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, “Very well. But you cannot run alone. You must bring a running mate.”
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.
Then, just as the campaign begins gathering momentum, someone in the crowd raises a hand.
“Excuse me,” he says. “Is the running mate actually qualified to be there?”
Suddenly, everyone starts talking at once.
One group says, “Simple. If the running mate is not qualified, remove the running mate.”
Another group says, “Not so fast. If the presidential candidate was required to choose a qualified running mate, and he chose an unqualified one, doesn’t that create a problem for the presidential candidate himself?”
That was the question lurking beneath the surface of the case before the Constitutional Court.
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.
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.
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.
But then came the catch.
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:
“The onus is upon the presidential candidate to ensure the running mate has the necessary qualifications.”
In plain English, the Constitution is saying: “Choose carefully. The responsibility is yours.”
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.
The Court did not decide whether that failure would automatically invalidate the presidential candidate’s nomination. It left that question unanswered.
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.
The Moral of the Story?
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.
Disclaimer:
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.
You can find the full judgment in the link below:
