Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
A legal practitioner and former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Gombe State, Ahmed Tukur, has argued that a recent Federal High Court judgment strengthened the position of former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Prof. Isa Ali Ibrahim Pantami, in the dispute over the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, primary election for the 2027 general election.
Mr Tukur said the judgment, which nullified the PDP primary held on May 26, 2026 and ordered the party to conduct a fresh exercise, gave Mr Pantami what he described as three significant legal advantages: judicial confirmation of his party membership, the nullification of the disputed May primary and a fresh primary victory conducted under the supervision of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
He made the submissions in a legal analysis titled, “How the Federal High Court Judgment Fortified Pantami: A Judicial Seal on Membership, Nullification of May Primary, and a Fresh 29 September 2026 Primary Victory.”
According to him, the court expressly found that Mr Pantami was a valid member of the PDP and that his name appeared in the party’s official membership register submitted to INEC.
Mr Tukur argued that the finding was significant because party membership is one of the issues that can be raised in pre-election litigation under the Electoral Act and the Constitution.
He cited Section 77 of the Electoral Act 2026, which deals with party membership registers, and Section 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association.
The lawyer said the court relied on an INEC-certified copy of the PDP membership register, identified as CTC No. INEC/ABJ/REG/CTC/GM/2026/114, dated September 2, 2026.
He argued that the judicial finding would make it more difficult for opponents to successfully challenge Pantami’s membership in subsequent litigation.
Tukur also said the judgment effectively extinguished the legal consequences of the May 26 primary after the court found that the exercise did not comply with the applicable provisions of the Electoral Act.
He cited previous Supreme Court decisions, including Amaechi v. INEC and PDP v. Ezeonwuka, to support his argument that where a primary election is nullified and a fresh primary ordered, the earlier exercise ceases to have legal effect.
“The May 26 primary is void ab initio,” he argued.
According to him, the fresh primary conducted by the PDP on September 29 should therefore be treated as a new electoral exercise rather than a continuation of the earlier primary.
Mr Tukur said the September 29 exercise was conducted through the direct primary method and monitored by INEC.
He said Pantami emerged winner with 2,054 votes against his closest opponent, who secured 389 votes.
The lawyer argued that the fresh primary complied with the provisions of Sections 77 and 84 of the Electoral Act, particularly following the Supreme Court’s decision in a case involving INEC and the Zenith Labour Party, which he said reaffirmed the applicable legal framework for party primaries.
According to him, the PDP’s use of the direct primary system and INEC’s participation in monitoring the exercise further strengthened Pantami’s position.
He also argued that the membership register used for the September 29 primary was the INEC-certified register dated September 2, 2026, which he said satisfied the statutory requirement concerning the submission of party membership registers.
Mr Tukur further contended that once a party has conducted a valid primary and submitted its candidate’s name to INEC in accordance with the law, the electoral body cannot unilaterally remove the candidate except in circumstances permitted by law or pursuant to a court order.
He cited provisions of Sections 29, 32, 33 and 88 of the Electoral Act, as well as judicial authorities including Dingyadi v. INEC, Action Alliance v. INEC and Faleke v. INEC.
The lawyer also rejected any suggestion that INEC could rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Zenith Labour Party case to disqualify Mr Pantami.
He said the decision was between INEC and the Zenith Labour Party and that Mr Pantami was not a party to the case.
According to him, the restoration or interpretation of statutory provisions by the Supreme Court does not automatically disqualify every candidate, adding that each candidate’s compliance with the law must be considered on its own facts.
He further argued that Mr Pantami would be entitled to fair hearing before any decision capable of affecting his candidacy could be taken against him.
“Validity of a law does not equal automatic disqualification. ZLP restored the law; Pantami complied with it on September 29,” Tukur said.
He also maintained that INEC could not, on its own, substitute another candidate for Pantami after the September 29 primary.
According to him, even where a challenge to a primary succeeds, the appropriate remedy would depend on the circumstances and applicable provisions of the Electoral Act, rather than automatically declaring the runner-up the winner.
Mr Tukur said this was particularly relevant because Pantami secured 2,054 votes at the September 29 primary, while the second-placed aspirant polled 389 votes.
He argued that the court-ordered fresh primary had therefore provided the PDP with a new electoral mandate that should be assessed independently of the nullified May exercise.
The lawyer further contended that any challenge to the September 29 primary had to comply with the constitutional timeline for pre-election matters.
He said Section 285(9) of the Constitution provides a 14-day period for instituting a pre-election action, adding that the relevant period should run from the date of the fresh primary rather than from the date of the nullified May exercise.
Mr Tukur consequently argued that the legal window for challenging the September 29 primary expired on October 13, 2026.
He described Pantami’s position as stronger than that of candidates whose party membership, primary victories or nomination status had not previously been subjected to judicial scrutiny.
“Most candidates enter the general election with three risks: membership challenge, primary validity challenge, and risk of administrative deletion by INEC.
“Pantami enters with a judicial seal on membership, with the defective May primary wiped out by court order, and with a fresh INEC-monitored direct primary that complies with Sections 77 and 84 as restored by the Supreme Court,” he said.
Mr Tukur said the combination of the Federal High Court judgment and the September 29 primary had significantly strengthened Pantami’s legal position ahead of the 2027 general election.
However, the lawyer’s submissions represent his interpretation of the judgment and relevant electoral laws and could still be subject to further judicial interpretation or challenge.
