•Lawyers, CSOs weigh in

By Henry Ojeluh, Henry Umoru, Nnamdi Ojiego, Gabriel Ewepu, Gift Chapi- Odekina & Ugochukwu Alaribe

Following the defection of Governor Sheriff Oborevwori of Delta State, his predecessor and vice presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the 2023 general elections, Senator Ifeanyi Okowa, and the imminent cross-carpeting of Governor Umo Eno of Akwa Ibom State to the All Progressives Congress, APC, senior lawyers and Civil Society Organisations, CSOs, have thrown their weight behind the PDP to retrieve its mandate from defectors.

The PDP had announced plans to challenge its defecting lawmakers in court.

Several PDP and other opposition parties’ lawmakers, at the federal and state levels, have, since their inauguration in June 2023, defected to the ruling party, APC, at the federal level.

Senators who have dumped their parties for the APC are Francis Ezenwa (Labour Party, Imo East), Ned Nwoko (PDP, Delta North) and Summaila Kawu (NNPP, Kano South).  

The first senator to defect to the APC was the late Senator Ifeanyi Ubah of then-Young Progressive Party, YPP, representing Anambra South, on October 12, 2023.  

For the House of Representatives, PDP members who defected to the APC include Erhiatake Ibori-Suenu (Delta), Husseini Jallo (Kaduna), Adamu Tanko (Niger), Christian Nkwonta (Abia), Salisu Koko (Kebbi), Amos Magaji (Kaduna), Wole Oke (Osun) and Abubakar Gumi (Kano).

Their counterparts who dumped Labour Party for the APC are Tochukwu Okere (Imo), Donatus Mathew (Kaduna), Bassey Akiba (Cross River), Iyawe Esosa (Edo), Daulyop Fom (Plateau), and Fom Daniel Chollom (Plateau).

Lawmakers

For state lawmakers, 26 members of Rivers State House of Assembly are battling to retain their seats after decamping from the PDP to APC.

In Abia State, four of the eight PDP members of the House of Assembly who were inaugurated in June 2023 have defected to the ruling Labour Party in the state and no one is sure the rest would remain in the party.

Similarly, five of the 14 PDP lawmakers in Edo House of Assembly have moved to the ruling APC in the state under the guise that there was a crisis in their party and that their action would allow them to collaborate with Governor Okpebholo to develop Edo.

Although the Constitution is silent on the fate of governors who leave their parties, lawyers and CSOs want the PDP to take legal action against defecting governors, particularly in light of a Supreme Court ruling that political parties own the mandate.

For lawmakers, the Constitution is clear that they lose their seats on defection unless they can prove that there is division in their parties.

Section 109, Subsection 1 (g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides: “A member of a House of Assembly/Senate/Reps shall vacate his seat in the House if…  being a person, whose election to the House of Assembly/Senate/Reps, 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”.

Sunday Vanguard recalls that the court had in the case of Ifedayo Abegunde v. Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors (2015),   held that a legislator who defected without evidence of a genuine division in his party loses the constitutional protection to retain his seat.

Retrieve

Relying on this verdict, those who spoke to Sunday Vanguard said challenging defecting governors in court is a necessary step. They were categorical in asking the PDP to retrieve its mandate.

Chief Mike Ozekhome, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, said the PDP should challenge the defections in court, citing the Constitution’s provisions on the circumstances that may lead to a governor or legislator defecting.

“That’s the way to go. The Constitution is clear on circumstances that may lead to a governor or legislators defecting. Where they are absent, then such a defection is wrongful. But the PDP has to convince the courts that it is not divided or fractured,” Ozekhome said.

Integrity

Similarly, Chairman of the Governing Council, African Bar Association, Dr. Hannibal Uwaifo, noted that the party should operate by example and enforce party discipline, expressing optimism that the PDP’s actions would help to uphold the integrity of the political system.

He said: “Political activities in Nigeria are becoming more complex and uncertain because all legal and other frameworks have been broken. Every law or norm that creates order has been desecrated.

