Nigeria’s Political Defections: The Road to a One-Party State?

The recent mass exodus of top Nigerian politicians from opposition parties to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), has had  an unsettling effect in the polity. As at the last count, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was almost depleted, with some of its Governors moving to APC one after the other. Party officials from other parties, have since joined the bandwagon, Legislators too. What could be the reasons behind this unprecedented movements? Is Nigeria headed towards a sycophantic One-Party State? What does it portend for Nigeria’s fledging democracy? Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN, Segun Talabi and Dr Mudiaga Odje examine these issues, in this edition    

Party Defections: Consequences for Democracy

Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN

Worrisome Gale of Defections 

The gale of political defections in Nigeria as of now, are worrisome. It is nauseating to see politicians jumping from one political party to the other political parties without qualms, not because of the interest of the people but because of their self-centred interests. 

There are many instances where Governors have abandoned the political parties on whose platforms they were elected or selected into office, to another political party that they had said so much against. The choices of the people at the polls, were based on the political parties that such decampees stood election. 

Nigerian politicians are just not working for the people, in most cases. They work for themselves, and the interests of their political godfathers and godmothers. Political decency has been thrown overboard. Political ideologies, do not matter to them. What matters, is their selfish political partisan agenda. While it is correct to say that the Nigerian Constitution allows freedom of expression and association, it is high time we examine the legality of the cross-carpeting of our political class, in sabotage of the choice of the people.

Sycophancy 

The level of political sycophancy in Nigeria, is becoming too alarming and dangerous for the comfort of any reasonable Nigerian. Nigerian politicians in most cases, are like fish. They cannot survive outside of the water of political corruption. That is why they are not ready to build permanent political structures, within their political parties. They, in most cases, engage in political prostitution polluting as it were, democratic principles. 

Today, instead of governance, most Governors act as house helps of the President. The President has become so powerful, that they adore him and worship him like God. The other day, I heard a Governor saying that a particular dress said to be the President’s dress, is the only dress to be worn in the Exco meeting in that state. What kind of level of nauseating sycophancy is this? With these kinds of sycophantic leaders across the States, how can Nigeria develop? 

The President will not be told the truth, about underdevelopment. Nigerian politicians have become the enemies of the people. They stand truth on its head, and sycophancy has replaced patriotic commitments to speak truth at all times. Nigeria is doomed. When you look at most of the political parties in Nigeria, you will notice the lack of internal democracy in them. These political parties are just vehicles. There are no political parties that perform the duties of political parties, in Nigeria. These political parties are just political entities, being controlled by those who have the means of production. No member of the parties, can question the excesses of these godfathers and godmothers of Nigerian politics. 

Political power has become an instrument of oppression in Nigeria. We must do away with this mentality of changing parties, just because of self-serving partisan interests. Even when the Constitution prohibits cross-carpeting, our politicians are doing so with audacity of impunity. Those who are to hold them accountable, have refused to do so for pure commercial interests. We need a democracy that tolerates truths. Enough of sycophantic praise-singing leaders, who have nothing to offer the people. Those who leave their political parties for another party, are the reason we are where we are in our retarded democratic journey since 1999.

Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN, Abuja

Party Defections: Risk of a One-Party State  

Segun Talabi

The Nigerian political scene has changed significantly since the APC, originally an opposition coalition, took power in 2015 by defeating the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). As of October 2025, we have seen many defections from opposition parties to the APC, including notable Governors and lawmakers. This trend, while convenient for those switching sides, challenges the principles of our constitutional democracy. Legally, defection is not an unrestricted right; it is limited by rules designed to prevent opportunistic party-switching that undermines the voters’ choice. As the Supreme Court stated in a key case, defection can be “painful, unconscionable and immoral”, yet, the law includes ways to enforce accountability.

Constitutional Provisions 

The 1999 Constitution specifically addresses political defection in Sections 68 and 109, which relate to the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly, respectively. These sections were added to curb the rampant party switching that affected earlier governments, and to ensure elected officials stay accountable to the platforms on which they were elected. Section 68(1)(g) states that a member of the Senate or House of Representatives must vacate their seat if they switch to another political party before their term ends, having been elected on the platform of a political party. However, there are exceptions: if the defection stems from a division within the original party or a merger of two or more parties or factions, including the one that sponsored the member, the vacation does not apply. This requirement is also found in Section 109(1)(g) for members of State Houses of Assembly, helping to maintain consistency across Federal and State legislatures. 

