Proof Of Defection In Nigeria: A Pipe Dream In View Of The Supreme Court Decision In Appeal No. SC/CV/1174/2024

This article considers proof of membership of another political party after defection, as condition precedent for a member of parliament to lose his seat. This is in view of the Supreme Court judgement in Appeal No. SC/CV/1174/2024, delivered on the 28^th day of February, 2025. The article finds that the Supreme Court’s insistence on proof of membership of another political party through membership register and membership card in a clear case of defection from a political party that sponsored a candidate to the parliament is dispensable. This is so, as it cannot reasonably be expected that a politician will not be a member of a political party.  Assuming without conceding, that there are politicians that are not members of political parties; a member of parliament that wants to join such category of politicians should relinquish the votes that took him to parliament to its rightful owner – the political party, and consequently lose his seat in the parliament. It is the contention of this article that defection should be treated as an exclusively independent event that can warrant a member of parliament to lose his seat, and of course, does not excludes the probability of taking steps to acquire membership of another political party. The article concludes that if the Supreme Court maintains its stance that a clear case of defection alone is not enough for a member of parliament to lose his seat, except membership of another political party is proved through membership register and membership card; the Supreme Court has made proof of defection a pipe dream and has unwittingly commissioned the launch pad for parliamentary defection. This is because proof of membership of another political party through membership register and membership card is near impossible if not impossible.

Introduction

[P]olitical party includes any association whose activities include canvassing for votes in support of a candidate for election to the office of President, Vice-President, Governor, Deputy Governor or membership of a legislative house or of a local government council ((CFRN, s. 229)).

The importance of political parties in a country that practises democracy cannot be overemphasized; moreso, in countries like Nigeria, where independent candidacy is not recognized¹). Political parties is the vehicle that conveys politicians to their desired elective positions. As a matter of fact, votes scored during elections is not in favour of candidates, but the political party that sponsored such candidate². Without political parties, the practice of democracy will be impossible. In the same vein, the lack of  ideological stance amongst political parties in Nigeria has been a menace to the maturation of democracy. The absence of ideology in political parties and amongst politicians undoubtedly accounts for the perennial defection of politicians from one political party to another. Defection is taken from the Latin word, defectionem which means an “action of deserting or abandoning a party, leader, cause, etc³.” Defection has been defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary⁴) as: “Abandonment of allegiance or duty; the forsaking of a person or cause; desertion.” According to Burton’s Legal Thesaurus⁵): 

DEFECT, (as a) verb (means to) abandon allegiance, abdicate, abscond, apostasize, back out, be disloyal, betray, break away, break fealty, break with, cast off, change sides, default, demit, depart, desert, disavow, disobey, disown, forsake, leave, leave unlawfully, mutiny, prove treacherous, quit, rebel, reject, renege, renounce, repudiate, resign, revolt, run away, secede, tergiversate, transfer, violate one’s oath, withdraw one’s support.

From the above rendering, defection simpliciter, means to renounce or resign one’s membership of a political party.

Anti-Defection Laws In Nigeria

The only law in Nigeria as at the time of writing this article that checkmates or curtail the defection of politicians from one political party to another is the 1999 Constitution⁶), and regrettably, it applies to members of parliament only. Section 68(1)(g) provides as follows:

(1) 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;

Section 109(1)(g) which is in pari materia with the above provision provides thus:

(1) A member of a House of Assembly shall vacate his seat in the House if –

(g) being a person whose election to the House of Assembly was sponsored by a political party, he becomes a member of any other 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;

For the sake of this discuss, reference will not be made to membership of another political party as sine qua non for a member of parliament to lose his seat; this is because defection will suffice for a member of parliament to lose his seat. This is so, as it cannot reasonably be expected that a politician will not become a member of another political party after defection. Let me even assume for the sake of argument, that there are politicians that are not members of political parties; a member of parliament that wants to join such class of politicians should relinquish the votes that took him to parliament to its rightful owner – the political party², and consequently lose his seat in the parliament. This is because it is hideous that a political party that was turned down by the electorates in an election will get back the seat(s) it lost through the back door. This is not only morally despicable; it is also legally unjustifiable.

Again, a literal/strict interpretation of the words “becomes a member of any other political party” in sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution will be absurd and defeat the obvious mischief the framers of the Constitution intended to cure after a formal defection of a member of parliament. Therefore, the mischief rule of interpretation should be adopted. This is even more so as the Supreme Court has stated as follows:

My Lords, it is my view that the approach of this court to the construction of the Constitution should be, and so it has been, one of liberalism, probably a variation on the theme of the general maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat (It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void). I do not conceive it to be the duty of this court so to construe any of the provisions of the Constitution as to defeat the obvious ends the Constitution was designed to serve…⁷

1. CFRN, ss. 65(b), 106(d), 131c), 177(c [↩]
2. CFRN, s. 221; Faleke v INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1543) 61 [↩] [↩]
3. ‘Defection’ available at<https://www.etymonline.com/word/defection>accessed 12 March 2025 [↩]
4. Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (Thomson Reuters, Tenth Edition [↩]
5. William C. Burton, Burton’s Legal Thesaurus (Fifth Edition [↩]
6. CFRN, ss. 68(1)(g), 109(1)(g [↩]
7. Nafiu Rabiu v The State (1981) 2 NCLR 293 [↩]