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.

It’s widely and popularly noted that the worst democracy can never be compared to the best autocracy anywhere in the world, meaning literally that the former remains far better than the latter.

In view of the above, several persons all over the global community have invariably and rigorously been canvassing for apt sustenance of democratic systems and processes in their respective societies. According to them, the said system has convincingly proven to run an all-inclusive pattern of government compared to others.

It’s noteworthy that democracy is conspicuously characterized by two prime recipes namely: elections and freedom of speech. These key factors spice up the regular functionality of any democratic terrain wherever it is found.

An electoral process invariably heralds any democratic government or leadership, whereby a set of leaders is constitutionally empowered to be at the helm of affairs of the given nation or province, as might be the case.

The above clause implies that it is through elections the leadership class of any democracy emerges. It suffices to say that it’s only by the conduct of an election the people would meet their leaders. When the leaders are eventually produced via the polls, the people or the electorate can then be classified as followers.

The bone of contention is that an election is not unlike a pivot on which a democratic state firmly stands. It is, therefore, the progenitor of the system of leadership in question. It’s the foundation or basis of this lovable platform currently enjoyed by the majority of countries across the globe.

Election is simply the rudiment of democratic values. It’s apparently one of the paramount reasons discerning individuals all over the world clamour for democracies. It’s the origin of good governance, which equally is one of the main features of any existing democracy. An election is summarily the engine room of all democratic processes and values.

It’s on this premise people are urged to safeguard elections with all their might. The obvious beauty of an electoral process is why rational mindsets in every nook and cranny have at all times preached the reason it must be treated with all manners of seriousness.

It’s of note that the peaceful and credible conduct of any election, either national, state or association, does not depend on the electoral umpire alone. That is to say, for any election to be fair or for its outcome to be appreciated and acceptable by all and sundry, all hands such as the umpire, voters, candidates, security outfits, the media, and observers are required to meaningfully contribute their quota.

Each of the stakeholders mentioned above has a very vital and inevitable role to play towards guaranteeing a well transparent and commendable election, particularly a societal electoral process. Their respective roles are well defined in the Electoral Act guiding the election in question in such a way that they aren’t meant to derail in the long run till the exercise is holistically concluded.

The most basic attitude that’s expected of all participants in any election is to see the overall interest of the benefiting entity as more crucial than the various interests of the individuals that make up the union or group.

Considering the interest of the province, nation or association, or collective interest of the members, as sacrosanct would enable all participating parties to render contributions that are devoid of pranks or what have you. Placing the people’s general interest ahead of their personal gains remains the best way indisputable credible polls could be witnessed in any clime that upholds or understands the language of democracy.

Taking Nigeria as a case study, it’s needless to assert that the acclaimed giant of Africa is presently undergoing a serious trial period as regards elections and their possible outcomes. As well-meaning and patriotic Nigerians are at the moment apparently perturbed, there are key facts they are required to embrace with a view to ensuring the country isn’t in any way marred by any form of crisis, irregularity, or mayhem during elections.

If any right thinking Nigerian truly looks forward to seeing a more peaceful and greater country called Nigeria, then he/she shouldn’t be told or reminded that the citizenry are expected to be and remain rational and law abiding throughout the conduct of any scheduled poll.

The candidates or political parties involved need to bear the national interest in mind as they variously receive the results of the elections. Thus, if the results aren’t in their favour, they must be willing and ready to accept them in good faith.

They shouldn’t see victory after the elections as a “do or die affair” or an anticipated outcome that must come to past. It’s imperative to comprehend that, among the numerous contenders, only one of them is meant to emerge victoriously at the polls for a particular position.

It’s pertinent to acknowledge that not being successful at a certain poll doesn’t signify you can’t succeed subsequently, or no more room for you to excel. We must always take into cognizance that election is a continuum, hence remains endless. In other others, if the outcome of today’s election isn’t in your favour, tomorrow’s might make you grin again.

It’s undoubtedly the collective civic responsibility of the citizens to at all cost defend the sanctity of their country and the human life at large. To adhere to this mandate, they must at all times be fully prepared to accept their individual fates in good faith.

If it’s ideal that a certain electoral outcome ought to be disputed, let the aggrieved party endeavour to head to the election tribunal rather than resorting to violence or related acts.