By: Daure David
The recent defection of 25 lawmakers from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Rivers State has stirred up a political crisis, with the Supreme Court’s ruling adding to the turbulence. The central issue revolves around whether these defected lawmakers are entitled to retain their seats or whether they have forfeited their legislative mandates under the Nigerian Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment, which ordered Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara to present the 2025 state budget to the defected lawmakers, has left many Nigerians questioning the legal basis of the ruling. Critics argue that the decision contradicts established constitutional provisions and legal precedents on legislative defection.
A key case often cited in defection matters is the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Ifedayo Abegunde v. Labour Party (LP), where the court held that a legislator who defected without sufficient justification for the defection, as outlined in Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, forfeits their seat. The judgment emphasized that for a defection to be constitutionally valid, it must be grounded in a division within the party so severe that it impedes its ability to function. At the time, the PDP did not face such a division, making the defection of the Rivers lawmakers constitutionally questionable.
Legal experts argue that the recent Supreme Court decision deviates from this precedent, undermining the constitutional principle that defection leads to the automatic loss of legislative seats. If the judgment stands, it would render Section 68(1)(g) ineffective and allow lawmakers to defect without any legal consequences.
In response to the unfolding crisis, some have suggested invoking Sections 11(4) and 11(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which allow the National Assembly to temporarily take over legislative functions in a state facing a breakdown in law and order. However, such measures should only apply in cases of complete legislative dysfunction, not political crises rooted in party defections.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is viewed by many as a worrying departure from judicial consistency, further fueling concerns about the political neutrality of the judiciary. Critics argue that a judiciary that shifts in its interpretation of the constitution undermines public trust and jeopardizes the rule of law.
The situation in Rivers State highlights the ongoing struggle between political expediency and constitutional adherence. Legal scholars warn that a failure to address the constitutional implications of defection could erode the foundations of Nigeria’s representative democracy, where lawmakers are supposed to serve the electorate, not personal or political interests.
The resolution to the Rivers State impasse is clear under the Constitution: defecting lawmakers should vacate their seats, and new elections should be held to restore legitimate representation. Until the judiciary reasserts its commitment to constitutional fidelity, the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions will remain in question.
This episode calls for a renewed commitment to the rule of law, with the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies expected to stand firm in upholding the Constitution. Only then can Nigeria’s democracy continue to thrive and overcome the challenges posed by political maneuvering.
