Days after the Court of Appeal in Enugu dismissed the suit challenging Ebonyi State governor, Dave Umahi and his deputy, Kelechi Igwe’s defection to the opposition All Progressive Congress (APC), party from the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the Federal High Court in Abuja has delivered the same judgment in a similar case involving Cross River State’s governor Ben Ayade.

On Thursday, the Court dismissed a suit by PDP seeking the removal of Governor Ben Ayade of Cross River State for defecting to APC. In his ruling, Justice Taiwo Taiwo held that a governor cannot be sacked on account of defecting from the political party on whose platform he was elected, to another.

The PDP had sued Mr Ayade and 20 state legislators, its former members, over their defection to the All Progressives Congress (APC) in May 2021.

The ruling had been repeatedly postponed as the High Court was waiting on the outcome of Umahi’s case at the Appeal Court.  The High Court had concluded the argument from the parties’ legal representatives on Wednesday.

The PDP’s lead counsel, Emmanuel Ukala, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had argued that although Umahi and Ayade’s cases look similar, they’re differentiated by facts and circumstances.

According to the counsel; “the reliefs in the Court of Appeal judgment were three, and different from the reliefs in this case.”

“The core issues we are asking this court to interpret were absent in that case of the Appeal Court.

“My Lord, a defection constitutes a vacation of office by the governor and his deputy. This decision (of the Court of Appeal) cannot stand as a judicial precedent in deciding this (Ayade’s) matter,” Ukala said.

In their defense, the APC lawyer Mike Ozekhome, said “the entire reliefs and questions for determination in this case before the court are the same” as the subject matter of the case at the Court of Appeal.

Ozekhome, SAN, argued that defection is not grounds to remove a governor and his deputy who had taken the oath of office.

Citing Section 40 of the Nigerian constitution, he told the Court that Ayade exercised his right to freedom of association as enshrined in the Nigerian constitution by joining the APC.

Relying on the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Enugu, Justice Taiwo said that Sections 180, 188, and 189 had already stipulated how an executive head could be removed from office.

He held that “The facts and circumstances of this case are similar to that of the Court of Appeal in Enugu.”

The judge, therefore, raised some questions for determination: “Are votes cast in an election transferable to another party? Is defection tantamount to the transfer of votes? Does the law permit such transfer? Can such transfer count or be disallowed with attendant consequence? etc,” he asked.

Justice Taiwo explained that the Court’s responsibility is to interpret law and not to make law, urging the National Assembly to amend the Constitution to address the issue of governor’s defection to another political party.

With the immunity clause, which protects governors from being sued, the only way a governor can be removed from office is through impeachment by the state assembly.

But Justice Inyang Ekwo had attempted to change the status quo when he ruled last month that votes belong to political parties not individuals, thus sacking Umahi from office over his defection to the APC. The judgment has thrown the Nigerian political landscape into disarray.

Ayade’s future was uncertain after Justice Ekwo’s judgment. His fears were compounded by the Court’s earlier ruling that sacked members of the Cross River State Assembly who defected with him. The PDP had asked the court to declare the seats of the 20 lawmakers vacant over their defection to APC.

In March, Justice Taiwo granted the plaintiff’s prayers by sacking the Cross River State House of Assembly Speaker and 17 of his colleagues alongside two members of the House of Representatives for defecting to the APC.

The judge held that “there (were) no justifiable reasons” for their defection.

The judgment exonerating Ayade from any wrongdoing has thus augmented the precedent set by the Court of Appeal. This means that Umahi, who still has a pending case at the Court of Appeal over his defection, may have a favorable judgment.