Pressure mounts on Senate to declare Abaribe’s seat vacant
After the initial fireworks on the floor of the Red Chamber, no formal probe has been launched into Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe’s defection to the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Procedural lapses
After the initial fireworks on the floor of the Red Chamber, no formal probe has been launched into Senator Eyinnaya Abaribe’s defection to the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Procedural lapses have stalled action, but constitutional questions still linger as the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) renews its push for sanction. SANNI ONOGU reports
Pressure is mounting on the Senate to resolve the status of Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe following his high-profile defection, which has brought both legislative scrutiny and political tension to the chamber.
After Abaribe’s routine announcement of his defection last week, the situation quickly escalated into a constitutional test case, demonstrating procedural versus political conflict within the upper chamber.
At the centre of the controversy is Abaribe’s decision to leave the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) for the African Democratic Congress (ADC), a move that has triggered calls to declare his seat vacant under constitutional provisions.
Section 68(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is clear: a lawmaker must vacate his seat upon defection to another party, except where there is a division in the party that sponsored his election.
Based on Section 68(1)(g), Senate President Godswill Akpabio immediately raised objections during the most recent plenary, after reading Abaribe’s defection letter, prompting a heated exchange among senators.
In his letter, Abaribe cited developments within APGA as justification for his decision, but the explanation was immediately challenged.
Read Also: World Bank: only 10.5 per cent of Nigerian women in paid employment
Akpabio was unequivocal. He said there was no evidence before the Senate to suggest any division within APGA that could justify the defection. Describing the move as unconstitutional, he warned that the Senate could invoke its powers to declare the Abia South seat vacant if no convincing proof was provided.
The chamber quickly split. While some senators aligned with the Senate President’s position and insisted on strict adherence to constitutional provisions, others urged caution, arguing that the Senate must first establish the facts, particularly claims that Abaribe had been expelled from APGA.
In his defence, Abaribe maintained that he was no longer a member of APGA, claiming he had been sacked by the party. He said he had a letter to that effect and would present it before the Senate. That letter, however, has not yet surfaced in the public domain.
Advertisement
300x250
To resolve the impasse, the Senate leadership last week instructed Senator Victor Umeh, a former National Chairman of APGA, to verify whether there was a crisis within the party. As of this week, that intervention has faded into procedural limbo.
The report, initially due within one week, was never submitted. Furthermore, after the deadline passed, the matter was not formally referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions, the statutory body for such issues. Ordinarily, once such a dispute arises, Senate procedure requires a formal motion or referral to the relevant committee, which would then be mandated to investigate and present its findings to the plenary.
The absence of this step meant that there was no official fact-finding or recommendations, effectively preventing the Senate from making any binding decision on Abaribe’s status. That omission has proved decisive.
A ranking Senate source confirmed that without a formal referral, the process stalled.
“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 further explained that suggestions for a larger investigative group faded, as the Senate leadership at the time did not prioritise the issue, and no report emerged within the stipulated period.
This position was reinforced by the Senate spokesman, Senator Adeyemi Adaramodu, while responding to enquiries from our correspondent.
“There is no issue with Abaribe anymore,” Adaramodu stated bluntly.
He clarified that the assignment to Umeh was narrowly defined and did not include determining Abaribe’s status.
“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 explained.
“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.”
Advertisement
300x250
Despite the Senate’s current stance that the case has lapsed, fresh pressure resumed this week as APGA renewed its demand.
The National Working Committee (NWC) of APGA has formally called on the Senate to declare Abaribe’s seat vacant, describing his defection as a “betrayal of the mandate” of the people of Abia South.
In a communiqué issued after its meeting in Awka on Sunday, the party urged the Senate leadership to invoke constitutional provisions and act decisively.
The Senate, however, has effectively put that demand on hold.
According to Adaramodu, any request from APGA can only be considered after the Senate resumes from its ongoing recess, when the due legislative process will continue.
He explained, “We are currently on recess. Any letter received in this period will have to wait until the next Senate session.”
“It is not a personal letter to the Senate President; it is a call to the whole Senate. Since we are on break, any correspondence will be addressed when we reconvene and presented on the floor accordingly.
“There is no way we can invoke the relevant sections when we are not in plenary. It is only when we resume that we can consider such correspondence, if any.”
Advertisement
300x250
For now, the Senate’s position is clear: procedurally, there is no live case against Abaribe.
But politically and constitutionally, the question remains unresolved. The Senate has previously grappled with similar defections, including cases involving former senators Godswill Akpabio and Dino Melaye.
In both instances, the outcomes depended heavily on whether there was credible evidence of division within the affected parties, and in each case, the ultimate decisions were shaped by a blend of political considerations and constitutional interpretation.
These precedents highlight the complexity inherent in such matters and suggest that the resolution of Abaribe’s case will likely follow a similar path, depending on how the Senate handles the procedural and political dynamics.
The absence of a formal probe stalled immediate action over the past weeks, but APGA’s renewed efforts this week promise a likely showdown when lawmakers reconvene.
Caught in the middle is Abaribe, whose fate hinges not only on constitutional interpretation but also on whether the Senate will muster the political will to act. Looking ahead, several possible outcomes could unfold: If the Senate leadership decides to revive the matter when plenary resumes, Abaribe could be called upon to present evidence of division or expulsion from APGA to justify his defection and retain his seat.
If he fails to provide compelling proof, the Senate may move to declare his seat vacant in accordance with constitutional requirements, which could prompt legal challenges from Abaribe or his supporters. Alternatively, should the matter continue to languish without formal referral or investigation, Abaribe might retain his seat by default, though political pressure from APGA and public scrutiny could continue to escalate.
The situation could also end up in court, as aggrieved parties seek judicial intervention to force a definitive interpretation on the issue. Ultimately, the coming weeks will determine whether the Senate takes a decisive stand or allows the controversy to fade without resolution.
