The Bayelsa Governorship Election Judgment Is In Consonance With The 1999 Constitution (As Amended) By Jimmy Abia, Esq

This is why the Supreme Court got it right in the judgment in the Bayelsa governorship election case:

“(1) In any ELECTION to which the foregoing provisions of this part of this Chapter relate a CANDIDATE for the office of GOVERNOR of a state shall NOT be deemed to have been VALIDLY NOMINATED for such office UNLESS he NOMINATES another CANDIDATE as his ASSOCIATE for his RUNNING for the OFFICE of Governor, who is to occupy the office of DEPUTY GOVERNOR

(2) The provisions of this Part of this Chapter relating to qualification for election, tenure of office, disqualifications, declaration of assets and liabilities and Oath of Governor shall apply in relation to the office of Deputy Governor as if references to Governor were references to the Deputy Governor”

Chapter 6, Part 2, Section 187 (1) (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

Upon the reading of (2) one will see that for the deputy governor to be validly nominated he has to have the same qualifications as the governor and his disqualification is also on the same conditions as the governor.

If the nomination of the deputy governorship candidate by the governorship candidate is deficient by reason of not having the same qualifications as the governorship candidate that would deprive the governor of a deputy governor, and therefore makes the governors nomination as governorship candidate deficient.

When a deputy governorship candidate is improperly nominated, the governorship candidate is not validly nominated and cannot run for the office.

Note that this is a pre-election matter.