The reasoning behind these sections is based on the principle of representative democracy outlined in Section 14(2)(c) of the Constitution, which asserts that people must participate in government. By linking an elected official’s tenure to their sponsoring party, the law aims to uphold the voters’ choice. Allowing unrestricted defections would make party primaries and elections irrelevant, enabling a “backdoor” reshaping of legislative majorities without voter input. 

Sections 68(2) and 109(2) of the Constitution describe how to enforce these rules, requiring the presiding officer (Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, or Speaker of a State House of Assembly) to act on the vacation when appropriate evidence is provided. This process is not automatic; it requires verification to avoid arbitrary decisions. In practice, these sections intend to promote party discipline and political stability. However, challenges arise in implementing them, especially regarding what qualifies as a “division” or “merger”.

For executive positions, like the President or Governor, the Constitution does not specify rules regarding defection, leading to judicial interventions. Sections 137(1)(i) and 182(1)(i) disqualify candidates with certain party affiliations, but post-election defection for executives has been viewed differently. 

Judicial Interpretations: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Decisions have been crucial in interpreting anti-defection rules, often balancing freedom of association (Section 40 of the Constitution) with the need for electoral integrity. The Judiciary’s approach has changed, with earlier decisions allowing broader interpretations of “division”, while later rulings narrowed those definitions. A landmark case is Attorney-General of the Federation v Atiku Abubakar (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 601, where the Supreme Court addressed then-Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s switch from the PDP to the Action Congress. The court found that defection by an executive office holder does not automatically count as “gross misconduct” for impeachment under Section 188, as the Constitution does not explicitly forbid it for executives. Justice Niki Tobi, who wrote the lead judgement, argued that while defection may be politically wrong, it is not constitutionally impermissible for non-legislative offices. This ruling highlighted a distinction: stricter rules for legislators, than for executives. 

For legislators, the case of Abegunde v Ondo State House of Assembly (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1461) 314 is significant. The Appellant, a Labour Party member in the House of Representatives, defected to the Action Congress of Nigeria, claiming a division in his original party. The Court of Appeal initially ruled against him, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, determining that the “division” must be at the national level, rather than just factional or local. Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad stressed that allowing localised divisions to justify defection, would undermine the Constitution’s intent. 

In Abaribe v Abia State House of Assembly (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1059) 175, the Court of Appeal decided that defecting without a qualifying exception automatically leads to a seat vacancy, dismissing intra-party dispute arguments as insufficient. The appellate court clarified that “merger” requires formal party congress resolutions, not casual alliances. 

Recent cases from the Rivers State crisis, provide further insight. In Edison Ehie & Ors v Rivers State House of Assembly (2024), the Court of Appeal ruled that 27 lawmakers who defected from the PDP to the APC lost their seats under Section 109(1)(g), because no national division in the PDP was demonstrated. This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court in Rivers State House of Assembly v Governor Siminalayi Fubara (2025), where the Apex Court reserved judgement, but suggested it might uphold the anti-defection rule, restating that defections weaken democracy. Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, in a side note, pointed out the need for legislative reforms to fix the loopholes.

These decisions collectively establish that defection leads to an automatic seat vacancy unless exceptions are strictly met, with courts demanding solid evidence like party resolutions or court declarations of division. Across these cases, the Judiciary has consistently placed the electorate’s mandate above individual ambitions, although enforcement remains uneven, likely due to political pressures. 

The Risk of the Emergence of a One-Party State

Legally, a one-party State is a system where a single party holds total control over governance, either through constitutional bans on other parties or through the suppression of  opposition via laws, force, or electoral advantage. The Nigerian Constitution, in Section 222, requires a multi-party system, mandating that parties register with INEC and follow democratic principles. Therefore, a one-party State would breach Sections 40 (freedom of association) and 221 (prohibition of non-party candidates), making it unconstitutional.

A situation where only one major party exists does not automatically mean it is a one-party State, if other parties are legally allowed. However, it can appear as de facto dominance, if oppositional parties are sidelined through defections or misuse of state resources. Legally, this undermines the diversity intended in Section 14(2)(a), which provides that sovereignty lies with the people through democratic involvement. 

