Tomorrow — Tuesday, 29th September 2026 — the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, holds its governorship primary in Gombe State. And it comes at a particularly significant moment.
This is not simply another party primary. It follows a Federal High Court judgment that nullified the May 26 primary which produced Professor Isa Ali Pantami as the party’s governorship candidate — and ordered the PDP to conduct a fresh exercise.
The party has now cleared three aspirants to participate in the repeat primary: Pantami himself, Khamisu Mailantarki, and Usman Garry.
But between the May primary and tomorrow’s fresh exercise, the legal landscape has shifted.
On September 24, the Supreme Court restored Sections 77(5), 77(6), 77(7) and 84(2) of the Electoral Act 2026. Under Section 77(5), only members whose names appear on a party’s membership register — submitted to INEC at least 21 days before a primary — are eligible to vote or be voted for. Section 77(6) goes further: the party must actually use that submitted register for the primary.
And that brings Pantami’s political journey back into focus.
THE CRITICAL TIMELINE
Consider the dates.
Pantami left the APC on May 19. The APC primary followed on May 21. And on May 26, Pantami emerged from the PDP primary.
The question now is not simply whether he had left the APC before joining the PDP. The more precise question is this:
Was Pantami’s name contained in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC within the statutory period applicable to the May 26 primary?
If the May 26 date is the reference point, the 21-day window points to May 5 as the relevant deadline.
That makes the documentary evidence critical. Was Pantami already a PDP member by that date? Was his name on the register submitted to INEC? When exactly was that register submitted? And was the same register actually used for the May 26 primary?
Those questions cannot be answered from the dates of his defection alone.
Indeed, legal practitioners quoted after the Supreme Court judgment have stressed that the ruling did not automatically invalidate individual candidates. Each case turns on its own facts — the relevant register, the timing, and the circumstances of the particular primary.
SO, WHAT CHANGES TOMORROW?
Tomorrow’s primary creates a new legal event.
The May 26 exercise has already been nullified. The PDP is therefore not continuing the old primary — it is conducting a fresh nomination process pursuant to a court order. That gives tomorrow’s exercise a different legal foundation.
The question becomes whether the PDP has complied with the requirements applicable to this fresh primary: the membership register, notice, screening, delegate participation, and the party’s own constitution and guidelines.
And here, the Supreme Court’s ruling makes the membership register particularly significant. The law does not merely require a party to maintain a register. It requires that register to be submitted to INEC within the prescribed period — and it restricts participation in the primary to persons whose names appear in it.
WHAT IF PANTAMI WINS TOMORROW?
This is where the ramifications become important.
A victory tomorrow would give Pantami a fresh nomination — not a reliance on the May 26 exercise that has already been nullified.
But that victory would still have to survive any subsequent legal challenge — one based on compliance with the Electoral Act, the PDP Constitution, the court’s order, and the applicable membership register.
In other words: winning the primary and establishing the legal validity of the nomination are related — but distinct — questions.
The same principle applies to Mailantarki and Garry. Whoever emerges tomorrow must have a nomination process capable of withstanding scrutiny under the restored provisions of the Electoral Act.
AND WHAT IF THERE IS ANOTHER COURT CASE?
That possibility cannot be ruled out.
The Supreme Court has now made the statutory validity of Sections 77 and 84 clear. What it has not done is determine the factual circumstances of every candidate or every primary conducted before its judgment.
That leaves room for litigation — where an aspirant believes a party failed to comply with the membership-register requirements or other statutory conditions. Legal commentary since the ruling has already identified the possibility of fresh litigation over party primaries.
So for the PDP, tomorrow’s responsibility goes beyond producing a winner. It is about producing a process — documented, transparent, and demonstrably compliant with the law.
For the three aspirants, the stakes are equally high. For Pantami, tomorrow is an opportunity to secure a fresh mandate after the nullification of his first nomination. For Mailantarki and Garry, it is an opportunity to contest afresh after the court ordered the earlier process repeated.
And for the PDP, the central challenge is this: to ensure that the process producing its next governorship candidate does not create yet another legal question — one capable of returning the party to court.
Tomorrow’s primary will determine more than who carries the PDP flag in Gombe State. It will test whether the party can conduct a fresh nomination process in a manner that withstands the new legal scrutiny created by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Electoral Act.
Chika Udenkwo, writes from Gombe State. He is a developmen analyst.