Rivers defection crisis: Supreme court’s troubling departure from precedent

BY OLUFEMI ADUWO

The unfolding political turmoil in Rivers state, following the defection of Martin Amaewhule and 24 other lawmakers from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), has precipitated a constitutional crisis. The fundamental question remains whether these defected lawmakers are entitled to retain their seats or if, pursuant to constitutional provisions and established legal precedents, they have forfeited their mandates. The Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement, which effectively conferred legitimacy upon the defectors by directing the governor to re-present the 2025 budget to them, has left many Nigerians bewildered, given the clear-cut constitutional position on defection.

The supreme court’s authoritative judgment in Ifedayo Abegunde v. Labour Party (LP), delivered on 17 April 2015, provides irrefutable jurisprudence on the consequences of legislative defection. In a unanimous verdict, the apex court held that Abegunde, who was elected under the LP but defected to the now-defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), had no legal justification to retain his seat. His rationale—that a division within the LP warranted his defection—was dismissed as baseless since the purported division was not at the national level. The court upheld that for defection to be constitutionally permissible under Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the division must be of such magnitude as to render the party incapable of functioning. At the time the lawmakers defected, this was not the case in the PDP.

In light of this binding precedent, the case of the defected Rivers lawmakers presents a stark deviation from constitutional stipulations, judicial consistency, and the supreme court’s latest stance. If the precedent established in Abegunde is to be followed, the defectors have, by operation of law, lost their seats, and any further exercise of legislative authority by them constitutes a flagrant violation of constitutionalism. The supreme court’s directive to Governor Siminalayi Fubara to re-present the 2025 budget to individuals who, in the eyes of the law, no longer possess legislative legitimacy, warrants immediate reconsideration.

Some commentators have suggested invoking Section 11(4) & (5) of the 1999 Constitution, which empowers the national assembly to assume legislative functions in a state where the house of assembly is incapacitated by crisis or a breakdown of law and order. However, such an intervention must be necessitated by absolute dysfunctionality, not mere political turbulence. The constitution envisages this provision as a stabilising mechanism, ensuring legislative continuity rather than serving as a tool for partisan interference.

It is imperative to emphasise that the national assembly’s assumption of a state house of assembly’s functions is inherently temporary, designed solely to facilitate a return to normalcy. It cannot and must not be weaponised to subjugate state autonomy or subvert constitutional processes. While the political atmosphere in Rivers State is undeniably volatile, the issue at hand is not one of legislative paralysis but rather a flagrant disregard for the constitutional implications of defection. Any attempt to deploy Section 11(4) & (5) outside the ambit of its intended purpose would be tantamount to constitutional overreach.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling, which ostensibly legitimises the defected lawmakers, is an alarming departure from established jurisprudence. It undermines legal certainty, as judicial pronouncements ought to be consistent and predictable. A judiciary that oscillates between conflicting interpretations of the same constitutional provision erodes public confidence in the justice system.

This pronouncement emboldens political opportunism by tacitly endorsing legislative cross-carpeting without consequences, thereby rendering Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution ineffective. Moreover, such judicial inconsistency casts a pall over the integrity of the judiciary, reinforcing perceptions that adjudication is susceptible to political influence rather than being guided by constitutional fidelity.

This development poses a serious existential threat to Nigeria’s democracy. If lawmakers can defect at will, with judicial approval, without suffering the legal ramifications explicitly enshrined in the constitution, then the foundational principles of representative democracy are imperilled. Legislative seats are not personal chattels but sacred mandates entrusted by the electorate. To allow defectors to retain their seats under spurious justifications is to desecrate the sanctity of democratic representation.

The resolution of the Rivers state debacle is neither nebulous nor convoluted—it is constitutionally unambiguous. The defected lawmakers have, by operation of Section 68(1)(g) and binding judicial precedent, forfeited their seats. Consequently, the Rivers state house of assembly’s functions should, as a matter of exigency, be assumed by the house of representatives until fresh elections are conducted by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to restore legitimate legislative representation.

Beyond the immediate crisis in Rivers state, this episode underscores a more profound systemic malaise within Nigeria’s democratic framework—the perennial tension between constitutionalism and political expediency. The constitution is unequivocal: defection without a legitimate, constitutionally recognised basis results in the automatic loss of legislative mandate. Any deviation from this fundamental principle amounts to an unconscionable subversion of the rule of law.

For democracy to thrive, the supremacy of the constitution must be upheld in both letter and spirit. The judiciary, as the ultimate custodian of constitutional interpretation, bears an inviolable duty to ensure that its pronouncements are anchored in legal consistency and doctrinal coherence. The supreme court, in particular, must rise above the fray of political machinations and reassert its role as the beacon of legal certainty. Anything short of this is a travesty of justice.

Nigeria stands at a constitutional crossroads. The path to democratic consolidation demands an unwavering commitment to legal principles over transient political calculations. The road to peace in Rivers state is not a labyrinthine one—it is a straightforward path dictated by constitutional imperatives. The defected lawmakers must vacate their seats, and any attempt to circumvent this obligation is an affront to Nigeria’s democratic ethos. The judiciary must swiftly restore constitutional fidelity to dispel the growing perception that justice is a commodity susceptible to the whims of political actors. Anything less would be tantamount to judicial abdication and a betrayal of democratic ideals.

Olufemi Aduwo, the permanent representative of CCDI to the United Nations, can be contacted via [email protected]