 Welcome back. A federal high court in the Buja has sacked Yakubo Dogara from the House of Representatives and declared his seat vacant. Mr. Dogara, who represents Bogoro, das federal constituency of Bauchi State, was the speaker of the House of Representatives between 2015 and 2019. The judge, Diyu Okoro, on Friday, today, ruled that Mr. Dogara's defection from the People's Democratic Party to the All Progressives Congress was wrong and meant that he should vacate the legislative seat. Now joining us, let's discuss this. We have a constitutional lawyer, Chief Festus Oguche. Chief Oguche, thank you very much for your time. Yes. Thanks, Kofi, for inviting me. It seems we're having, you know, yet again to try to understand what exactly the position of the law and the constitution is as regards moving from one party to the other. We have recent cases in point. We have the David Umahi and the Iboen State case. We have the Cross River State case involving Governor Ben Ayadeh and his deputy, Ibaraisu. And you have, of course, the members of the Cross River State House of Assembly and two members of the House of Representatives from Cross River State. And what is going on? What should we, should we make of all these cases? But this one now that has sucked the former speech of... Yes, it's quite apt. What is going on? Well, to recall that this has done the tradition ever since we returned to democracy in 1999. It's somewhat becoming something like the norm that persons can defect from one political party to the other. That is not the... Democracy is not true of democratic tradition. Apparently, we have lost our way and we are grouping in the dark towards a political end that has no meaning at all. The sections are very, very serious. And I know that these gale of the sections that are currently going on, it's people jumping ship from one party to the other. They don't do that today. If you recall, immediately upon the coming into power of the All Progressive Congress, there was this... I wouldn't even call it defection. It was more of a migration from one party to the other. A lot of those of the PDP, we are migrating to that place because maybe there's some say they provide a better umbrella for their protection from the threat and persecution of corrupt matters and on and on its way. It is principally because there are political parties as they exist that are now rooted in philosophy. Or else you see that it is very difficult for one to just wake up overnight, maybe a democrat, to wake up overnight and say he's a republican today. Or for somebody in the Labour Party to wake up overnight and say he belongs to this other party. These are political parties that I would tell you philosophy. And one of those philosophies that are guiding principles of this policy part is to be difficult for one to be conservative today and be liberal the next day. And that tells us also the level of maturity of our political elites and the level of democratic norm we apply and the constitutional practice that they're coming to play. I think it's a very unhealthy development. The Supreme Court had given legal interpretation to it and it conforms to the standards all over the world. That if you defect to a political party and you're in an elected position you cannot go with the votes. The votes do not belong to you. They say the votes belong to the political party in our own jurisprudence. But it's not even the political party that has those votes. The votes belong to the people who voted it and who are elected and lies within the demography of the existence. So somebody has suggested that both carry with them a juristic personality. It's not something you carry from one place to the other. And that was the issue we raised immediately upon the death of Prince Abu Bakr al-Adhu in the election and over the governorship in Kogi State was going on over the possibility of the transferability of votes. But now it has become the norm in our political society that once you can see somebody who wants a political party today and the next day he's in the next political party and he wants to carry the votes that does not belong to him along with them, which is totally wrong. Some political observers and commentators and analysts. I'm not going to hear you clearly Kofi. Yeah, can you hear me, sir? Okay, yes. Some political analysts have said that we need to separate the morality of the situation and our emotions from the letter. We need to have a separation of our understanding that there is a difference between the morality or the rightness of what is going on and what the law says in print in black and white. So you're saying that it's wrong to be voted into an office, a political position or office on the platform of one party and then go to another party with the mandate that was given to that party. Fine. But what is the position of the Nigerian constitution, which is a ground-num of the federation? See, you don't get all the, let me super inquire as it was stated in DSS against that back over. You will not expect the constitution to set out every detail of provisional regard in all situations. You constrain this constitution both in its letters and in its spirit. And I'm saying that it doesn't have to be contained in any position of the constitution for anybody to understand that there's immorality in moving from one political party to the other if you're in a elected position. If the position you're occupying is by the mandate of the people. And that has been a norm across the world in every democracy. And this has been entrenched as a tradition, which cannot for any reason or any shape of imagination be circumvented by any position of whatever position there is in the constitution. I know the constitution is silent in the area of governors and