On Tuesday, November 24, 2015, I published an article on the Social Science Research Network titled “Kogi State 2015 Gubernatorial Election and Matters Arising”, where I examined legal issues arising from the just concluded Kogi State Gubernatorial election; and considered the legal implications of the sudden death of the gubernatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Kogi State, Prince Abubakar Audu, who was said to have died of undisclosed medical reasons, shortly after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared his victory at the elections inconclusive. I also discussed the controversies as to what exactly the position of the law is: whether James Abiodun Faleke (who was the deputy gubernatorial candidate before Audu’s death) automatically becomes the governorship candidate of the APC and whether in the event that Faleke automatically becomes the gubernatorial candidate, Faleke, can on his own, nominate a deputy or should, in consultation with his party, nominate a new deputy to represent the party in the supplementary elections. Barely few hours after my publication, INEC, like a nursing mother waking up from her slumber having heard the cry of her child, attempted to rise to the occasion by attempting to proffer a solution going forward. In INEC’s wisdom (made more concrete and backed by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minsiter of Justice’s allegedly biased legal opinion), the APC was to fill the vacuum created by the death of its Kogi State governorship election candidate, Abubakar Audu, in order to continue with supplementary election which is to hold on Saturday, December 5, 2015, in the remaining 91 polling units where election was cancelled. As if it that was not enough, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) quickly took advantage of the situation and wrote INEC to declare its candidate, Governor Idris Wada, as the winner of the gubernatorial election held on November 21, 2015 in Kogi State (earlier declared by INEC to be inconclusive). The PDP’s position, made known through its National Publicity Secretary, Chief Olisa Metuh, was that with the death of the APC’s candidate, Prince Abubakar Audu, the APC has “legally crashed out” of the race. The PDP is also seeking the exclusion of the APC from the supplementary election slated for December 5, 2015 and is insisting that with the death of the APC candidate, Prince Abubakar Audu, “the APC has legally crashed out of the governorship race as no known law or constitutional provision allows the substituting of candidates, once the ballot process has commenced.” Meanwhile, in a twist of events, the James Faleke, the running mate of the late Prince Audu, APC Gubernatorial Candidate has written INEC, through his Counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN: (x) to declare James Faleke winner of the poll and that INEC erred by declaring the November 21, 2015 Gubernatorial election as inconclusive after the emergence of a clear winner; (y) that it is not only unconstitutional but also misleading for INEC to direct the APC to conduct a fresh primary election to nominate Audu’s replacement in the supplementary election scheduled for December 5, 2015; and (z) that INEC usurped the functions of an election petitions tribunal by declaring the poll inconclusive and scheduling a supplementary election. In Chief Wole Olanipekun’s words: “In law and logic, no new candidate can inherit or be a beneficiary of the votes already cast, counted and declared by INEC before that candidate was nominated and purportedly sponsored…Assuming without conceding that INEC is even right to order a supplementary election, the votes already cast, counted and declared on Saturday, 25th November 2015, were votes for the joint constitutional ticket of Prince Abubakar Audu and our client…Therefore, no new or ‘supplementary’ candidate can hijack, aggregate, appropriate or inherit the said votes.” Given the differing interpretation of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended in 2014) (Electoral Act), I am of the opinion that there is no better time to provide legal guidance as to what the intention of the drafters of our Constitution is than now.