In a landmark decision that has sent ripples across Nigeria’s political landscape, the Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed Rep. Abubakar Gummi from the House of Representatives for abandoning the platform that brought him to power — the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) — and defecting to the All Progressives Congress (APC). The ruling, delivered by Justice Obiora Egwuatu, has reignited the national debate over party defection, loyalty, and the constitutional consequences of political cross-carpeting in Nigeria’s democracy.
Abubakar Gummi, who represented the Gummi/Bukkuyum Federal Constituency of Zamfara State, had earlier defected from the PDP to the APC, citing what he described as “irreconcilable differences” within his former party and the need to align with the ruling party at the federal level for the benefit of his constituents. However, the PDP, through its legal team, swiftly challenged the defection in court, arguing that Gummi’s action was unconstitutional, unjustified, and in violation of the express provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Justice Egwuatu’s verdict brought the matter to a decisive end — at least for now. The judge ruled that the lawmaker had no valid justification to abandon the political platform under which he was elected and that his defection amounted to a betrayal of the electorate’s mandate.
“The constitution is clear,” Justice Egwuatu stated in his judgment. “A legislator who defects from the political party that sponsored his election to another party without a division in the former loses his seat. The court has no discretion in this matter once the facts are established.”
The court further issued an order restraining the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Tajudeen Abbas, from continuing to recognise Gummi as the legitimate representative of the Gummi/Bukkuyum Federal Constituency. In addition, the court directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct a fresh election to fill the now-vacant seat, in line with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
The Legal Context — What the Constitution Says
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, under Section 68(1)(g), provides that a member of the National Assembly shall vacate his seat if he becomes a member of another political party before the expiration of the period for which he was elected, except in cases where there is a division in the party or a merger between parties. This provision was designed to preserve political stability and prevent the culture of opportunistic defection that has become commonplace in Nigerian politics.
Over the years, however, politicians have found creative ways to circumvent this constitutional clause, often citing “factional crises” within their parties as justification for defection. In most cases, the ruling party at the federal level tends to benefit from such movements, as lawmakers seek proximity to the
corridors of power.
The PDP, in this case, insisted that there was no such division within its ranks at the time of Gummi’s defection. The party’s counsel argued that his move to the APC was not only politically self-serving but also a violation of the mandate freely given to him by the people of Gummi/Bukkuyum under the PDP banner.
Justice Egwuatu agreed with this argument, reiterating that the Constitution does not permit arbitrary movement between parties, especially when there is no proven factionalisation. His judgment reaffirmed the constitutional principle that mandates belong to political parties, not individual politicians — a doctrine often tested in Nigeria’s evolving democratic experience.
Political Implications for Zamfara and Beyond
The sacking of Abubakar Gummi could have far-reaching implications for Zamfara State’s fragile political balance. Zamfara has been a flashpoint of political realignment since 2019, when a Supreme Court ruling nullified the victory of all APC candidates in the general elections due to irregular primaries, handing control of the state to the PDP. Since then, the political pendulum has swung back and forth, with both parties locked in a fierce struggle for dominance.
Observers believe Gummi’s defection to the APC was part of a broader strategy to consolidate the ruling party’s influence in the state, especially ahead of future elections. His removal from office, therefore, represents a significant blow to the APC’s grassroots network in Zamfara and a moral victory for the PDP, which has often accused the APC of “poaching” its elected members.
For the PDP, the court’s decision serves as a reaffirmation of its long-standing call for legal enforcement of anti-defection laws. “This judgment is not just a victory for the PDP,” said a senior party official who spoke anonymously. “It is a victory for the rule of law and for every Nigerian voter who believes that political office should not be treated as a personal possession to be traded at will.”
The Speaker’s Predicament and Institutional Repercussions
The ruling also placed the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abbas, in a delicate position. By restraining him from further recognising Gummi as a sitting member, the court effectively compelled the leadership of the House to comply with the judicial directive or risk being held in contempt.
Historically, the National Assembly has been hesitant to enforce such rulings, often arguing that the legislature has its own internal mechanisms for dealing with membership issues. However, legal analysts say Justice Egwuatu’s explicit restraining order leaves little room for political maneuvering.
Dr. Chidi Eze, a constitutional lawyer and analyst, explained: “The judiciary has once again reminded the legislature that the rule of law supersedes political convenience. If the Speaker fails to implement this judgment, it would send a dangerous signal that lawmakers can act above the law. This is a defining moment for parliamentary integrity.”
A Pattern of Defection and Judicial Resistance
This is not the first time Nigerian courts have intervened in cases of defection. In 2022, a similar ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja unseated 20 lawmakers from Cross River State who had defected from the PDP to the APC. Likewise, in Ebonyi State, the courts ruled against the defection of then-Governor Dave Umahi and his deputy, although the enforcement of that judgment was later complicated by political and procedural factors.
These cases reflect a growing trend in which the judiciary has become the primary check against what many see as the erosion of democratic accountability. Yet, critics argue that enforcement remains inconsistent, as politicians often exploit legal loopholes or rely on political immunity to avoid consequences.
The Public Reaction and Broader Message
The reaction to Gummi’s removal has been mixed. Within Zamfara, supporters of the PDP have hailed the judgment as a triumph of justice, while APC loyalists have described it as politically motivated. Some citizens expressed relief that the judiciary was finally acting to curb what they called “the culture of political prostitution” that undermines voter confidence.
On social media, the case quickly became a trending topic, with hashtags like #DefectionJudgment and #RuleOfLawPrevails gaining traction. Many Nigerians, weary of the endless cycles of defection that often destabilise governance, praised the court’s firmness.
“This is what we need — accountability,” tweeted one user. “If you win under PDP, stay with PDP. If you want to join APC, resign and recontest. Simple.”
Others, however, questioned whether the same principle would be applied consistently, noting that several politicians who defected in previous years have retained their positions without consequence.
What Next for Gummi and the Constituency?
Following the judgment, Rep. Abubakar Gummi is expected to either vacate his seat immediately or appeal the decision at the Court of Appeal. Legal experts say he may seek a stay of execution pending appeal, a move that could temporarily allow him to retain his seat while the case continues.
Meanwhile, the people of Gummi/Bukkuyum Federal Constituency face the prospect of another election to fill the vacancy. For many residents, this represents an opportunity to choose a representative who will prioritise their needs rather than political expediency.
A civil society leader in Zamfara, Hajiya Fatima Bukkuyum, told reporters that the judgment should serve as a lesson to all elected officials. “The people voted for the PDP, not for Gummi as a person. If he wants to switch parties, he should seek a new mandate. That is what democracy is about — accountability to the people.”
A Turning Point in Nigeria’s Political Morality
Beyond the immediate implications for Zamfara, this ruling may mark a turning point in Nigeria’s ongoing struggle to strengthen political discipline and restore faith in democratic institutions. For decades, defection has been treated as a normal part of political life — a tactic used to secure power, protection, or patronage. But as Justice Egwuatu’s judgment shows, the tide may finally be turning.
By sacking Rep. Abubakar Gummi, the Federal High Court has drawn a clear line in the sand: the mandate belongs to the people, not to politicians. Whether this ruling becomes a lasting precedent or another fleeting headline will depend on the willingness of institutions — especially INEC and the National Assembly — to uphold it without fear or favour.
For now, one message rings clear from the courtroom in Abuja: loyalty to the people and the party that brought you to power is not optional — it is a constitutional duty.
Post a Comment