Isaac AsaborThe gale of defections in Nigeria’s political sphere has become not only repetitive but increasingly dangerous to the integrity and growth of our democracy. Politicians now switch political parties with reckless abandon, often for selfish gain, without consideration for the electorates that handed them the mandate. What was once considered an exception has now become the norm. It is high time this damaging trend is confronted and curtailed. The urgency now lies in making defection both legally costly and politically unattractive.
Unless Nigeria enacts and enforces stringent legal and judicial frameworks that make defection a serious political gamble, one that comes with the forfeiture of political office, the phenomenon will persist, to the detriment of our democratic evolution.
In fact, since the return to civilian rule in 1999, Nigeria has witnessed countless high-profile defections. Politicians hop from one party to another, particularly during election seasons or when a different party assumes power at the federal or state level. These defections are hardly based on ideology or genuine dissatisfaction with governance structures. Instead, they are driven by political expediency, pursuit of influence, protection from probes, or access to public funds.
Unfortunately, voters are made powerless spectators in this charade. They elect leaders based on party ideologies and manifestoes, only for those leaders to abandon the very platforms that brought them to power. This act of betrayal undermines representative democracy, reduces voter confidence, and destroys the principle of political accountability.
Worse still, entire legislative houses in some states have flipped allegiances overnight without a single vote being cast. The ease with which this occurs suggests a total breakdown of democratic values.
Aptly put, political defections in Nigeria political sphere has become a constitutional loophole, and a tool for manipulation. This is as Nigeria’s constitution does make some provisions against defection. Specifically, Section 68(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states that a legislator shall vacate his seat if he defects from the party that sponsored him, except where there is a division in the party. It is this exception clause that has become a major loophole.
To worsen the matter, politicians and their lawyers often conjure up evidence of “factional crisis” within their former party, whether genuine or fabricated, just to escape disqualification. Sadly, the courts have in many instances upheld such arguments, further emboldening the practice.
For members of the executive, governors and presidents, the constitution is even more silent. Despite the fact that they also rise to power through political parties, their defection is seen as a personal decision that does not affect their mandate. This perception is both illogical and dangerous.
If we are serious about strengthening our democracy, this lacuna must be fixed immediately. The mandate should be tied to the political party, not just the individual. The current system allows politicians to abuse the electoral process and walk away without consequences.
Against the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is germane to opine that the judiciary must play its role in defending the sanctity of the people’s mandate. Courts have occasionally stepped up, sacking defectors or ordering reruns, but these rulings are sporadic and lack consistency. The highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, must step in and provide a uniform interpretation on the issue of defection.
One route the judiciary can take is to revisit and clarify Section 221 of the Constitution, which provides that it is political parties, not individuals that contest elections. If a party owns the mandate, then logically, any defection should trigger a loss of seat or position.
There should be a binding judicial pronouncement that compels any politician who defects to resign immediately and seek a fresh mandate under the platform of their new party. Anything less is a rape of the democratic process.
To arrest this menace once and for all, Nigeria needs new laws that compel defectors to vacate their positions immediately upon defection. They must then recontest and win elections under the new party if they wish to retain their positions. This is not a novel idea. It is a democratic ideal that reaffirms the supremacy of the electorate.
Let the voters decide whether they support the change in political affiliation. If the defector is truly popular and the switch is ideologically justified, then he or she will win again. If not, they must be shown the exit door.
This reform will drastically reduce the culture of political prostitution and restore sanity to our political space.
Furthermore, political parties that receive defectors should be held responsible for encouraging anti-democratic practices. There should be penalties, financial or administrative, for any party that promotes or rewards defections.
In fact, there are lessons to be learnt from other parts of the world on political defection. This is as other democracies have handled this challenge with firmness and clarity. For example, India introduced the Anti-Defection Law in 1985 via the Tenth Schedule of its Constitution. This law mandates the disqualification of any elected lawmaker who defects without just cause. It was specifically designed to stop the frequent party-hopping that plagued Indian politics during the 1960s and 70s.
Thanks to this law, political stability improved in India, and elected officials became more cautious about switching affiliations. Nigeria must follow suit and craft similar legislation that reflects our political realities.
Appraising the real cost of defection, it would be revealed that at its core, defection hurts governance. It shifts focus from development to political survival. It creates rifts within legislative houses, frustrates policy continuity, and encourages loyalty to power rather than to people or ideology. It also promotes political blackmail, where lawmakers use defection as a bargaining chip to escape consequences or extract concessions.
Above all, it disempowers the voters. When a person elected on the platform of Party A defects to Party B without returning to seek the people’s approval, it reduces the electorate to mere pawns in a power game.
Without a doubt, the prevailing gale of defection in Nigeria at the moment does not speak well about democracy. It is daylight robbery!
Given the anti-democratic nature of the foreboding gale of defection, it is germane to contextually raise the red flag by saying that time to rescue Nigeria’s democracy is now.
If we are serious about reforming Nigeria’s political landscape and building enduring democratic institutions, then we must make defection unattractive. We must make it a serious political offense that carries weighty consequences, including the forfeiture of position and a compulsory reelection.
The time has come for the National Assembly to move beyond endless rhetoric and take legislative action. Let them pass a comprehensive Anti-Defection Law that mirrors the realities of our political system. Let the judiciary interpret and enforce these laws boldly. Let the electorate demand accountability from those who betray their trust.
Until defection becomes a gamble with real consequences, Nigerian politicians will continue to treat political parties as disposable tools and voters as expendable. Our democracy cannot grow under such a system.
The expediency of making defection costly and unattractive cannot be overemphasized. The nation stands at a crossroads, we either choose to defend the sanctity of the ballot or continue to let our democracy be auctioned to the highest bidder.
