The recent decision of the Delta State House of Assembly concerning the seat of the member representing Udu Constituency, Hon. Collins Egbetama, has generated considerable public debate. While opinions have been sharply divided along political lines, the legal issues surrounding the matter are far less complicated than many assume.
At the heart of the controversy are the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which clearly spell out the circumstances under which elected legislators may retain or lose their seats after changing political parties.
Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution provides that a member of a State House of Assembly shall vacate his or her seat if, having been elected on the platform of one political party, the member becomes affiliated with another political party before the expiration of the tenure. An identical provision is contained in Section 68(1)(g), which applies to members of the National Assembly.
These constitutional provisions were designed to preserve the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system by ensuring that lawmakers remain faithful to the political platforms on which they were elected. In essence, the electorate votes not only for an individual but also for the political party sponsoring that candidate.
However, the Constitution provides one important exception. A legislator may lawfully defect without losing the seat where the defection is occasioned by a division or merger within the political party that sponsored the election. Over the years, Nigerian courts have consistently interpreted this exception to mean a deep and irreconcilable division within the national leadership of the political party, rather than disagreements arising from local politics, congresses or primary elections.
It is this constitutional exception that many observers have relied upon in explaining the movement of Governor Rt. Hon. Sheriff Oborevwori and other former members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Delta State to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Their argument is that the prolonged leadership crisis and unresolved disputes within the PDP at the national level constituted the type of division contemplated by the Constitution.
Where a lawmaker’s defection does not fall within this constitutional exception, the consequences are straightforward. The legislator automatically loses membership of the legislative house, the presiding officer declares the seat vacant, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is notified to conduct a by-election to enable the affected constituency elect a new representative.
It is equally important to distinguish the constitutional position of legislators from that of executive office holders. Unlike members of the legislature, the Constitution contains no anti-defection provision for governors, deputy governors or the President. Consequently, executive office holders who change political parties during their tenure do not automatically forfeit their offices.
Against this constitutional background, the action taken by the Delta State House of Assembly regarding Hon. Egbetama is viewed by many legal analysts as one rooted in the provisions of the Constitution rather than in political considerations. Whether one agrees with the political implications of the decision or not, the legal framework governing legislative defection remains clearly defined by the nation’s supreme law.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the Udu Constituency should not be reduced to partisan arguments alone. It presents an opportunity for Nigerians to appreciate the constitutional safeguards put in place to protect the country’s democratic system and to reinforce the principle that the rule of law remains the foundation upon which representative democracy is built.
WHEN DEFECTION COSTS A SEAT: THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES BEHIND THE EGBETAMA CASE – By Nelson Egware
The recent decision of the Delta State House of Assembly concerning the seat of the member representing Udu Constituency, Hon. Collins Egbetama, has generated considerable public debate. While opinions have been sharply divided along political lines, the legal issues surrounding the matter are far less complicated than many assume.
At the heart of the controversy are the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which clearly spell out the circumstances under which elected legislators may retain or lose their seats after changing political parties.
Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution provides that a member of a State House of Assembly shall vacate his or her seat if, having been elected on the platform of one political party, the member becomes affiliated with another political party before the expiration of the tenure. An identical provision is contained in Section 68(1)(g), which applies to members of the National Assembly.
These constitutional provisions were designed to preserve the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system by ensuring that lawmakers remain faithful to the political platforms on which they were elected. In essence, the electorate votes not only for an individual but also for the political party sponsoring that candidate.
However, the Constitution provides one important exception. A legislator may lawfully defect without losing the seat where the defection is occasioned by a division or merger within the political party that sponsored the election. Over the years, Nigerian courts have consistently interpreted this exception to mean a deep and irreconcilable division within the national leadership of the political party, rather than disagreements arising from local politics, congresses or primary elections.
It is this constitutional exception that many observers have relied upon in explaining the movement of Governor Rt. Hon. Sheriff Oborevwori and other former members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Delta State to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Their argument is that the prolonged leadership crisis and unresolved disputes within the PDP at the national level constituted the type of division contemplated by the Constitution.
Where a lawmaker’s defection does not fall within this constitutional exception, the consequences are straightforward. The legislator automatically loses membership of the legislative house, the presiding officer declares the seat vacant, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is notified to conduct a by-election to enable the affected constituency elect a new representative.
It is equally important to distinguish the constitutional position of legislators from that of executive office holders. Unlike members of the legislature, the Constitution contains no anti-defection provision for governors, deputy governors or the President. Consequently, executive office holders who change political parties during their tenure do not automatically forfeit their offices.
Against this constitutional background, the action taken by the Delta State House of Assembly regarding Hon. Egbetama is viewed by many legal analysts as one rooted in the provisions of the Constitution rather than in political considerations. Whether one agrees with the political implications of the decision or not, the legal framework governing legislative defection remains clearly defined by the nation’s supreme law.
Ultimately, the debate surrounding the Udu Constituency should not be reduced to partisan arguments alone. It presents an opportunity for Nigerians to appreciate the constitutional safeguards put in place to protect the country’s democratic system and to reinforce the principle that the rule of law remains the foundation upon which representative democracy is built.