Deeleslie Mondoka writes:<\/p>\n
CAN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BE DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE OF THEIR RUNNING MATE?<\/p>\n
Picture this:<\/p>\n
A man decides he wants to become President.<\/p>\n
The Constitution says, \u201cVery well. But you cannot run alone. You must bring a running mate.\u201d<\/p>\n
So, he finds someone he trusts. They stand on the same stage. They appear on the same posters. They wave to the same crowds. To the ordinary voter, they look like a package deal: buy one, get one free.<\/p>\n
Then, just as the campaign begins gathering momentum, someone in the crowd raises a hand.<\/p>\n
\u201cExcuse me,\u201d he says. \u201cIs the running mate actually qualified to be there?\u201d<\/p>\n
Suddenly, everyone starts talking at once.<\/p>\n
One group says, \u201cSimple. If the running mate is not qualified, remove the running mate.\u201d<\/p>\n
Another group says, \u201cNot so fast. If the presidential candidate was required to choose a qualified running mate, and he chose an unqualified one, doesn\u2019t that create a problem for the presidential candidate himself?\u201d<\/p>\n
That was the question lurking beneath the surface of the case before the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n
The Court began with an important distinction. A running mate is not a presidential candidate. The Constitution treats the two differently. The presidential candidate is the one contesting the election. The running mate is attached to that candidacy.<\/p>\n
Think of it like an airplane. The pilot and co-pilot are both important, but only one is actually flying the plane. The running mate is part of the ticket, but is not independently running for President.<\/p>\n
For that reason, the Court held that a running mate does not go through a separate nomination process. No separate nomination fee. No separate list of supporters. No separate challenge under Article 52.<\/p>\n
But then came the catch.<\/p>\n
The Constitution also says that a running mate must possess the same qualifications as a presidential candidate. And the Court made an observation that carries considerable weight:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe onus is upon the presidential candidate to ensure the running mate has the necessary qualifications.\u201d<\/p>\n
In plain English, the Constitution is saying: \u201cChoose carefully. The responsibility is yours.\u201d<\/p>\n
So, if the running mate later turns out to be constitutionally disqualified, the real question may not be whether the running mate has a problem. The real question may be whether the presidential candidate failed to comply with the Constitution by choosing that person in the first place.<\/p>\n
The Court did not decide whether that failure would automatically invalidate the presidential candidate\u2019s nomination. It left that question unanswered.<\/p>\n
What it did decide is that you cannot attack the running mate as though he were a separate presidential candidate. But it left open the possibility that an unqualified running mate could create difficulties for the presidential ticket as a whole.<\/p>\n
The Moral of the Story?<\/p>\n
In politics, as in life, choosing the right partner matters. If the law makes you responsible for the person standing beside you, you cannot be surprised if their problems become your problems too.<\/p>\n
Disclaimer:<\/p>\n
My commentary on this decision is no more a legal critique than a campfire tale is a treatise on thermodynamics. It is, rather, a dramatized retelling, a lively reenactment if you will, of the judicial clash, unburdened by the solemn drudgery of analysis and delivered with the unapologetic zest of a storyteller who knows a good duel when he sees one.<\/p>\n
You can find the full judgment in the link below:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Deeleslie Mondoka writes: CAN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BE DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE OF THEIR RUNNING MATE? Picture this: A man decides he wants to become President. The Constitution says, \u201cVery well. But you cannot run alone. You must bring a running mate.\u201d So, he finds someone he trusts. They stand on the same stage. They appear on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":84,"featured_media":82857,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-all-news","category-policy"],"yoast_head":"\n