But the ruling has drawn mixed reactions from legal practitioners. The Guardian yesterday sought the views of some of them.

Constitutional lawyer and author, Chief Sebastine Hon (SAN), noted: “The Supreme Court was, with respect, correct in its decision. The reason is plain enough: Under the constitutional scheme of the 1999 Constitution, one is not qualified to become a governor unless and until he chooses a running mate, who will contest the election with him. The fate of each, therefore, is inextricably intertwined, until they are inaugurated, in which case, each acquires a distinct legal personality and has to personally answer for his good or bad deeds.

“The apex court had settled this in 1999 when Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, after being elected with Mr. Boni Haruna, left for the vice presidency before being sworn in. But then, the rider in the judgment of the Supreme Court is that INEC should issue a certificate of return to the next political party whose candidate scored the majority of votes cast, at least 25% of which must be in two-thirds of the local governments, must be watched closely. If the PDP candidate satisfies these twin conditions, he should be inaugurated. If he does not, the Speaker of the House of Assembly will be inaugurated as the Acting Governor and INEC will conduct a fresh election; but the APC will stand disqualified from contesting in that rerun, since its candidature at the annulled election was, ab initio, a farce.”

Lawyers differ on Supreme Court’s ouster of Lyon To Dr Abiodun Layonu (SAN), “the implication of this judgment is that in calculating the votes to identify who has the 25 per cent spread, all the votes of APC would be discounted. Some people are of the opinion that the PDP candidate did not satisfy the spread, but I cannot tell until INEC determines that.

“The Supreme Court said whoever came second and satisfied the constitutional requirement should be sworn in. Another implication of this decision is that the APC has lost the state completely.

“The Supreme Court said his running mate infected him with a virus, so they are both out. The court also asked that a fresh certificate of return be given to the second runner-up who satisfied the constitutional requirement.

“All David Lyon’s votes would be discounted. Then the 25 per cent vote would be counted based on the remaining vote because once there is a disqualification, the votes are wasted votes.”   Senior lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) held:

“The constitution states clearly that sovereignty belongs to the people. The concept of election is to allow the people choose their leaders freely. We must avoid situations whereby leaders emerge through the courts, as that will be circumventing the will of the people. Let us allow the people to choose their leaders. The fellow who committed perjury was the deputy governorship candidate. So, his ‘sins’ should not have affected his principal. The court should have simply removed him and ordered fresh elections at worst or asked the governor-elect to nominate a new candidate because the outcome of that election is an indication that the people of Bayelsa rejected the PDP totally.

Lawyers differ on Supreme Court’s ouster of Lyon “These tribunal/court cases in Imo, Bayelsa, Zamfara, etc, constitute serious indictment of INEC and the political parties. There is no legacy that the present administration has bestowed upon us as a nation in the area of electoral reforms, but rather things have gotten worse. Having suffered electoral injustice in his previous efforts, it is shocking that the president has retained and continued to benefit from obviously flawed electoral processes.