Nigerian Concord Newspaper
Under Nigerian law, disputes about a candidate’s constitutional qualification or disqualification, the validity of their nomination, or whether they were validly sponsored by a political party are generally pre-election matters that must be filed within the time prescribed by the Electoral Act.
Some key points:
• Qualification/disqualification (for example, age, educational qualification, citizenship, constitutional disqualifications under Sections 66, 107, 137, or 182 of the Constitution, or submission of false information to INEC) is ordinarily a pre-election issue.
• Such suits are brought before the election, and the Electoral Act, 2026 requires pre-election matters to be commenced within 14 days from the occurrence of the event, decision, or action complained of (Section 29(5) and Section 285(9) of the Constitution, depending on the nature of the complaint).
• If no challenge is brought within the prescribed period, a later attempt to question the candidate’s qualification through a fresh pre-election suit is generally statute-barred.
Applying this to a governorship candidate
If the allegation is that a governorship candidate was constitutionally disqualified before the election, anyone entitled to sue should ordinarily bring a pre-election action within the statutory time limit after the event giving rise to the complaint (such as the candidate’s nomination or submission of particulars to INEC). Waiting until long after the nomination period to institute a fresh pre-election suit would ordinarily be fatal to the case.
Looking at Aondoakaa’s matter:
The legal argument in favour of Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa (SAN) is stronger.
1. The allegation relates to qualification, which is ordinarily a pre-election issue
The claim being circulated is that Chief Aondoakaa is allegedly disqualified from holding public office because of a previous judgment.
That is fundamentally a question of constitutional qualification/disqualification. Such issues ordinarily arise as pre-election matters before the election takes place.
Nigerian appellate courts have consistently held that questions relating to disqualification, nomination, sponsorship and substitution of candidates are pre-election matters.
2. The Constitution imposes a strict timeline
Section 285(9) of the Constitution provides that every pre-election matter must be filed within 14 days from the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of.
If Chief Aondoakaa emerged as the PDP candidate on 24 May 2026, any person challenging his qualification as a candidate ought to have commenced the appropriate pre-election action within that constitutional period.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly described this timeline as mandatory. Once it expires, the court loses jurisdiction to entertain a fresh pre-election suit on that complaint.
3. No one challenged his nomination within time
From the facts available:
• he was screened by the PDP;
• he emerged as the party’s governorship candidate;
• INEC accepted his nomination;
• he received his Certificate of Return;
• no successful pre-election action challenging his qualification was instituted within the constitutional period.
If those facts are correct, then a fresh pre-election suit on the same issue would ordinarily be statute-barred.
4. The Supreme Court judgment itself is another issue
Even assuming, purely for argument’s sake, that there was a previous judgment against Chief Aondoakaa, the next legal question becomes:
Did that judgment permanently disqualify him from holding public office?
That requires examining:
• the exact wording of the judgment;
• the constitutional provisions governing disqualification;
• whether the period of any disqualification has expired.
A court judgment cannot create a qualification or disqualification that the Constitution itself does not recognize unless the Constitution or the relevant statute authorizes that consequence.
5. The constitutional argument
For a governorship election, Section 182 of the Constitution exhaustively lists the constitutional grounds for disqualification.
If the allegation is based on a previous Code of Conduct conviction or order, the opposing side would still have to demonstrate that:
• the constitutional provision applies;
• the disqualification is still subsisting; and
• it had not expired before his nomination.
That is why merely saying “the Supreme Court barred him forever” is not, by itself, sufficient legal analysis.
Source: ChatGPT 2026