By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA – It was end of the road for the lawmaker representing Akure South/North Federal Constituency of Ondo State, Ifedayo Abegunde, as the Supreme Court, yesterday, ordered him to immediately vacate his seat following his defection from the Labour Party, LP, which sponsored his election

A Seven-man panel of Justices of the apex court, in a unanimous judgment yesterday, declared Abegunde who decamped from the LP to the now defunct Action Congress of Nigeria, ACN, as unfit to remain at the legislative house.

‎Specifically, the panel which was headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Mahmud Mohammed, held that the lawmaker acted illegally by abandoning the party that sponsored his election.

The court stressed that as at the time Abegunde defected to the ACN, there was no division in his parent party, LP.

‎It maintained that the lawmaker’s defection to another party would have been justified if there was a division in the national structures of the LP, such that is capable of hampering the smooth operation of the party.

The apex court held that Abegunde’s defection could not be validated since his excuse of purported division in the LP was not in existence at the national level of the party.

Besides, the Supreme Court stressed that the “division” or “factionalisation” of Labour Party, which was cited by Abegunde as his excuse for abandoning the party, was only at the state level.

Justice Musa Muhammad, who read the lead judgment yesterday, held that only a division that made it “impossible or impracticable” for the party to function by virtue of the proviso in section 68(1)(g) of the constitution, “justifies aperson’s defection to another party”.

According to the court, “The principles enunciated by this court in the two cases – FEDECO‎ v Goni supra and Attorney General of the Federation v Abubakar supra – is to the effect that only such factionalisation, fragmentation, splintering or ‘division’ that makes it impossible or impracticable for a particular party to function as such will, by virtue of the proviso to section 68(1)(g), justify a person’s defection to another party and the retention of his seat for the unexpired term in the house inspite of the defection

“Otherwise, has rightly held by the courts below, the defector automatically looses his seat.”

Justice Muhammad further maintained that by virtue of the combined provisions of section 68(1)(a) and (g) as well as section 222(a), (e) and (f) of the constitution, division in a party at the state level did not entitle a legislator to abandon the party on whose platform he or she contested and won his or her seat.

More over, the apex court discountenanced the argument of counsel for the appellant, Mr. Akin Ladipo, to the effect that not “any division” in a political party would entitle a person to defect from a party who sponsored his election without having to lose his seat.
“I am unable to agree with learned counsel to the appellant that on facts and law as concurrently applied by the two courts below, their decisions can be interfered with.

“One is left in no doubt that the determination of the dispute, the trial court is approached to resolve, turns decisively on the meaning of word ‘division’ as used by the framers of the proviso to section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 constitution as amended”, ‎Justice Muhammad held.

He added that, “Not being the kind of ‘division’ that affects the national struc‎tures and therefore the corporate existence of the party, learned counsel insists, appellant’s defection does not come within the proviso to section 68(1)(g) to entitle him to retain his seat in the House of Representatives in spite of his defection to the ACN from the Labour Party on which platform he contested and won the seat. This position of the respondents is unassailable.”

Abegunde had defected from LP to the ACN in 2011 and in a bid to forestall possible moves by his party to recall him, lodged a suit before the Federal High Court sitting in Akure.

He however lost both at the high court and appellate Court levels, with the concurrent judgements of the lower courts equally declaring the defection as “unjustifiable”.