By Aluu Vincent

While Nigerians were still savouring the political abracadabra that took place at the APC National Secretariat in Abuja yesterday, news filtered into the air that the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, sacked Governor David Umahi of Ebonyi State and his Deputy, Dr Eric Kelechi Igwe, following their defection from the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, to the ruling All Progressive Congress, APC. The court, in a judgement that was delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo, held that the total number of 393, 042 votes governor Umahi secured during the March 9, 2019 governorship election in Ebonyi state, belonged to the PDP and same could not be legally transferred to the APC.

According to the court, having defected to the APC, both Umahi and his deputy, not only jettisoned the PDP, but also the votes that belonged to it. It held that going by the outcome of the governorship election, the office of the governor and deputy governor in Ebonyi state, “belong to the Plaintiff and no other political party”. The court went on to order the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to immediately receive from the PDP, names of persons to replace Umahi and his Deputy, or in the alternative, conduct a fresh gubernatorial election in Ebonyi state in line with section 177(c) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. The court further restrained both Umahi and Igwe from further parading themselves as governor or deputy governor of Ebonyi state.

Nice as the judgment may sound especially as it relates to stemming the tide of defection, I am tempted to state that the judgment may not stand that the test of time. Also, there are bound to be legal implications on the body polity of Nigeria. On what basis of law did the learned Judge deliver his judgment? Is there any constitutional provision or precedence that backs his decision?

Defection from one party to the other is not new to Nigeria. Since the return to democracy in 1999, avalanche of individual politicians have decamped from one party to the other. There have also been pockets of mass defections, the most astounding, being the mass defection of members of the national assembly from the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, to the People’s Democratic Party, PDP and vice versa. Only recently, we began experiencing governors defecting. Governor Matawale defected from the PDP to the APC, Dave Umahi of Ebonyi State, Ben Ayade of Cross River State moved from PDP to APC while Samuel Ortom of Benue State and Godwin Obaseki of Edo moved from the APC to the APC. The list is endless.

Generally, defections in Nigeria are premised on five factors-the poverty of ideology, personal interest and ambitions, division in the party, lack of internal democracy in political parties and weakness of crisis resolution mechanism.The main problem with defection is that the defector takes along with him the office he occupies by virtue of belonging to his former party. In another clime, the appropriate thing would be for decampees to resign from the offices they occupy before joining another political party. Hence, when a major political office holder decamps from his party to the other, it becomes a huge issue which ends up affecting the entire polity. The consequences could sometime threaten democracy.

Nigeria as a federal state operates a constitutional democracy guided by provisions of the 1999 constitution as amended. On the issue of defection for the President, the Vice, the Governor and the Deputy, no mention is made of punishment. The 1999 Constitution only frowns on defection of lawmakers at the state House of Assembly and the National Assembly. In specific terms, Section 68 (1) of the constitution states, “A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the House of which he is a member if — (g) being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected.”

Therefore, it may be asked, what are the circumstances wherein a governor of a state can be deemed to have vacated his office or he can be compelled to vacate his office? Section 180(1) of the Constitution encapsulates the circumstances in which a governor may vacate his office as follows: (i) When his successor in office takes his oath of that office or, (ii) he dies while holding such office or, (iii) the date when his resignation from office takes effect or, (iv) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with provisions of the Constitution. In addition, section 180 (2) provides as follows: “subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, the governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of period of four years commencing from the date when: (a) In the case of a person first elected as governor under this Constitution, he took the oath of allegiance and oath of office. (b) The person last elected to that office took the oath of allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths.

In addition, section 180 (2) provides explicitly how a governor may vacate office. It says inter alia: “subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, the governor shall vacate his office at the expiration of period of four years commencing from the date when: (a) In the case of a person first elected as governor under this Constitution, he took the oath of allegiance and oath of office. (b) The person last elected to that office took the oath of allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths.
Given the express provision of sections 180, 188 and 189 of the Constitution, the circumstances in which a Governor of a State can vacate his office or be removed from office are expressly and abundantly stated, it follows that it that it is impossible and legally wrong for anyone to “import” into the Constitution any other condition or circumstance for his removal outside those expressly stated in these sections.

