In a landmark ruling that underscores the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic process, the Federal High Court in Abuja has declared that Hon. Abubakar Gummi—the member of the House of Representatives representing Gummi/Bukkuyum Federal Constituency in Zamfara State—has automatically forfeited his seat after defecting from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which originally sponsored his election, to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Delivered by Justice Obiora Egwuatu, the decision declared that the defection was unconstitutional — violating Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Consequently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives was ordered not to recognise Gummi as the lawmaker for his constituency, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was directed to organise a fresh election to fill the vacancy within 30 days.
Why this ruling matters
At its core, the judgement affirms that the mandate of the electorate is anchored not only on the individual candidate, but equally on the platform of the political party through which they were elected. As Justice Egwuatu rightly stated, when voters make a choice between parties and their manifestos, a serving legislator cannot simply abandon that platform mid-term and migrate to a rival party without facing consequences.
The court warned of “political prostitution” — a term used to condemn the practice of leveraging the electoral victory won on one party’s platform to benefit another. The message is emphatic: those who cross carpet must not carry the mandate, privileges and rewards of their former party into their new allegiance.
For Nigeria’s democracy, this decision marks a critical step towards accountability and coherence in party politics. Too often, the phenomenon of defections has been treated as harmless or even rewarded, severely undermining the connection between voters’ choice and the politician’s obligation. This ruling says: no more.
The broader implications for our polity
From a moral standpoint, this ruling reinforces what many citizens and analysts have long argued: that a politician elected on one party’s ticket owes loyalty to that party and its manifesto until the end of that term — unless exceptional circumstances arise. The vacuum created by unregulated defection has weakened voter trust, eroded party discipline, and enabled instability in political coalitions.
Legally, the judgement sets a precedent. The fact that the court ordered Gummi to refund all salaries and allowances received from October 30, 2024, until the date of judgement signals that consequences are tangible, not merely symbolic.
Institutionally, the ruling places pressure on both the electoral umpire (INEC) and the parties themselves to tighten internal discipline. Defections have been far too easy, with minimal regulatory check, allowing politicians to shop for parties in power and leave behind the voters who elected them. Now, at least in one case, the law has intervened with force.
Why defection is a threat to democracy
When politicians change parties while in active office — especially when elected on one platform but serving on another — several democratic vulnerabilities arise:
Erosion of voter mandate: The electorate chose a candidate based on a party’s ideology, manifesto or brand. If the candidate dumps that party mid-term, the voter’s choice is devalued.
Weakening of party systems: Parties become less meaningful if their elected representatives can switch at will, undermining policy consistency, accountability and ideological coherence.
Instability and opportunism: Defections often reflect political convenience rather than principle. That breeds cynicism, reduces trust in public institutions, and encourages transactional politics.
Undermining of the separation of votes and politician: The court rightly observed that votes belong to the party, not the individual. When a lawmaker transfers their mandate to a rival party, the very foundation of representation is compromised.
What must change — reform proposals
In light of this ruling and the challenges of party-hopping, I propose the following reforms to strengthen our democracy:
1. Automatic forfeiture of seat upon defecting: As demonstrated by the court, any serving public office-holder who voluntarily leaves the party on whose ticket they were elected should automatically vacate their seat.
2. Time-bound ban from contesting elections: A law should prescribe that a defector cannot contest any elective office for at least four years following their defection — to deter opportunistic switching.
3. Refunding of public allowances: As in the Gummi case, defectors should be required to repay salaries or allowances received after the date of defection, thus removing the financial incentive from party-switching.
4. Strengthening INEC enforcement powers: The electoral body must be empowered to monitor defections and enforce the constitutional provisions (e.g., Section 68) without delay or bias.
5. Party internal democracy reforms: Parties themselves should strengthen internal dispute-resolution mechanisms so that valid grounds for defection (e.g., party division) are properly handled — and frivolous defections are discouraged.
Concluding thoughts
The sacking of Abubakar Gummi is more than a legal victory. It is a moral victory for Nigeria’s democracy. It sends a clear message: the will of the electorate and the platform on which they cast their vote matter. Political office cannot be a commodity to be traded with impunity.
For democracy to flourish in Nigeria, we must ensure that those who seek office respect the platform they present to the voters, and that mechanisms exist to hold them accountable when they abandon that platform midcourse. This is the moment to shift from the culture of political convenience to the culture of political commitment.
If Nigeria is serious about deepening democracy, this should not be an exceptional verdict—this should be the standard rule. And indeed, it should be automatic. Whoever wishes to change their political banner must be ready to lose the seat they obtained under another. No exceptions.
Let this landmark judgment be the ignition point for structural reform — so that the next time a politician contemplates a switch without serving their electoral mandate, they do so knowing the consequences are real, enforceable and inevitable. Because in democracy, integrity matters.
0 Comments