Pressure is mounting on the Senate to take a clear position on the status of Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe following his defection from the All Progressives Grand Alliance to the African Democratic Congress, a move that has triggered fresh constitutional and political tension in the red chamber.
What began as a routine announcement on the floor of the Senate last week has since snowballed into a major controversy, with lawmakers divided over whether Abaribe should retain his Abia South seat or vacate it in line with constitutional provisions.
At the centre of the dispute is Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which provides that a lawmaker must give up his seat upon defecting to another political party, except where there is a division in the party that sponsored his election.
The controversy came to the fore after Senate President Godswill Akpabio read Abaribe’s defection letter during plenary and immediately raised objections to the move.
Abaribe had cited developments within APGA as justification for his decision to dump the party for the ADC, but Akpabio faulted the explanation, saying there was no evidence before the Senate showing that APGA was divided in a manner that could justify the defection.
Describing the move as unconstitutional, Akpabio warned that the Senate could invoke its powers to declare the Abia South seat vacant if no convincing proof was produced.
His position, however, triggered a heated debate on the floor, as some senators backed his insistence on strict constitutional compliance, while others urged caution and called for proper fact-finding before any decision could be taken.
In his defence, Abaribe maintained that he was no longer a member of APGA, claiming that he had been expelled by the party.
He said he was in possession of a letter to that effect and would make it available to the Senate.
That letter, however, has yet to surface in the public domain, leaving the issue hanging and deepening uncertainty around his status.
In a bid to resolve the matter, the Senate leadership directed Senator Victor Umeh, a former National Chairman of APGA, to verify whether there was indeed a crisis in the party that could justify Abaribe’s action.
Findings by our correspondent indicate that the issue has since stalled, largely because the Senate did not take the procedural step of formally referring the matter to the Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions.
The report expected from the intervention was due within one week, but it was never submitted. After the deadline lapsed, no formal motion was made, and no committee was officially mandated to investigate the matter.
Ordinarily, disputes of such nature are referred to the relevant committee for legislative scrutiny, with the panel expected to investigate and submit findings to the plenary for consideration.
But in the absence of that process, there was no official fact-finding, no recommendation and, ultimately, no binding decision on Abaribe’s status.
A ranking Senate source confirmed that the matter had effectively been frozen because it was not subjected to legislative scrutiny.
“I don’t think the Senate referred the matter to any committee. It was not assigned for legislative scrutiny. Without that, nothing concrete can come out of it,” the source said.
“Since the Senate did not refer the matter to the Ethics and Privileges Committee, that means nobody will submit any report, except someone brings a fresh motion. As far as I am concerned, the issue is as good as dead.”
The source added that plans for a broader investigation also fizzled out because the leadership did not treat the matter as a priority and no report emerged within the period initially mentioned.
The Senate spokesman, Senator Adeyemi Adaramodu, also confirmed that there was presently no active issue before the chamber concerning Abaribe.
“There is no issue with Abaribe anymore,” Adaramodu said.
He explained that the task given to Umeh was limited to determining whether there was a problem within APGA and did not extend to whether Abaribe should lose his seat.
“What he was told to do was to investigate whether there was a problem at their party or not. When the issue of removal or ‘sacking’ came up, it was observed that such matters are not explicitly covered in the Electoral Act. So that was not part of the assignment given,” he said.
“There is no way we can begin to ask questions about an assignment that was never given. The mandate was clear: look into whether there was a crisis in the party, not whether someone was removed.”
Despite the Senate’s insistence that the matter has lapsed, APGA has renewed pressure on the upper chamber to declare Abaribe’s seat vacant.
What do you think about this?
Drop your opinion in the comment section.
Share this with someone who needs to see this.