Two Kwara lawmakers lose seats after defection as PDP accuses Assembly of political witch-hunt
The political battle in Kwara State has taken a dramatic turn, with the State House of Assembly declaring the seats of two lawmakers vacant after they dumped the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
The affected lawmakers are Saba Yisa Gideon, representing Edu Constituency, and Olushola Odetundun, representing Irepodun Constituency.
The Assembly took the decision following a letter from the APC State Chairman, Prince Sunday Fagbemi, asking the Speaker, Salihu Yakubu Danladi, to declare the seats vacant.
The APC argued that the two lawmakers were elected on its platform and could not switch to another party while their tenure was still running, citing Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution.
During deliberations, the Leader of the House, Alhaji Oba Mogaji, described the issue as a constitutional matter, arguing that the lawmakers had abandoned the party on whose platform they won their seats.
He said their decision to defect to the PDP and seek re-election under the opposition party amounted to a breach of the constitutional provision.
Other lawmakers who supported the move included Abolarin Ganiyu Gabriel of Ekiti Constituency, Ganiyu Folabi of Omupo Constituency and Adato Oguniyi of Ojomu/Balogun Constituency.
The Speaker subsequently declared the two seats vacant, following the resolution of the House.
But the decision has immediately triggered a backlash from the Kwara State PDP, which described the declaration as a politically motivated attempt to punish the two lawmakers for changing political parties.
In a statement signed by the party’s Publicity Secretary, Olusegun Olusola Adewara, the PDP questioned the process through which the seats were declared vacant.
The party particularly faulted the fact that the process was initiated by a letter from the APC State Chairman, who, according to the PDP, is not a constituent of either Edu or Irepodun.
The PDP argued that this amounted to turning the State House of Assembly into an extension of the APC’s internal disciplinary machinery.
The opposition party challenged the Assembly to make public the evidence before it and show that the requirements of Section 109(2) of the Constitution were satisfied before taking what it described as a major decision affecting elected representatives.
While acknowledging the constitutional provision dealing with defection by members of a State House of Assembly, the PDP insisted that the law must be applied strictly and without political bias.
The party maintained that the Constitution recognises circumstances involving division within a political party and requires evidence satisfactory to the House before a Speaker can give effect to the anti-defection provision.
The PDP therefore questioned whether the lawmakers’ defection could simply be settled by a declaration based on a letter from the party they had left.
The party also accused the APC of using the machinery of government to punish the lawmakers for choosing the PDP instead of allowing voters in Edu and Irepodun to decide their political future at the polls.
“If the APC is confident of its popularity, it should face the electorate instead of attempting to remove its former members through parliamentary manoeuvring,” the party said.
The PDP further called on Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq and Speaker Yakubu Danladi to recognise the State House of Assembly as an institution serving the people of Kwara State, rather than allowing it to become a political enforcement mechanism.
It also questioned whether the Speaker, who the party described as the APC’s governorship candidate, could separate his political interests from the constitutional responsibilities of his office.
The party called for an immediate reversal of the decision, arguing that the courts should determine the constitutional implications of the lawmakers’ defection where necessary.
The Kwara PDP said it would use every lawful and constitutional means available, including legal action, to defend the rights of the two lawmakers and the constituents they represent.
The development now leaves the political fate of the two constituencies hanging, as the dispute shifts from the floor of the Assembly to the wider political and possibly legal arena.