“For me, I believe the PDP is taking the right step by involving the judiciary. They also need to look inward and operate by example and enforce party discipline. Politicians cannot operate by shortchanging the electorate and behave as if they are above the law.”

EFCC

Another senior lawyer, Gbenga Ojo, said:”The gale of defections is making a mockery of our democracy and our Constitution. That the governors are defecting to the party that contested against them and lost the election shows lack of integrity and desperation, either for a second term or fear of prosecution by the EFCC. It’s being done with recklessness and without shame or integrity. I totally support the PDP to seek redress in court for the sake of constitutional development in Nigeria. You cannot be the governor on the ticket of the PDP with your certificate given by INEC for PDP, and during the term, you are now a member of the APC. The lesson from all these is to amend the Constitution and totally prohibit cross-carpeting, either by members of the National Assembly or the governors. In the records of INEC, the governor is a member of PDP while he has joined APC and will finish the term as a member of APC. This is not acceptable.”

Political parties

Similarly, Daniel Sumola, Esq., insisted that parties own electoral mandates and not individuals.

He said:”The Supreme Court’s recent decision affirming that electoral mandates are inherently tied to political parties rather than individual candidates has reopened important discussions regarding legal and constitutional implications, especially in the context of defections by sitting governors. This interpretation invites us to reconsider the widely held belief that a governor, once elected, maintains personal control over the office regardless of their political affiliations. Instead, it highlights the notion that voters are primarily motivated by the party’s ideology, manifesto, and platform, rather than solely the candidate’s attributes.

If we are to adhere to this principle diligently, it seems reasonable to assert that a governor who defects from the party that facilitated their election effectively disrupts the connection established by the mandate granted to that party by the electorate. Viewed through this lens, such a defection may be perceived as a departure from the collective will and a disruption of the representative agreement formed at the ballot box.

Judicial review

“In light of this perspective, it is understandable and arguably prudent that various stakeholders within the PDP, alongside members of the legal community, are advocating for judicial review. Initiating a court challenge would not only underscore the PDP’s institutional interests but also encourage the judiciary to further examine and clarify the implications of the Supreme Court’s doctrine on electoral mandates. A court decision on this matter could potentially establish a precedent that shapes the future of Nigeria’s democratic landscape and offers valuable guidance to both political actors and voters.

“It is important to acknowledge, however, that the legal landscape is quite intricate. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides robust protections for sitting governors, particularly concerning executive tenures. Unlike legislators, who may face recalls or loss of seats upon defection based on specific constitutional provisions, executive officeholders typically benefit from more complicated protections linked to their office. Judicial precedent has often been cautious about unseating defecting governors, viewing these matters as political questions rather than purely legal issues.

Party-switching

“Nevertheless, if the PDP decides to pursue legal action, it could be a significant step, especially with the aim of fostering judicial consistency and enhancing Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. Such a legal challenge could initiate a constructive national dialogue regarding the commitment of elected officials to their respective parties and whether current legal frameworks adequately safeguard the integrity of electoral mandates. Ultimately, this could contribute to heightened political accountability, a reduction in opportunistic party-switching, and the strengthening of Nigeria’s electoral framework.”

Also, the Executive Director of Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre, RULAAC, Okechukwu Nwanguma, said political opportunism and unprincipled behaviour should be discouraged and sanctioned.

He noted that while there may be valid reasons for someone to leave one party for another, self-serving motives should not be tolerated.

Nwanguma said: “Indeed, there have been concerns regarding political defection in Nigeria. Challenging defecting governors in court, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s stance that political parties own the mandate, may indeed be a necessary step. It could set a precedent that reinforces the integrity of political party affiliations and discourages opportunistic behaviour among elected officials.

“There could be good reasons for someone to decide to leave one political party to join another, but when it is based on self-serving and unprincipled political reasons such as joining a ruling party to evade accountability for corruption or other official malfeasance, as we have witnessed in many cases in Nigeria, then the person should vacate the seat.