Justice Walter Onoghen JSC while summing up the position of the Court, in his concurring judgment on the issue of defection held inter alia: “There is nowhere in the 1999 Constitution that it is stated that the President or Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be removed or is removeable from that office if he defects from the political party on whose platform he was elected to that office and joins another political party”. See celebrated case of Attorney-General of the Federation v Atiku Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1041). Also see the recent Supreme Court Judgment between Matawalle versus the PDP where the supreme court submitted submit that its decision applies mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the defection of Governor Matawalle of Zamfara State from the PDP to the APC. So long, as there are no similar provisions for the declaration of the office of a governor of a State vacant on account of his defection from the party that elected him to another as it is in sections 68 (1) (g) of the Constitution with regards to members of the State House of Assembly, it is not possible to insist that he (Governor Matawalle) must vacate his office as governor.

Given the aforesaid as expressly quoted in relevant provisions of the 1999 constitution, one therefore wonders where Justice Inyang Ekwo got his inspiration from while delivering judgment. Is the trial Judge not aware of similar court judgment okaying defection for governors in the case of Matawalle versus PDP? While not supporting defection in its entirety, it is vital the laws of the land be respected and applied on the matter at hand. We can only await the details of the said judgment to feast on the facts of the matter.

Let it however be known that defection smacks of grand opportunism and represents a lack of adherence to political ideals and values. Politicians are not just elected to political office on account of their individual capability and personal recognition, but also on the strength and visibility of their political parties as vehicles of political contestation. The world over, political parties in a democracy are distinguished and identified by their ideologies and guiding philosophies. Sadly, these are lacking in Nigeria in the current political dispensation. Instead, the major attraction to politics has been the huge perks and patronage in public office. When these are not forthcoming, defection becomes the next option. It is in the interest of democracy that this bill becomes law.

It is time for the National Assembly to be alive to its constitutional responsibility to make or amend the laws including the Constitution, where the need arises to outlaw defection in Nigeria. While we await the decision of the Appeal and Supreme Courts on the matter, we sincerely do hope that the electoral process in Nigeria will be strengthened to guard against defection. I wholeheartedly support any law that barn defection from the political lexicon of Nigeria.

Aluu Vincent, a public affairs analyst and publisher of Naija Eye Witness News, writes this piece from Uyo 08036688375.

Is it possible in Nigeria?

In summing up the position of the Court Walter Onoghen JSC in his concurring judgment held inter alia:

“There is nowhere in the 1999 Constitution that it is stated that the President or Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be removed or is removeable from that office if he defects from the political party on whose platform he was elected to that office and joins another political party. It is the constitutional responsibility of the legislature to make or amend the laws including the constitution, where the need arises, while that of the judiciary remains to interpret and apply the laws so made or amended. The courts can therefore not add or subtract from the law as enacted by the legislature under the guise of judicial interpretation of the constitution or statute…”

The Judgement will be Appealed, but by then, Dave will be too distracted from his Presidential Ambition

kahal29:
In summing up the position of the Court Walter Onoghen JSC in his concurring judgment held inter alia: “There is nowhere in the 1999 Constitution that it is stated that the President or Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be removed or is removeable from that office if he defects from the political party on whose platform he was elected to that office and joins another political party.

It is the constitutional responsibility of the legislature to make or amend the laws including the constitution, where the need arises, while that of the judiciary remains to interpret and apply the laws so made or amended. The courts can therefore not add or subtract from the law as enacted by the legislature under the guise of judicial interpretation of the constitution or statute…”

This is why the NASS avoided amending the electoral act to ban political prostitution which will not promote better ideological political development hence deepening the polity.

It’s a shabby judgment

Kangaroo judgement