[saint_fiasco]

Couldn't the constitutional court have acted before the election took place? Forbid that candidate from running in the first place?

The reason this looks sketchy in the first place is that it happened after they saw the election results, and one gets the feeling that if another candidate won they would not have annulled it.

[cbg0]

He wasn't exactly super popular before the race, polling below 5% so nobody was really concerned about him, plus the court needs to be called upon to act, as they can't intervene without a complaint being lodged.

[Svoka]

even weirder take. Let me rephrase it like "What if crime discovered after the fact it was committed?"

Or elections is somehow different?