“While legal complexities exist, the principle of accountability is vital. Upholding the law against defection driven by self-serving motives can help restore public trust in the political system. However, distinguishing between principled defection and opportunism is essential, as genuine ideological differences should not be penalized. Ultimately, ensuring that political actors are held accountable for their actions will contribute to a healthier political environment in the long term.”

Dynamics

However, the issue of party discipline and internal cohesion was also raised, with some arguing that the PDP’s internal dynamics may be a contributing factor to the defections.  

Ugochimereze Chinedu Asuzu, a public affairs commentator, added that the Supreme Court’s ruling on political parties owning the mandate provides a legal basis for challenging defecting governors. He added that the PDP needs to look inward and ensure that it is united and cohesive.

“The Supreme Court has rightly affirmed that political parties own the mandate, not individuals, so there’s a legal basis for challenging not just lawmakers but also governors who defect mid-tenure. However, given the current state of our judiciary, often appearing tethered to the executive, there’s little confidence that justice will be served impartially.

“What is more urgent for the PDP now is unity and internal cohesion. A fragmented party creates the very justification, even constitutionally, for defections. Legal action is good, but it must be backed by internal discipline and genuine reconciliation.

“Ultimately, the decision to challenge defecting governors in court will depend on the PDP’s resolve to uphold the law and protect its mandate.”

On his part, Uche Alisigwe, Principal Partner of Onunaku Chambers, noted: “The law must take its course to stop such an interloper. Morally, it’s very wrong to cross carpet, owing to the fact that the mandate was given to you as a representative of your people. In the event you decide to jump to the dungeon, you are obligated to drop the mandate because it has nothing to do with your new political marriage. Therefore, the PDP must reactivate all its legal machinery to pursue this case to a logical conclusion.”

Consolidation

The Civic Space Strengthening Lead, Global Rights, Damilola Decker, said: “While I am not oblivious to the very real dangers of a one-party state, especially in a country still grappling with democratic consolidation. I think it is crucial that we do not lose sight of a foundational and constitutional guarantee: the right to freedom of association. This right is not ornamental, it is substantive. Citizens, including lawmakers, retain the liberty to associate politically as they choose, even if we may not always agree with the motivations behind such choices.

“So, while it may be politically expedient for the PDP to challenge these defections in court, the party must weigh that decision against the constitutional rights at play.

“Beyond legality, there’s the deeper issue of what political parties in Nigeria really stand for. Let’s not pretend that most political parties here are ideologically distinct or driven by any consistent governing philosophy. The real tragedy is not so much that people are defecting, but that defections rarely, if ever, stem from shifts in belief or alignment with any pro-people governance model. Rather, they are too often about political survival, access to state resources, or the desire to ‘align with the center.’

“It’s also important to ask: what is fueling this wave of defections to the APC? Is it ideological conviction or fear of political marginalization in a system that too often conflates power with access to basic governance structures?”

Non-existent opposition

“Still, we must not discount the implications of a weak or non-existent opposition. Democracy requires dissent. It thrives on plurality. A legislature where all lawmakers sing from the same hymn sheet of the ruling party is not only unrepresentative, it’s unhealthy. There must be room for diverse opinions, opposition scrutiny, and institutional checks and balances. But again, let’s remember: political parties are not life unions. While we can bemoan the erosion of internal party discipline, we cannot criminalize choice.

“We are close to two years since the Tinubu administration took office, and I think it is fair to say without mincing words that life has worsened for the average Nigerian. Inflation surged to over 33.2% in March 2025, with food inflation reaching a staggering 40.5%. Millions of Nigerians are sliding further into poverty, unable to afford basic food items. Insecurity, especially in the North-East, is no longer just a headline, it’s a reality that has come roaring back, with repeated attacks on communities in Borno and Yobe states in recent weeks. These are not abstract figures, they are a reflection of daily suffering’’.

Power

“So, forgive me if I seem unbothered by whether the PDP has suddenly awakened because its members are leaving. Our focus must remain on the quality of governance, on the state of human rights, and on whether we are truly practicing democracy or merely dressing it up in the garments of party politics.

“The ruling elite in Nigeria, regardless of party, must shift their gaze from power plays and focus instead on delivering for the Nigerian people. Because what we are witnessing now is not governance. It is a continuous cycle of power realignment that leaves citizens behind.

