By Taiwo Adisa,
In the aftermath of the national elections of 2023, a good number of political watchers in the country easily concluded that the much talked about “Third Force” in Nigeria’s political firmament had arrived the scene following the strong showing of the Labour Party (LP) in that election. The party’s presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi clinched the third position in the race for Aso Rock, coming bumper to bumper 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 started deconstructing every hint of sanity that pervaded its operations hitherto. Everything that made the party the beautiful bride of the youth got torn into shreds, while its leaders engaged in naked dance in the village square. The endless court cases that ensued threatened the very existence of the LP, and it became obvious that the Peter Obi magic wand that secured for it the enviable national status was fast waning.
The flurry of defections that followed, particularly in the House of Representatives, were not unexpected. Between June and December last year, no fewer than six Rep members of the party had defected to the All Progressives Congress (APC) on account of “the crisis” that had engulfed the party. Four members defected on one day, another followed and yet another. The case of the member representing Jos South/Jos East Federal Constituency, Hon. Ajang Iliya who defected from the LP to the APC, citing, as usual, “the crisis in the leadership of the Labour Party,” particularly roused tension in the House on December 12, 2024, when the Minority Leader, Hon Kingsley Chinda objected to the letter of defection read on Iliya’s behalf. He claimed that Iliya’s letter failed to comply with the constitution.
According to Chinda, a standing order had been given by the House that any member who intends to defect must first inform his constituents, and since Iliya could not show such proof, his letter should be rejected. Despite the commotion that erupted, Speaker Tajudeen Abbas overruled Chinda. Nobody needs a long guess to understand why Abbas did what he did. His party, the APC, was winning another soul, so he had no qualms, whether the new convert gained entry into the party through the window or the back door. It is obvious 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 as I write, rumours of defection have enveloped many lawmakers.
A number of studies have attempted to proffered reasons for the jumpology that characterises the activities of the lawmakers in recent years. One of such is the lack of distinctive ideology separating the political parties and then the glaring lack of governance model within the political parties. Despite the vantage position, the constitution places them in the leadership recruitment process. The laissez faire mode of administration they often adopt denies them of their importance.
Nonetheless, whatever pushes a member to abandon the writ of the political party that got him into the chamber cannot justify that or enable him to eat his cake and have it. 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.” That doctrine is also emphasized by the Yoruba when they say A kii je meji ni aba Alade, a saying, which, translated into English language, would still sound like- ‘you can’t eat your cake and have it’.
But, legislators in Nigeria have been eating their cakes and still having it in full, especially since the return of democratic governance in 1999. The rule for them is, ‘just get elected first, you will cross the bridge of political correctness when you get there’. ‘If it is possible, you can even switch political party allegiance before the inauguration day’. That conduct, however, remains in violation of the dictates of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which designates defections as one of the grounds a member can lose his seat.
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 Hon. Ifedayo Abegunde Vs Ondo State House of Assembly, the Court of Appeal held that defection involves “….factionalization, fragmentation, splintering or division,” which would make it impossible for the party to function as a body. Any other thing to the contrary would indicate that a lawmaker cannot eat his cake and have it. Such a member, if he must defect, must also abandon the mandate he has been given. The courts also held that the said “division” in the rank of the party must not only affect parts of the party or a state chapter. A division, in the estimation of the court does not also amount to a situation where a member goes to cause crisis in his state or local chapter of the party in order to use the same as spring board for defection.
It should be appalling to see a political party that was rejected in an election turn out to regain the seat through the back door. But that is what our legislators have been doing, each time they defect. It is like the case of the law breaker making the law for the law abiding; a convict standing in judgment against the just, in an Animal Farm scenario.
So, 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 that is the question members of the public should direct to the Presidents of the Senate and the Speakers of the respective houses, who are mandated by Sections 68 (2) and 109 (2) to declare the seat of a defecting lawmaker vacant.
Section 68 (2) provides that: “The President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, shall give effect to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, so however that the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives or a member shall first present evidence satisfactory to the House concerned that any of the provisions of that subsection has become applicable in respect of that member.”
Perhaps the above subsection has, rather than helped the cause of the electorate, only provided a tent for the presiding officers to hide. Our elders say that even if you give a mad man a hoe, he would still draw things to himself. In a situation where politics is perpetually be at play, such a constitutional provision should not remain in our law books, because a Senate President or the Speaker may not feel obliged to send a member packing if such a one can become his loyalist.
Rather than seek political correctness as the end point of their service, rendering good service and the comfort of the constituents should remain the primary goal of a legislator. Where that is missing, the people must wield the big stick by applying the power of recall against an erring lawmaker who violates the “just cause,” proviso contained in Section 68 (3) of the 1999 Constitution.
