Court Reserves Judgment In Suit Challenging Pantami’s Gombe PDP Ticket” — Aspirant Seeks Fresh Primary Over Alleged Ineligibility

The Federal High Court in Gombe has reserved judgment in a significant pre-election suit challenging the eligibility of former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governorship candidate for the 2027 election in Gombe State. The suit, filed by fellow PDP aspirant Khamisu Mailantarki, seeks a fresh primary election, alleging Pantami's ineligibility. This case highlights the stringent requirements of the Electoral Act 2022 and the 1999 Constitution (as amended) regarding candidate nomination and qualification, underscoring the judiciary's critical role in resolving intra-party disputes and upholding electoral integrity in Nigeria.

The Nigerian political landscape is once again focused on the judiciary, as the Federal High Court in Gombe has reserved judgment in a pre-election suit that could significantly impact the 2027 governorship election in Gombe State. The suit, initiated by a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) aspirant, Khamisu Mailantarki, challenges the emergence of former Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Isa Pantami, as the party's flagbearer. Mailantarki's core contention revolves around alleged ineligibility, seeking a nullification of the primary election and an order for a fresh exercise. This development underscores the increasing judicialisation of Nigeria's electoral process, particularly concerning internal party affairs and candidate selection.

Pre-election matters have become a recurring feature of Nigeria's electoral cycle, often determining the fate of candidates long before the general elections. These disputes, which typically concern issues of qualification, nomination, and the conduct of party primaries, are governed by strict constitutional and statutory provisions. The outcome of this particular suit will not only shape the political trajectory in Gombe State but also reinforce or clarify the judicial interpretation of the Electoral Act 2022 and the 1999 Constitution regarding candidate eligibility and the sanctity of party primaries. For legal practitioners, the case offers valuable insights into the procedural and substantive hurdles involved in challenging party nominations and the evolving jurisprudence in this critical area of electoral law.

The legal framework governing candidate nomination and eligibility in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022. These instruments delineate the qualifications and disqualifications for elective offices, as well as the procedures for conducting party primaries. Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution, for instance, sets out the qualifications for a person to be elected as Governor, including being a citizen of Nigeria by birth, attaining the age of thirty-five years, being a member of a political party and sponsored by that party, and being educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.

Conversely, Section 182 of the Constitution outlines various disqualifying factors, such as voluntarily acquiring the citizenship of another country, being of unsound mind, being an undischarged bankrupt, conviction for certain offences, membership of a secret society, or indictment for embezzlement or fraud. The Electoral Act 2022 further refines the process, particularly concerning pre-election disputes. Sections 29(5) and 84(14) of the Act are pivotal, granting an aspirant who participated in the primaries the locus standi to challenge the information supplied by a candidate of their political party or the conduct of the primary election itself. Such suits must be filed at the Federal High Court within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event complained of, and the court is mandated to deliver judgment within 180 days from the date of filing.

The suit by Khamisu Mailantarki against Isa Pantami's nomination falls squarely within the ambit of pre-election matters, which the Supreme Court has consistently defined as causes of action predating the election and challenging nomination, sponsorship, or the preparatory stages of an election. A key aspect of such challenges is the requirement of locus standi, which under the Electoral Act 2022, is largely restricted to aspirants who participated in the primary election of the same political party. This ensures that only genuinely aggrieved parties with a direct interest in the outcome can approach the court, preventing frivolous litigation by external parties.

The grounds for challenging a candidate's eligibility or the primary election itself are typically rooted in non-compliance with the Electoral Act, the party's constitution and guidelines, or the constitutional requirements for the office. For instance, an aspirant can challenge a candidate for furnishing false information in an affidavit or document submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) regarding their constitutional requirements. Furthermore, the conduct of the primary election must strictly adhere to the provisions of the Electoral Act and the party's rules. The Supreme Court has affirmed that only primaries conducted by a party's National Working Committee, or a body appointed by it, are valid.

While the specific allegations against Pantami's eligibility are not detailed in the provided excerpt, typical grounds for such challenges could include issues related to educational qualifications, age, citizenship, or the proper conduct of the primary election itself, such as alleged irregularities or non-adherence to party guidelines. It is crucial to note that while INEC has the power to organize and supervise elections, it cannot unilaterally disqualify a candidate; only a court of law can. If the court finds merit in Mailantarki's claims, it could nullify Pantami's nomination and potentially order a fresh primary election. However, ordering a fresh primary often presents a legal quandary, especially concerning the statutory timelines for submitting candidate lists to INEC, which must be done not later than 180 days before the general election.

Nigerian courts have, in various instances, nullified primary elections due to substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act or party guidelines, leading to the disqualification of candidates. For example, in cases like *APC v. Hon. Danladi Karfi & 2 Ors.*, the Supreme Court has emphasized that only a member of a political party who was an aspirant can challenge the sponsorship and nomination of the candidate who emerged from the primary election. The judiciary's consistent stance is that political parties must adhere to their own rules and the electoral laws, and any arbitrary action can be challenged. The Federal High Court's decision in this Gombe case will undoubtedly contribute to the evolving jurisprudence on the delicate balance between internal party democracy and statutory compliance.

The Federal High Court's reserved judgment in the suit challenging Isa Pantami's PDP governorship ticket is a critical juncture for both the Peoples Democratic Party and the broader Nigerian electoral system. For legal practitioners, this case serves as a potent reminder of the meticulous attention required in advising political aspirants and parties on compliance with the Electoral Act 2022 and the 1999 Constitution. The strict timelines for filing pre-election matters and the specific requirements for locus standi and grounds for challenge necessitate thorough preparation and strategic litigation.

Practitioners should closely monitor the court's pronouncements, particularly on the interpretation of 'ineligibility' and the remedies available when a primary election is successfully challenged. The judgment will likely provide further clarity on the judiciary's role in policing internal party democracy and ensuring that candidates meet all constitutional and statutory requirements. The implications extend beyond Gombe State, potentially influencing how political parties conduct their primaries and vet their aspirants nationwide in preparation for future elections, thereby reinforcing the imperative for transparency and adherence to due process within political parties.