When Lawmakers Become Lawbreakers

The recent defection of House of Representatives’ members from the Labour Party to the All Progressives Congress once again raised concerns on the commitment of the federal lawmakers in upholding the law they were elected to make, Davidson Iriekpen reports 

Before the House of Representatives adjourned for the Christmas holiday, six lawmakers defected from their respective political parties to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). The most recent defector was Alfred Ajang of the Labour Party, representing the Jos South/East Federal Constituency of Plateau State.

Before his defection, Dalyop Chollom (Barkin Ladi/Riyom Federal Constituency of Plateau), Chinedu Okere (Owerri Municipal/Owerri North/Owerri West Constituency), Mathew Donatus (Kaura Federal Constituency of Kaduna), Akiba Bassey (Calabar Municipal/Odukpani Constituency), and Esosa Iyawe (Oredo Federal Constituency of Edo) all defected to the APC.

Also, Erthiatake Ibori-Suenu, Delta State, defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the APC. 

Reading Ajang’s defection letter on the floor of the House during plenary, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas, stated that his decision was due to the crisis within the LP.

Immediately, the Minority Leader, Kingsley Chinda (PDP, Rivers) and members of his minority caucus challenged the defection, asking Abbas to declare the seat of the defected opposition lawmaker vacant in line with Section 68(1) of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended). They also argued that there was no crisis within the party to justify the defection. 

Particularly, Chinda cited a standing order by the House that any member who intends to defect must first inform his constituents, and since Ajang could not show such proof, his letter should be rejected. Despite the protests that erupted, Abbas, as usual, overruled Chinda’s objection.

Nobody needs a long guess to understand why Abbas did what he did. His party, the APC, is the beneficiary of the defection; so, he has no qualms whether the new decampees gained entry into the party through the window or the back door.

It is obvious from what is happening in the polity that the last has not been heard about defections in the Senate, the House of Representatives or even the Houses of Assembly in the states because rumours of more defection have enveloped the political atmosphere.

Recall that in the aftermath of the 2023 general election, political watchers in the country had easily concluded that the much talked about “Third Force” in Nigeria’s political firmament had arrived on the scene following the strong showing of LP in that election.

The party’s presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi clinched the third position in the race for Aso Rock, trailing closely behind President Bola Tinubu and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. The LP also secured six seats in the Senate and 34 of 360 House of Representatives.

But not long after that historic electoral display by the LP, the Nigeria factor set into its operations as its leaders went back to the drawing board to frustrate this positive development.

The endless court cases that ensued between Lamidi Apapa and Julius Abure threatened the very existence of the LP.

It became obvious that the Obi magic wand that secured its enviable national status was fast-waning. This led to a flurry of defections, particularly in the House on account of “the crisis” that engulfed the party.

In clear words, Sections 68 (1) (g) as well as 109 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution affirm the time-honoured doctrine of equity, which states that “Who comes to equity must come with clean hands.”

Section 68 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution indicates that “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; “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 or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored.”

The same provision applies to members of the House of Assembly of a state in Section 109 (1) (g).

When the above sections were tested in the courts in the case of Ifedayo Abegunde vs Ondo State House of Assembly, where the Supreme Court held that defection involves “….factionalisation, fragmentation, splintering or division,”  which would make it impossible for the party to function as a body.

The court said other considerations to the contrary would indicate that a lawmaker cannot eat his cake and have it. It added that such a member, if he must defect, must also abandon the mandate he has been given.

The court also held that the said “division” in the rank of the party must not be limited to a certain chapter of the party.

A division, in the estimation of the court, does not also amount to a situation where a member goes to cause a crisis in his state or local chapter of the party in order to use the same as a springboard for defection.

To many, it is appalling that a political party that was rejected by the voters in an election is regaining the seat it lost through the back door.  This is not justifiable morally and in natural justice.

But that is what the country’s legislators have been doing by their defections.

Many analysts have described the situation as a case of a lawbreaker making the law for the law-abiding, or a case of a convict standing in judgment against the just.

However, the supporters of the defectors have argued that the ongoing leadership crisis in the LP which saw the emergence of a court-backed National Chairman, Mr Julius Abure, and a 29-member national caretaker committee headed by Mrs Nenadi Usman backed by the critical stakeholders of the party, has provided a justification for both the latest and the previous defections.

However, those opposed to this view have argued that since the law states that votes belong to a political party and not a candidate, it is unjustifiable for a party that was rejected by the electorate to regain the lost seat through the selfish action of a lawmaker.

The question is: Should the breakers of sections 68 (1) (g) and 109 (1) (g) continue to hold firm to their seats after defection? That is the question that should agitate the minds of the electorate and should be directed to the Presidents of the Senate and the Speakers of the legislative houses, who are mandated by Sections 68 (2) and 109 (2) to declare the seat of a defecting lawmaker vacant.

The latest defection and the attitude of Abbas further confirmed that the country is governed by sentiments and not laws.  

Analysts believe that the attitude of Abbas confirms the popular assertion that defections are usually encouraged by the presiding officers of the legislative houses and the governor of the legislator’s home state because it gives them absolute control by killing the opposition parties undemocratically.

It is shocking that lawmakers have continued this act of lawlessness despite the Supreme Court having extensively addressed and resolved it.

Related Articles