Ademola’s Controversial Judgment

The life of the ordinary
Nigerian is usually full of extraordinary thrills. Sometimes it gets to a groove. Every now and then, something happens in the polity that thrills us and engages everyone in many days of discourse, hence making us anesthetic to the problems that plague us daily.
Such happenstance may spell danger or arouse laughter in this country of commonplace things. But whatever is the development; it gives us a moment of real excitement and leaves a dent in our memories.
Each day, one wakes up to news of a devastating terror activity that might have occurred with attendant numerous casualties, a high profile corruption scandal involving a notable personality or a controversial court judgment that courts critical comments from the public. The list is endless.
When in 1952, Chief Meredith Akinloye defected from his party in the then Western Region House of Representatives to another party, upsetting the stability of politics then, little did he know that he was sowing the seed of cross-carpeting that would germinate in our politics today.
I recall the recent court judgment of March 31, 2014, in which Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, declared that 37 House of Representatives members, who defected from the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC, had no business to retain their seats, having dumped the party which sponsored them.
Consequently, the court directed that the affected lawmakers should resign their positions as legislators, having crossed to another party while their tenures had not ended. The judgment also barred the House of Representatives from changing its principal officers. The judge believed the defecting lawmakers lacked competence to vote in any process to remove its leadership or sponsor a motion to that effect on the floor of the House.
The High Court verdict is the outcome of a suit filed against the leadership of the House by the PDP. However, the APC is said to have appealed the judgment in the meanwhile, while the leadership of the house had said it would stay action on the court verdict until all the contentious issues ran their full course in court.
At the core of the dispute is the correct interpretation of Section 68(1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution. The section states as follows:
“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”
This provision, however, comes with a proviso and that is: “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 sponsored.”
Expectedly, since after the court judgment, this section of the constitution has generated many interpretations, depending on the group which the interpreter belongs or favours.
But, since the declaration of a court on a matter, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, remains the position of the law on it until upturned, the verdict of the Abuja court on the issue of defection of lawmakers, is the position of the law for now until it is decided otherwise by a superior court.
I commend the leadership of the House of Representatives which has decided to stay action until all the issues at stake run their full course in court. That is the best way to go about the controversial judgment, considering the heat the defections generated in both chambers of the National Assembly. I hope all aggrieved parties in this dispute will sheathe their sword and let the court resolve the matter.
Nevertheless, Justice Ademola’s judgment offers some lessons for us to take. First, the ruling has sounded the death-knell to whimsical and capricious carpet-crossing in the nation’s legislative houses. This will usher in some measure of sanity in our legislature.
The second lesson is more or less a caution. If the court’s verdict is upheld on appeal, then the judgment has the tendency to promote impunity in political parties. It may stifle dissenting voices and worsen the prevailing lack of internal democracy that has become a common feature in our political parties.
I urge the appellate courts to give a definitive interpretation to Section 68 (1) (g) of the constitution so that the confusion over cross-carpeting can be laid to rest finally. This will enrich our jurisprudence and enhance the growth of democracy in the country.

Arnold Alalibo