all that, but it does not mean there's a lacuna. You know, you won't expect the constitution to spell out everything if you move from this political party to that. But chief, the constitution is a ground-num. And it's what is the bible of the nation. The ground-num, I agree with you, but like I said, there's what is called traditions. There's what is called norms. And we are practicing a constitutional democracy. So it's the combination of these principles that is finding a democratic culture, these doctrine, these things that combine between the constitution and the principles of democracy that are applied. You know, to the extent that I understand, the right to vote is a fundamental right. And the card, the votes, belongs to people. And all that voted cast becomes the representation of the expression of their will. And you asked me if you expressed your will in a particular way towards a particular direction, an individual can take it and take it to another direction. It's a part, it's a matter of morality. The Supreme Court had, in the case of Fideco against Mohamed Goli, which I think is the local's classic, was on the section, has stated that the things from one political party to another is the highest level of political morality. He says it is malevolent, malevolent. Look out, look out for that authority. The Fideco against Mohamed Goli. And that is the standard across the world, particularly if you're dealing with people who are in elective positions. If you have the mandate of the people, the votes do not belong to you. There's this erroneous impression as being pandit all over the place that, well, the Supreme Court has said it, it belongs to political parties. It doesn't even belong to political parties either. The thing about you in the United Kingdom, if you defect, if you defect, it calls for a by-election. Yes, but if we were to go back to the statements by the the Honourable Justices, we look at the case of David. Yes, if we were to go back to the statements of our Lords, the Honourable Justices, we have the case of David Umahi that went on appeal. And of course, you look at the case of Ben Ayade, the judgment of which relied on the statement of the Court of Appeal regarding David Umahi's appeal or case. I'm not quoting these judges, but they said that, yes, indeed, the actions of these governors were immoral, unjustifiable, so on. And so forth. I remember listening to your colleague, Marko Zekome, S.A., and Chief Marko Zekome, S.A., who defended Ayade in his case. And he says, but no matter how immoral they may seem, that the Constitution does not allow any court to take away the mandate of a governor of a state, that they had laid down procedures for removal of governors of states. And you're talking about morality. The next step to which you lend credence to the pronouncements or the decisions of the courts of Nigeria, there's a recent report of the State Department of the United States on the judiciary. And it tells us a lot of volumes about maybe the inclusion of the justice system and the fact that there are so many inadequacies here and there, and the things that pander to indiscretion and travesty. We are having that discussion the other time, and they all are agreed that in spite of the analysis by the Leonard S.A. and who you mentioned, it is very, very clear that the situation that is on end seems that the proper interpretation to be given is a situation where somebody defects, as at that point it is not the governor. And the principles governing are ticked against the Basantia, or those authorities that were quoted. They don't apply. Because at that time they have shifted. So you don't bring those principles that the sitting governor. He became governor by virtue of that mandate. And so long as that mandate is no longer within, he has shifted ground. And immediately upon the judgment of Umahi, I didn't know what caused all these delays, because I expected that that judgment would be implemented immediately and get him back at office. But then we saw how the judiciary was beautifully running over themselves, the judges are running over themselves, issuing out injunction, stopping his moving out of government house when he's paid. You know, until then the matter is not said. The judgment of Justice Tegu, which united all these fireworks, was, I don't think it was appealed, but then there's another judgment of the High Court in the state, which was appealed. And the judges, they knew who caused this appeal. They knew who the judiciary came up with a contrary view that where else he remains. And that's why he's a guerrilla. I don't know whether that judgment is appealed, so that I don't extend to which I can make this analysis, because I know that once the matter is solved, you don't discuss on the media. But actually, but I understand, I think, I think that the judges truly know that, well, there's been some bits of judicial failures connected with what the court is going through now. I mean, in terms of want of, want of defense, want of a democratic value, and want of societal and national importance to our existence, then, I mean, it goes to show us that because the judicial system has failed in its room to uphold the constitution, also even to uphold the nobility of the judicature, to the extent that sort of these interpretations are wrongs. So, I mean, what I'm trying to say is that the recent US report on Nigeria, the Nigerian judiciary, which is very damning, and I think it's very correct. So we don't have to make so much credence in that, because some of these judgments, I know that if it's in the 17th, 18th Nigerian political system cannot stand. But what I understand, what I know is that when you defend, and you have the mandate of the people, you don't go with that mandate. You