The recent press statement issued by the All-Progressives Congress (APC), titled “APC Should Learn from History – A Sordid Display of Editorial Bias”, reads more like a reflexive political outburst than a reasoned response. It attempts to deflect attention from the deeper concerns raised by the Daily Trust editorial regarding the continued, unchecked wave of defections by governors and elected officials into the ruling party. Contrary to APC’s accusations, Daily Trust was not partisan. It simply did what a responsible newspaper should do in a fragile democracy: call attention to a trend that poses grave implications for multiparty politics and the long-term health of democratic accountability in Nigeria.
The APC press statement enthusiastically defends the right of governors and other political figures to defect from one party to another, citing freedom of association under the Constitution. That argument, while legally convenient, evades the more substantive question: What happens to the mandate given by the electorate to a candidate under one political party when that person crosses to another party mid-term? Does that mandate automatically follow the individual, or should the electorate have a say in whether they still endorse that candidate under a new platform? These are not merely academic questions — they strike at the heart of democratic representation.
APC’s claim that these defections are a routine exercise of constitutional liberty ignores the very real structural consequences. In many cases, defections are not isolated or ideological; governors switch parties en masse, often bringing along state legislators who were elected on entirely different platforms. These lawmakers, who are explicitly covered by the anti-defection provisions in Sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) of the Constitution, are rarely held accountable. Instead, they invoke the “split in the party” excuse — a well-worn legal loophole — to justify remaining in office. This cynical manipulation of a constitutional safeguard is not only dishonest; it undermines public trust and neuters the principle of representative government.
Worse still, this coordinated defection strategy often results in an immediate collapse of opposition structures within states. One moment, a state has a functioning opposition party in both the executive and legislative arms; the next, all key figures have decamped to the ruling party — without returning to the electorate for validation. Such mass defections severely distort the balance of power and tilt the political field in favour of the ruling party, not through persuasion or performance, but by political horse-trading and backroom deals. That is not democratic competition; it is elite consolidation.
Police detain robbery suspect, recover firearm
Anambra gov’ship: INEC completes delivery of non-sensitive materials
The case of former Rivers State Governor, Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, remains instructive. In Amaechi v. INEC (2007), the Supreme Court of Nigeria ruled that it was the party, not the individual, that won the governorship election. This judgment affirmed that political parties are central to Nigeria’s electoral system — not independent candidacies. Amaechi, who had been substituted by the PDP unlawfully, was restored by the court without contesting the election, because the court held that the party carried the mandate.
Ironically, after benefiting from that judicial reasoning, Amaechi himself defected from the PDP to the APC while in office, and remained governor. This legal and moral inconsistency underscores a key point: while the Constitution is silent on defection by executive office holders, the principle that voters elect a platform, not just a personality, is well established. The continued silence of the law on this issue is a gaping hole in our constitutional architecture — and one that political actors continue to exploit with impunity.
Imo State provides a more recent and equally troubling example. From former Governor Rochas Okorocha, who traversed PDP, APGA, and APC, to the current administration, Imo has become a laboratory of fluid partisan identity and elite-driven politics. Governors do not just switch parties for ideological reasons; they often do so as a matter of political convenience, especially when they sense shifting winds at the federal level. More troublingly, state assemblies follow suit, often defecting in unison, raising questions about the independence of the legislature and the sanctity of electoral mandates. These waves of defections are not spontaneous; they are choreographed, and designed to reduce political competition to a footnote.
The APC statement dismisses the idea that these patterns threaten Nigeria’s multi party system. But this denial flies in the face of observable reality. In the past few years, we have seen sitting governors — elected under the PDP — switch allegiance mid-term to the APC: David Umahi of Ebonyi, Ben Ayade of Cross River, Bello Matawalle of Zamfara, among others. Each of these defections came with a domino effect that left the opposition in those states crippled. No referenda. No new elections. Just a fait accompli. And with no consequences for defecting legislators, the legislative branches of those states have become appendages of the new ruling party, almost overnight.
Defections are not in themselves antithetical to democracy. But when they become a systematic tool for dismantling opposition, circumventing the electorate, and evading accountability, they mutate into a threat. It is therefore disingenuous for APC to argue that defections into its ranks are a natural expression of democratic choice, while ignoring the long-term effect of these defections on electoral integrity, institutional trust, and democratic contestation.
Moreover, APC’s suggestion that defections from APC to opposition parties are somehow healthier for democracy, while defections into APC are being unfairly maligned, is a shallow and one-sided framing. It fails to recognize that the ruling party benefits uniquely from the advantages of incumbency, including federal influence, access to state resources, and security apparatus. Defections to a ruling party are rarely neutral. They often represent a convergence of ambition and pressure — a political survival strategy, not a democratic renewal.
Defending these defections as merely constitutional is to confuse legality with legitimacy. The survival of democracy depends not only on laws but on norms, values, and accountability. The law may permit a governor to cross carpets. But morality — and respect for the electorate — demands that such a governor returns to the people for a fresh mandate. Anything less is a betrayal of trust.
What Nigeria needs today is a bold legal reform that closes the loophole on defections. The National Assembly must revisit the Constitution to ensure that executive office holders — governors, deputy governors, presidents, and vice presidents — are held to the same standards as legislators when they defect mid-term. Similarly, the vague “division in the party” clause must be removed or narrowed to prevent its abuse. Without these changes, the anti-defection provisions of our Constitution will remain impotent, and defections will continue to erode the foundations of our democracy.
The editors of Daily Trust have not acted irresponsibly. They have sounded a necessary alarm. They have done what press freedom demands: to speak truth to power, especially when democratic institutions are being undermined under the guise of legality. The APC’s attempt to paint such editorial courage as bias is not only unwarranted, but a dangerous affront to press freedom and democratic debate.
In the final analysis, defending defections without consequence is not defending democracy. It is defending impunity. And until we summon the courage to address this systemic weakness, Nigeria’s democracy will remain vulnerable — not from a lack of elections, but from the absence of electoral fidelity and democratic accountability.
Hassan Hussaini, mni wrote from Jos, Plateau State.
END
Be the first to comment