The document discusses the legal implications of the sudden death of Abubakar Audu, a gubernatorial candidate in Kogi State, Nigeria. There is debate around whether his running mate should automatically replace him on the ballot or if the political party can select a new candidate. The document analyzes sections of the Nigerian constitution and electoral law, finding that the laws give political parties the right to change or substitute candidates in the case of a candidate's death. It concludes that Audu's party, APC, should be allowed to select a new candidate if they feel the running mate cannot win them the election.

1. The Sudden Death of Abubakar Audu and its Legal Implications:
Whiter we go from here?
First, I would like to extend my condolence to the families, associates and political
supporters of the late Alhaji Abubakar Audu who contested for the gubernatorial
election in his state, Kogi State on the platform of APC, but who by cheer destiny
death did not allow him to reap the good fruits of his political labour.
Since this is not a religion forum, I would therefore, try not to make a mistake to
give a sermon concerning DEATH and its consequences on the life of homosapiens.
But be that as it may, I would not fail to remind my readers of this write –up that
the only thing that is certain in the life of a man while other things are speculative
is DEATH!
Since Sunday, November 22nd, 2015 when the death of late Abubakr was announced,
though it first started like what could be called a rumour, but it was later confirmed
by the family deceased erstwhile Governor that the news was no longer a fiction but
echoes of reality.
It was from there Nigerians both at home and in diaspora have found themselves in
a confusion on the legal implication[s] which this sudden death would have on the
political terrain in Kogi State where the electoral body- INEC had the just declared
the election as INCONCLUSIVE.
Divergent views from the different scholars, legal practitioners, politicians and even
laymen have ruptured and polluted the atmosphere with series of rebuttable and
palliative evidences. Some even went further to argue that there was a graveyard
lacuna in both the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the
provisions of the Electoral Act 2010.
Some even went to the archive to bring out the old legal authority of Abubakar
Atiku’s case to support the weight of their evidence where the Court held that:
‘’if a person duly elected as Governor dies before taking and subscribing the Oath
of Allegiance and oath of office, or is unable for any reason whatsoever to be sworn
in, the person elected with him as Deputy governor shall be sworn in as Governor
and he shall nominate a new Deputy-Governor who shall be appointed by the
Governor with the approval of a simple majority of the house of Assembly of the
State”.
It is to be noted that this is the bedrock of the provision of section 181 of the 1999
Constitution.
A closer look at the above Supreme Court of Nigeria’s pronouncement would lead us
understand that the facts in the Atiku Abubakar’s case [Supra] is patently
distinguishable from that of Abubakar Audu of Kogi State.
In Atiku’s case, the Court held that Atiku was DEAD for the mere fact that he was
not physically available to subscribe to the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office

2. after he was being elected as the Governor of his State, but in In Abubakar Audu’s
case, the electoral body, INEC, declared the election as INCONCLUSIVE. This without
doubt is a great legal problem in the history of Nigeria political environment.
There wouldn’t have been a problem assuming Abubakar Adu did not die after the
declaration of his election as INCONCLUSIVE. The floodgate of the impasse arose on
who is to the best candidate to replace late Audu.
There were some school of thoughts who believed that late Audu’s running mate,
Abiodun Falake ought to have the automatic ticket to come to the shoe of his boss
as the governorship candidate to be presented by his political party, APC. Some,
however, took a divergent view and opined that doing so would do a great damage
to the political history of Kogi State and Nigeria as a whole for the lack of
comprehensive and forensic construction of legal instruments.
Having carefully studied all the arguments and counter arguments, it would
therefore fair enough to submit that the death of late Abubakar Audu has not
instituted any legal problem whatsoever if only we could do ourselves a favour by
not only reading but studying the provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the
Electoral Act 2010 relating to the matter at hand very well.
Section 221 of the 1999 Constitution as referred to by the Attorney General of the
Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), is very explicit to
interpret and has not posed any problem. The section provides:
‘’No association, other than a political party, shall canvass for votes for any
candidate at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the
election expenses of any candidate at an election’’.
While section 33 of the Electoral Act 2010 provides that:
‘’No Political Party shall be allowed to change or substitute its candidate whose
name has been submitted pursuant to Section 32 of this of this Act, except in the
case of death or withdrawal by the candidate’’
The combine effect of the above sections is that the efficacy of the political party
in a democratic setting can never be undermined. In whatsoever situation, the
political party is like a relationship between agent and his principal. While the
political party is acting as the principal, the candidate presented by the political
party is more or less like its agent. It is a trite law that whatsoever an agent does is
deemed to have been done by his principal except in a limited cases which serve as
exception to the rule.
In politics however, it is a known fact that the electorates do not know the flag
bearer of a political party, but they are more interested in the name of the political
party under which a candidate is contesting.
The interpretation of this is that the electorates voted for the political party rather
than its candidate. A good example of this could be find in Lagos State where the
electorates did not know where Babatunde Fashola and Akinwunmi Ambode came
from before they were both voted in as their governors.

3. What was paramount in the heart of the electorates is the political party under
which of a candidate is contesting. It is, therefore, logical to say that the votes a
contestant has during an election is deemed to have belonged to its political party,
but not his because he was deemed to be an unknown personality in the eyes of the
electorates.
In the recent case of Lagos State’s gubernatorial election, the high esteem qualities
of Mr.Jimi Agbaje can never be compared to that of his opponent, Gov, Akinwunmi
Ambode.
In spite of the unparalleled and unalloyed credentials of Mr. Jimi Agbaje, the
electorates still went ahead to vote for Ambode simply because they did not want
the presence of PDP in Lagos State.
If the life-wire of a contestant belongs to his political, the political party therefore
should be accorded the rights and privileges to present any candidate of its choice
which it believes could get it more votes to actualise its dream.
In conclusion, I could hardly see any meaningful vacuum in our laws concerning the
recent incident in Kogi State where an election was declared as an INCONCLUSIVE.
While section 221 of the 1999 Constitution gives preference to the political party in
situation like this, section 33 of the Electoral Act 2010 allows the political party
whose candidate dies the opportunity to change or substitute its candidate.
Therefore, if APC believes that Abiodun Faleke may not give it its desirable result,
the party should be allowed to conduct another primary election within itself and
present a candidate that will lead it to the Promised Land.
Com. Adeniji, Alaba.