The Federal High Court in Port Harcourt has set April 16, 2025, as the date for delivering its ruling on a critical case filed by the Labour Party (LP) against 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. The case challenges the legality of the lawmakers’ positions following their defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The LP argues that the lawmakers should vacate their seats because their defection contravenes the constitutional provisions governing the conduct of elected officials in Nigeria. According to the party, the lawmakers’ actions violate the law, and therefore, they should be disqualified from holding office.
The case has sparked significant interest as it touches on the constitutional implications of political defections in the country. As the court prepares to rule on this matter, the legal arguments from both sides of the case have presented conflicting views on the legitimacy of the defections and whether they warrant any legal action.
The Labour Party’s case is based on the premise that the lawmakers’ defection from the PDP to APC in 2023 was unlawful. The party claims that the defecting lawmakers no longer hold valid seats in the Assembly, as their actions breached the provisions of the Nigerian constitution, which prevents lawmakers from changing parties unless there is a division in their original party.
The case has drawn attention because of its potential implications on the political landscape in Rivers State. If the court rules in favour of the LP, the 27 lawmakers who defected to APC could be forced to vacate their positions, leading to possible by-elections in the state.
During the court proceedings, the defence, representing the 27 lawmakers, including the Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Martins Amaewhule, requested the court to dismiss the case. They argued that the matter had already been resolved in a previous ruling by the Supreme Court, which reinstated Amaewhule as the legitimate Speaker of the Assembly.
The defence counsel presented a Certified True Copy of the Supreme Court ruling, which had been delivered on February 29, 2025. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that a legal defection had occurred, effectively maintaining the status quo in the Assembly.
According to the defence, Governor Siminalayi Fubara, who initially raised the issue of the defections, had withdrawn the case filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, further strengthening the argument that there was no need to continue with the legal proceedings in Port Harcourt. The defence thus argued that the Labour Party’s suit was without merit and should be struck out.
In response, Clifford Chukwu, the counsel representing the Labour Party, countered the defence’s submission by stressing that the defection issue was a distinct and separate matter from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Amaewhule’s leadership. Chukwu emphasized that the defection case should be judged on its own merits, independent of the Supreme Court decision.
Chukwu pointed out that the defection allegations were still very much relevant and needed to be considered by the court. He argued that the suit should not be dismissed outright and that the court should look at the evidence presented in the case, rather than relying solely on the previous judgment from the Supreme Court.
The Labour Party lawyer maintained that the defection of the lawmakers from PDP to APC was unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the Nigerian constitution. He also stated that the party was committed to ensuring that the actions of the lawmakers were thoroughly scrutinized.
Speaking to journalists after the hearing, Chukwu reiterated that he had presented his case to the court, and the final decision on whether to dismiss or continue with the suit would be made on April 16, 2025. He expressed confidence that the court would consider the full scope of the case before making its ruling.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in February 2025 was significant because it addressed the question of whether the defection of the lawmakers from the PDP to the APC was legal. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no clear evidence to support the claim that a legal defection had taken place. As a result, the court upheld the leadership of Martins Amaewhule as Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
This ruling effectively maintained the status quo, but it did not directly address the issue of whether the defected lawmakers were still legally entitled to their seats in the Assembly. The Labour Party has argued that the defection issue should be dealt with separately and should result in the lawmakers losing their positions.
The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for the political dynamics in Rivers State. If the Labour Party’s case is successful, it could trigger by-elections for the 27 Assembly seats currently held by the defected lawmakers. This would have a significant impact on the composition of the Rivers State House of Assembly and could alter the balance of power in the state.
Additionally, the ruling could send a strong message about the legal consequences of political defections in Nigeria. The case highlights the ongoing debate over whether politicians should be allowed to change parties freely or whether their actions should be subject to legal scrutiny.
For now, all eyes are on the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, where the ruling on April 16 will determine whether the Labour Party’s case will proceed or be dismissed.
Political defections are a common occurrence in Nigerian politics, often leading to controversy and legal challenges. The Nigerian constitution has provisions that aim to regulate defections by elected officials, particularly lawmakers. According to Section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution, a lawmaker who defects from the party on which they were elected must vacate their seat unless there is a division in the original party.
However, the interpretation and enforcement of this provision have been contentious over the years, with various court cases challenging the legality of defections. This has led to differing judicial opinions on whether lawmakers should automatically lose their seats after switching parties or if there are other considerations.
The ongoing case in Rivers State is a prime example of the challenges that arise when political defections are contested in court. It raises questions about the role of the judiciary in regulating political activities and the extent to which lawmakers are accountable for their actions.