Clearly, a one-party State goes against democratic values. Democracy involves competitive elections, rights for opposition, and accountability – key elements missing from one-party systems. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Amaechi v INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227 reinforced that democracy relies on choice, indicating that monopoly restricts it. While some claim one-party States can be “democratic” through internal diversity (such as in candidate picking), Nigerian law does not support this; Section 223 requires parties to hold democratic congresses, but a domination by a single party violates the intent of Sections 15(1) (national integration) and 17(2)(a) (equal opportunities). 

The Current Defection Wave to APC: 

The APC, which began in 2013 as an opposition group, now faces allegations of creating a one-party system through widespread defections. From 2024 to 2025, Governors like Peter Mbah (Enugu) and Douye Diri (Bayelsa), along with over 64,000 members and lawmakers from the PDP, switched to the APC. Legally, these defections for executives are allowed after the Atiku case, but, for legislators, they activate Section 109(1)(g) unless the exceptions apply. This contradiction (where former ruling party members join the party that defeated them), reveals flaws in the law. While not unconstitutional, it risks creating a de facto one-party system, as the PDP and ADC have warned. Courts need to actively enforce anti-defection rules, to maintain multi-party democracy. 

Ultimately, democracy depends not just on having multiple parties, but also on the integrity of political processes and the accountability of those in power. Nigeria must address the legal and ethical issues around political defections, to maintain the credibility of its democratic institutions.

Segun Talabi, Legal Practitioner, Lagos

Defection, Effects and Consequences Under Nigerian Law 

Dr Akpo Mudiaga Odje

Introduction 

This gail and hail of the avalanche of political defections in our political parties, has raised a terrain for suspicion that the nation is heading to a one-party State, or State capture. This discourse examines the legal implications of defections in the legislature and executive, in the light the 1999 Constitution as amended, and concludes that parliamentary defection has consequences, whilst executive defections regrettably have no legal consequence, except moral violation and electoral betrayal.

Defection Started as Cross-Carpeting Under the I963 Constitution 

In retrospect, defection from one party to another surfaced in the 1960s under our parliamentary system of government. Indeed, under that system, a defection in parliament to another party ought to automatically forfeit the seat. It was called cross-carpeting at that time. And, it caused pandemonium in parliament, that a clause was inserted in the I979 Constitution to legally sanction defection in parliament.

Some Causes of Defection 

Politics in Nigeria is essentially, self interest and self service. 

That is the bitter truth. No politician, especially in Nigeria, nay Africa, puts the electors first in any choice or decision making process. They put their interests and themselves first, even above God, the Nation, their Political Party and their Electors. In that light, they are ready to even sacrifice anything to protect their interests, hence, they swing and dangle like a pendulum in search of protecting their interests. A typical politician, whilst we think of building the nation, is thinking of winning the next election. So, any party whose leadership can determine his chances of winning, becomes a natural target for defection.

 Specifically some reasons for defections include:- 

1. Fear of losing the next election and losing relevance.

2. Need to join the winning party. 

3. Alignment with Federal might and power. 

4. More influence and more cash.

5. Security of present and future political seat. 

6. Warding of investigation and prosecution for past, present and future acts of corruption and abuse of office.

7. Division in a political party, and no more cohesion within same. 

8. Pressure from political leaders. 

9. Collapsing into mergers or political alliances. 

10. Scheming for political appointments.

The above are some of the specific reasons for defections, which are now hitting and heating the polity.

As we can see, only item 7 above can be said to be a genuine reason which the Constitution in Section 68 recognises as an exception to, or justification for defection. 

That Section 68 (1)(g), provides that

“A member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall vacate his seat in the house 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 :

Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties of factions by one of which he was previously sponsored;”

The above sets out exceptions or the justification for defection of a member of the National Assembly in our polity.

The same also applies to members of a House of Assembly of the States of the Federation, Section 109 (g) thereof.

Defection of Consequence in Law 

Indeed, from the above provision, and in view of the history of cross-carpeting, the law only understandably sanctions defections in Parliament of any level, whether national or State. This was based on the experience that defections mainly occurred in parliament, and not in the executive arm as well. And, as such, sanctions were focused on parliament alone. That is why I classified this as a defection without legal consequences.

If the legislator fails to show that his defection falls within the exceptions stated in the Constitution, he shall forfeit his seat forthwith.

