The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, governorship candidate in Gombe State, Professor Isa Ali Ibrahim, has demanded that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, publish his name on the final list of candidates for the 2027 general elections, alleging that the commission omitted him without explanation.
The candidate, through his team of solicitors led by Ahmed Raji, SAN, gave INEC until Wednesday, October 14, to publish his name as the PDP candidate for the Gombe State governorship election.
In a letter dated October 12 and addressed to the INEC chairman, the lawyers described the omission as “unlawful and unexplained”.
The letter, signed by Ahmed Raji, SAN; A.T. Kehinde, SAN; Abdul Mohammed, SAN; Wale Balogun, SAN; and Chief Tunde Falola, Esq., demanded that the commission correct what they said was an error in the final list published on October 10.
The lawyers argued that Mr Pantami emerged as the PDP candidate after a fresh governorship primary conducted on September 29, in compliance with two judgments delivered by the Federal High Court in Gombe on September 24.
They said INEC officials attended, observed and monitored the fresh primary, adding that the commission had custody of the monitoring report.
According to the letter, the PDP had also submitted Ibrahim’s name to INEC after he emerged victorious in the fresh exercise.
The lawyers maintained that the commission had no legal basis to exclude their client from the final list, arguing that the judgments of the Federal High Court did not disqualify him from contesting the election.
They said the court had nullified the earlier primary conducted on May 26 over issues relating to the conduct of the exercise and directed the PDP to organise a fresh primary within 30 days.
The court, according to the lawyers, ordered the party to conduct the exercise in line with the Electoral Act 2026, its constitution and electoral guidelines, while allowing the plaintiff and other aspirants whose clearance from the May 14 screening exercise remained valid to participate.
The lawyers said the consequential orders restrained the PDP and INEC from recognising or giving effect to any nomination arising from the May 26 primary.
They argued that the orders did not prevent Ibrahim from participating in a fresh primary or prohibit the party from submitting his name if he emerged as the winner of the new exercise.
The letter also addressed questions raised in the two court cases about Ibrahim’s membership of the PDP and his eligibility to contest the governorship primary.
The cases were Suit No. FHC/GM/CS/9/2026, between Usman Aliyu, popularly known as Garry, and the PDP and two others, and Suit No. FHC/GM/CS/10/2026, between Khamisu Ahmed and another plaintiff and the PDP and two others.
According to the lawyers, the plaintiffs had challenged Ibrahim’s membership of the party, arguing that his name was not included in the PDP membership register submitted to INEC and that he was therefore ineligible to participate in the primary.
They said the issues were fully contested through affidavit evidence and determined by the Federal High Court.
In the judgment in Suit No. FHC/GM/CS/9/2026, the court held that the plaintiff had not established that Ibrahim was legally incapable of being recognised as a PDP member.
The court also addressed whether Ibrahim had validly emerged as the party’s governorship candidate, noting that the question of sponsorship had substantially been dealt with in its consideration of other issues.
In the second suit, the court similarly rejected the argument that Ibrahim was ineligible because his name did not appear in the membership register tendered by the plaintiff.
The lawyers quoted the court as saying that the absence of Ibrahim’s name from the exhibit was not conclusive proof that he was not a member of the party.
The court reportedly held that the PDP recognised Ibrahim as a member and had produced his membership card and a register containing his name.
“Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not established the 2nd Defendant’s ineligibility on the grounds advanced. Question four is resolved against the Plaintiff,” the court held, according to the excerpt reproduced in the lawyers’ letter.
However, the lawyers acknowledged that the court nullified the May 26 primary in the two judgments and ordered a fresh exercise because of issues relating to its conduct.
They said Mr Pantami subsequently participated in the fresh primary held on September 29 and emerged as the winner.
The legal team also cited previous court decisions to support its argument that INEC could not independently remove a nominated candidate from an election list.
They referred to Dingyadi & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2011), Raymond v. INEC & Ors (2023) and AC & Anor v. INEC (2007), arguing that the removal of a candidate’s name was a judicial act.
According to the lawyers, INEC’s role in party primaries is to attend, observe, monitor and report on the exercise, rather than independently disqualify candidates.
They accused the commission of failing to explain why Ibrahim’s name was excluded from the final list, despite the submission of his particulars and his emergence from the fresh primary.
The lawyers, therefore, demanded that INEC publish and circulate Ibrahim’s name in the same manner and with the same prominence as those of other candidates already listed for the 2027 elections.
They also requested written confirmation of the steps taken by the commission to resolve the matter.