“Yes, democracy must allow dissenting voices to thrive. But it must also allow freedom of association. These are not mutually exclusive. What we must resist is a political culture that elevates self-interest above service, and power above people.”

Party Discipline

On his part, the Principal Counsel of Idris Faro & Co., Idris Faro, asserted: “Constitutionally, a lawmaker is duty-bound to remain in the party on whose platform he rode to victory and became a member of the legislature, both at the federal and state levels. This is provided for in Section 68 of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

“The rationale behind this is not just to maintain party discipline but to foster a proper lawmaking process. The ideologies of parties are reflected in their manifestos and policies.

“As such, bills reflect the manifesto of the sponsor. Apart from the private members’ bill, the executive prepares most of the bills going to the legislature for enactment.”

Division

“However, there is a proviso to this: where there is a division in the party that sponsored your election into the legislature, you are free to decamp. Or where there is a merger of your party and other parties, or factions, you are also at liberty to decamp.

“The courts have given effect to this provision in several cases. So the PDP has a right to approach the courts to challenge the decamping of its lawmakers. But it has the onerous duty to prove that there is no division in it.

“Governors are not affected by the provisions of Section 68 of the Constitution. Only legislators are affected.

“The provision of Section 68 expressly refers to members of the Senate and House of Representatives—specifically, their tenure of seats. Section 109 applies to the State Houses of Assembly and is similar to Section 68. But Section 180 of the Constitution as amended applies to the governor of a state.

“There’s no such provision in Section 180. It is not for decamping. The Constitution doesn’t have such a provision. Only death, resignation, impeachment, completion of term, or emergency affect a governor’s seat.

“I don’t think the PDP can succeed in its case against Governor Oborevwori. It’s like flogging a dead horse.

“Even for the defecting Delta State and National Assembly members, the PDP has to prove that it is not divided. And your guess here is as good as mine.”

Ifedayo Abegunde

Giving his opinion, a human rights lawyer and activist, Deji Adeyanju, said: “Taking legal action is a constitutionally sound and politically strategic step for the PDP. Under Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), a lawmaker who defects from the party that sponsored their election must vacate their seat unless there is a division in that party. The courts have consistently interpreted this to mean that defections without a verifiable internal crisis within the party are unconstitutional.

“This position was clearly upheld in Ifedayo Abegunde v. Ondo State House of Assembly & Ors (2015), where the Supreme Court held that a legislator who defected without evidence of a genuine division in his party lost the constitutional protection to retain his seat. The court emphasized that internal wrangling or dissatisfaction does not qualify as a division, and allowing such would encourage political opportunism.”

Judicial intervention

“By seeking judicial intervention, the PDP is not just defending its political interests but reinforcing the rule of law and the sanctity of electoral mandates. The aim is to deter politicians from treating political parties as mere stepping stones. In an era where party loyalty is often sacrificed for personal ambition or patronage, this legal push is necessary to protect democratic integrity and voter trust.

“The view in some quarters is that the PDP should go a step further to challenge defecting governors in court, especially since the Supreme Court has said parties own the mandate.

“That view is not only valid but rooted in both legal precedent and the need for democratic accountability. The Supreme Court, in cases like Ameachi v. INEC (2008), has made it clear that elective mandates belong to political parties, not individuals. This means that when a governor defects, particularly in the absence of any internal crisis within the sponsoring party, the moral and legal question arises: can you still legitimately hold a mandate that was never individually yours?”

Judicial precedent

“While the legal path may be more complex for governors due to the doctrine of separation of powers and the absence of a direct constitutional provision like what we have in Section 68 for legislators, it is not impossible. Suing defecting governors could set new judicial precedents and reinforce party discipline. It will also address the growing public frustration with opportunistic cross-carpeting, which often undermines democratic representation.

“The PDP should carefully weigh the political cost and legal implications, but pursuing the matter in court, at least to test the waters, could help strengthen Nigeria’s political system and clarify the limits of the law on defections.”