Who Declares a Seat Vacant? INEC, Political Party or Parliament?

This has been a troubling and vexed issue, as to who declares a seat vacant in law.

Initially, it was thought INEC had the final say, hence, INEC received a lot of petitions to that effect. Later, it shifted to the courts, to so declare. However, in one of the series of Governor of Rivers State v Rivers State House of Assembly in 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that, it is only parliament itself that can declare a seat vacant in Nigeria.

Final Answer!

This judgement, even though makes a lot of legal and logical sense for the separation of powers, and parliamentary independence, it is nevertheless prone to practical abuse by a parliament that wants to self perpetuate or outrightly wants to be mischievous. A member may defect in fact, without being declared as such by parliament. He can then be used to destabilise the house by joining a different political party to vote against his own party, whereas, his seat is yet to be declared vacant in accordance with the Supreme Court judgement!

This is a real and present danger, in the application of the Supreme Court judgement. We thus, require an urgent constitutional amendment to include and authorise INEC and the Court, to also declare seats vacant. This will offer checks and balances, to this worrisome new trend of de facto defections.

Defection of No Consequence in Law 

As adumbrated earlier, the sanctions by the Constitution for defection was focused on parliament alone and not the executive, because of the past history of cross-carpeting in the 1960s. Like in Nigeria, any bad thing is a new style worthy of replication, hence, defection has now firmly berthed ship in the executive starting from the office of the Vice President.

We recall Alhaji Atiku Abubakar as Vice President elected under the PDP, defected before the expiration of his tenure to the then Action Congress. This startled and rattled President Olusegun Obasanjo and the PDP, who challenged the same by contending that Atiku has forfeited his seat like a legislator, under the Constitution. However, the court discountenanced that view, and held firmly that Atiku’s defection had no legal consequences under Nigerian law. And, that the court has no remedy for the apparent recalcitrant actions of the erstwhile Vice President to his boss.

A fortiori, it became lucid that the sanctions of the law on defection in Nigeria, not apply to the executive arm of government.

The Fear of Nigeria Sliding into a One-Party State 

Politics, like we hitherto highlighted, is solely a game of interest. A politician is first a politician, even before being a human being, if you permit me to exaggerate this point. I am only trying by that hyperbole to emphasise how a politician believes only in himself, and himself alone! To this end, anywhere his interest lies, there he goes and belongs. If the interest moves, he moves. If the interest stays, he stays.

So, these defections will forever continue in Nigeria, nay Africa, where the primary practice of politics is the desperate concern for building only the Infrastructure of the stomach!

Nigeria, will likely not slide into a one-party State, only if the electors are determined to vote wisely and protect their votes. It’s the power of patriotic votes and protection of the same, that can determine whether Nigeria is skidding into a one- party State, and not for the defectors to so determine. As at 2015, 22 Governors adopted President Goodluck Jonathan for the President.

Did Nigeria Slide into a One-Party State as at then? 

On the contrary the man was even defeated in the 2015 Presidential elections.

The Way Forward 

1. The electorate, if truly patriotic and well coordinated, should determine the outcome of elections, rather than the defectors

2. Getting our PVCs is the first power, and voting with them is the second power.

3.  We must then protect that vote, the final power. 

4. INEC and the Courts should be included as institutions that can also declare seats vacant, in case of defections. 

5. The legal sanctions of defections, should be extended to cover the executive arm as well. Both should be done by constitutional amendments 

6. In the meantime, electors can still use and deploy the power of recall by virtue of Section 69 of the Constitution, to recall any such defector.

7. We, the so-called still onlooking and siddon look elites, all need to now participate in government and governance. We should no longer leave it to politicians alone. We should join and encourage others to participate too, so that moral compass, rather than law, will regulate our polity, and make Nigeria great again.

Conclusion 

This issue of defection, no matter how we ignore it, may obfuscate the prospect of a fledging democracy for Nigeria, and indeed, Africa.

Once, we, the electors, are incapable of not only choosing our leaders, but also incapable of truncating a slide to a one-party State, then it’s our collective electoral Nunc Diminitis. And, like the rain maker, Majek Fashek renditioned in one of his consciousness hit tracks to wit: 

“We been sitting down for too long, so long, and too long”.

Dr Akpo Mudiaga Odje LLD, LLM (Merit) (London) BL; Member, British Council; Constitutional Lawyer