HON. IFEDAYO SUNDAY ABEGUNDE V. ONDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS. (2015)

Background

Hon. Ifedayo Sunday Abegunde was elected in the 2011 general elections as the member representing the Akure North/South Federal Constituency of Ondo State in the House of Representatives. He contested under the platform of the Labour Party, which sponsored his election. Before the expiration of the legislative term, he defected from the Labour Party to the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), later associated with the All Progressives Congress.

Abegunde relied on an alleged division or factionalisation within the Ondo State chapter of the Labour Party. He commenced proceedings by originating summons at the Federal High Court, seeking declarations that the proviso to section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution protected his right to retain his seat despite the defection. He also sought an injunction restraining the relevant authorities from treating his seat as vacant or interfering with his status as a member of the House of Representatives.

The first to third respondents counterclaimed that the appellant had automatically vacated his seat by joining another political party during the life of the House. They sought an order directing that the seat be declared vacant and that the Independent National Electoral Commission conduct a bye-election. The Federal High Court dismissed Abegunde’s claims and granted the counterclaim. The Court of Appeal, Akure Division, affirmed that decision. Abegunde appealed to the Supreme Court, while some respondents filed a cross-appeal in support of his position.

Issues

1. Whether the word “division” in the proviso to section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution includes a dispute or factionalisation confined to a State, Local Government or Ward chapter of a political party.
2. Whether the alleged division in the Ondo State chapter of the Labour Party entitled Abegunde to defect to another political party and retain his legislative seat.
3. Whether the lower courts properly interpreted sections 68(1)(g), 221, 222 and 229 of the Constitution together with section 80 of the Electoral Act.
4. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. It held that section 68(1)(g) establishes the general rule that a member of the Senate or House of Representatives must vacate his seat if, during the life of the House, he becomes a member of another political party from the one that sponsored his election. The proviso creates a narrow exception where the defection results from a division in the sponsoring political party or from a merger of political parties or factions by one of which the member was previously sponsored.

The Court held that the relevant “division” must be a fundamental division affecting the entire structure or national leadership of the political party. A disagreement or factionalisation limited to a State branch, Local Government or Ward does not satisfy the constitutional exception. Under sections 222 and 229 of the Constitution, and section 80 of the Electoral Act, a registered political party is a single national corporate entity, notwithstanding its various State and local branches. The alleged crisis in the Ondo State chapter did not incapacitate the Labour Party or affect its national corporate existence. Accordingly, it could not justify Abegunde’s defection.

Court Findings

The Court emphasised that constitutional provisions must be read together and harmoniously, rather than in isolation. Where constitutional language is clear and unambiguous, it must ordinarily receive its literal meaning; however, the Constitution may be considered as a whole to ensure that the interpretation advances its purpose and does not produce absurdity or defeat the legislative intention.

The proviso was described as an exception and derogation from the principal rule. Consequently, the person seeking its protection bears the burden of producing credible and cogent evidence that the relevant division existed and was of the constitutionally required magnitude. Abegunde admitted that the alleged division did not affect the national body or structures of the Labour Party. He therefore failed to establish the factual foundation for relying on the proviso.

The Court also reaffirmed that section 68(1)(g) is intended to discourage “carpet crossing” by elected legislators. Allowing every local or State-level disagreement to preserve a legislator’s seat would undermine the purpose of the provision, encourage unrestrained defections and create instability in the political system. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were not shown to be perverse, irrational or productive of a miscarriage of justice. There was therefore no basis for appellate intervention.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal. Abegunde’s defection from the Labour Party to the ACN was not protected by the proviso to section 68(1)(g) of the Constitution. His seat in the House of Representatives was consequently declared vacant, and he was ordered to vacate it immediately. Both the main appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed, with no order as to costs in the relevant judgments.

Significance

This decision is an important authority on legislative defections in Nigeria. It establishes that only a serious, party-wide or nationally affecting division can enable a legislator to change political parties without losing the seat obtained through the sponsoring party. A localised disagreement, even if described as factionalisation, is insufficient. The judgment also confirms the constitutional policy against mid-term party switching and reinforces the principle that political parties are national corporate entities rather than separate legal parties at State, Local Government or Ward levels.