drop that mandate, you know, and it's for the fact that if you agree with me, and that is, that belongs to the point of law also, that the right to vote is a fundamental right. Of course, we are not talking about votes or votes that are inalienable. We are talking about the transferability of votes, which also pertains to the transferability of fundamental rights, which is impossible. You don't transfer them, you don't have the innate, in the proper mood or direction of the democratic practice. If the occupant of an elective office defects, the first thing to do is to consult the people that have voted. They say that maybe elections are very expensive, but nothing is too big to be done to get things right. Anything we're doing is what we're right. We do it correctly. It calls for fresh elections, because the person moving cannot move with the votes that I cast as an expression of my own fundamental right to freedom of information, to freedom of association, to freedom of thoughts. You know, the vote carries with it all the essence and ramifications of the personality of the individuals that cast them, not the person who was given the mandate. That's my point, and that's my submission. Section 68 sub-1 of the Nigerian constitution, and we look at the provisions in the constitution regarding cross-capeting. It talks about a split. If I can do clearly, I'll have a good standpoint on what you're saying. Okay. I'd like us to move to the constitution. Get the phone close to you. Yeah, I think I can hear you clearly now, but can you hear me? Barista? Yeah, if you get the phone closer, I hear you very clearly. Okay. Let's go to the Nigerian constitution, the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. We look at, for instance, section 68 sub-1. We look at other parts of the constitution that have to do, that has to do with defection, and also that has to do with what would be the basis for removal of political office holders. Does the Nigerian constitution allow a member of the legislature to be removed without a legislative process? For removal, one of the recalls is the one that can be done, defection is one of it, and that one is clearly spelled out in the constitution, so it doesn't require any legislative process. Immediately, you defect to your art of office. Any revision you collect there from is not your own, it must be thrown into state, and that's a fact. And the fact that your facts appear will not stop the execution or implementation of the judgements or defection, and that's the mistake they made in the Umahi case, the Umahi governor's case. Yeah, well, I don't know what happened, but it's like everybody was bamboozled, so I use the word hypnotized in the INX, and they didn't know that the implication of that judgment is for the governor to back it up immediately, the pronouncement was made, so that somebody find an appeal and all that, and keep going, read my ruling, to remain in office until his appeal is heard or not applied, because the nature of such agitation and defection demands that pretels back his office immediately. So if you're talking about legislative procedure, what sort of procedure are you talking about when somebody has abdicated his mandate, somebody has abandoned the mandate, the mandate given to him by a demographic, a demographic that's alive and active, and still the demographic that can still be consulted, the demographic that is human, they're not talking about these animate things, things that do not exist, or things that are not within the confines of human and devil. We are talking about an expression done by a group of people. So Chief Oguche, should we see, I mean, do we need to get to a point, and how do we get there, where we don't even need to go to court to see a member of the federal legislature or state legislature who is defected without a split in the party relinquish his seat, because of course, like you've said and earlier said also, Section 68, Subsection 1G, of the constitution provides that a member of the Senator House of Representatives shall vacate his seat or her seat in the House, if being a person whose election to the House was sponsored by a political party before the expiration of the period for which that House was elected, provided that his membership of the latter party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member, or of a measure of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored. So this is clear. Why is, do we see that people have to go to court to enforce this? No, that's the thing about our democratic process that I find totally uncomplicated no-seating. So the next thing that I understand, what the provision is made, you don't have to go to court to effect it. You put it, that is what is called due process. But to have this experience in this democracy, we have people in it that goes, and things that don't happen that way. As far as I'm concerned, you don't require anybody to go to court to get anybody good effect, good job shifts from a political party to the other, to get out of office and go and be able to look for better pastures in the political party of which he has gone. But that situation and a lot of things are wrong with the way we are doing things. So that's why somebody would know very well that the particular action is wrong. And you just go ahead and do it and ask you to go to court. All right. All right. Interesting. We have to leave it at that, Chief Fesiguche. I want to thank you very much for your time. All right. And that's been the size of our show today. And of course, for this week, it's been quite interesting. Thanks for being our guest and joining us throughout the week. We return on Monday with more on plus politics. But for now, my name is Kofi Bertels. Have a fantastic weekend.