Challenging the Judgment on Appeal
An appeal is also legally available, subject to the applicable constitutional and procedural requirements.
Its outcome will depend on whether the trial court is shown to have:
committed an error of law;
reached findings unsupported by the evidence;
misapplied the relevant statutory provisions; or
granted relief that cannot be sustained under the applicable legal principles.
The nullification of Pantami’s original nomination is a significant legal setback. However, the prospects of overturning that decision cannot responsibly be determined from media reports alone.
A proper assessment requires the judgment and the complete record of proceedings.
C. The Significance of September 29
The reported date of September 29 creates an immediate practical challenge.
Pantami’s legal team must consider the relationship between any appeal, any application for interim relief and the PDP’s obligation to conduct the fresh primary.
The enrolled order, the PDP’s formal notice to INEC and any subsequent orders issued by a competent court will therefore be particularly important.
The legal position could change depending on whether the fresh primary proceeds, whether Pantami participates and whether any interim or appellate orders are made.
6. Overall Legal Assessment
The Federal High Court judgment has clearly altered the immediate legal position of Professor Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami, but based on the reports presently available, it does not necessarily bring his Gombe governorship aspiration to an end.
The judgment has removed the legal foundation of his original PDP nomination, subject to any successful appeal. At the same time, the reported order for a fresh primary appears to leave open the possibility of his seeking the party’s ticket again, provided he satisfies the applicable legal and party requirements.
The critical distinction is between the invalidation of a particular primary and a permanent legal disqualification from contesting an election. The former does not automatically establish the latter.
Pantami’s legal team therefore faces two interconnected questions:
whether the Federal High Court judgment discloses sustainable grounds for appeal; and
whether Pantami can lawfully participate in the fresh PDP governorship primary scheduled for September 29, 2026.
Those questions must be considered against the provisions of sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act 2022, sections 241 and 242 of the Constitution, the PDP Constitution, the applicable PDP Electoral Guidelines, the Court of Appeal Rules 2021 and, most importantly, the precise terms of the Federal High Court’s judgment and enrolled order.
I would not assign a numerical probability to the success of an appeal or to Pantami’s prospects of securing the PDP ticket. Such an assessment would be speculative without the relevant court documents and the outcome of the fresh nomination process.
The proper legal conclusion, on the information presently available, is that Pantami’s original nomination has suffered a serious legal setback, but the available reports do not establish that he has been permanently foreclosed from seeking the PDP governorship ticket.
His remaining options must be pursued within the boundaries of the law, while their ultimate outcome will depend on the applicable legal requirements, the evidence, the conduct of the fresh primary and decisions of the competent courts.
As a matter of legal analysis, it is important to distinguish what the court has actually decided from what remains open to argument.
The certified judgment, enrolled order, operative PDP Constitution, applicable Electoral Guidelines and appellate record—not media reports or political commentary—should ultimately determine the legal position.
Abubakar Abdulkadir Usman, Esq.
Legal Practitioner and Academic
September 2026