INTRODUCTION

Nigeria’s constitutional democracy is built on political parties.
Yet, in practice, loyalty to parties appears optional, while power remains permanent.
This contradiction sits at the heart of Nigeria’s present political crisis.

1. THE SUPREME COURT’S POSITION: VOTES BELONG TO PARTIES.

For years, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has maintained a clear principle:
Votes cast in an election belong to the political party, not the candidate.
The candidate is merely an agent of the party.
This position was articulated to:
strengthen party discipline,
prevent political opportunism,
and ensure ideological coherence.
The logic is simple:
Voters vote party symbols, party manifestoes, and party platforms, not individuals in isolation.

2. THE REALITY: ELECTED OFFICIALS DEFECT AND KEEP POWER
Despite this principle, Nigerian politics tells a different story.
Governors elected on the platform of:
PDP,
APC,
or other parties,
routinely defect to rival parties, and yet:
retain their offices,
continue exercising executive or legislative power,
and face no real constitutional consequences.
The same applies to senators, members of the House of Representatives, and state assemblies.
This raises an unavoidable question:
If votes belong to parties, how does the mandate survive when the agent abandons the principal?

3. THE “INTERNAL CRISIS” EXCEPTION; A LEGAL LOOPHOLE
The Supreme Court has also held that a legislator may defect to another party without losing his seat if:
his original party is experiencing an internal crisis.
This exception, though well-intentioned, has become a legal escape route.
What constitutes “crisis”?
Factional disputes?
Leadership disagreements?
Parallel congresses?
In practice, almost every party can claim crisis at any time.

Result:
Defection is normalised, loyalty is weakened, and party constitutions become ceremonial documents.

4. THE CONTRADICTION: PARTY SUPREMACY VS POLITICAL CONVENIENCE.

Here lies the contradiction:
The Supreme Court says votes belong to parties.
The Constitution tolerates defections.
Political actors exploit exceptions.
Parties lose control over their mandates.
The law says one thing.
Politics practices another.
This inconsistency has serious consequences:
Party discipline collapses.
Ideology disappears.
Politics becomes transactional, not principled.

5. WHERE IS PARTY LOYALTY; AND WHY HAVE PARTY CONSTITUTIONS?
If:
a member can abandon his party mid-mandate,
citing a crisis that can be internally resolved,
then what purpose do:
• party constitutions,
• codes of conduct,
• disciplinary mechanisms,
really serve?
A political party without enforceable loyalty is not an institution.
It is a vehicle for personal ambition.

6. THE DEEPER QUESTION: CAN DEFECTION FIX A BROKEN NATION?
This leads to a more troubling inquiry.
If a politician cannot:
remain loyal to the party that gave him a platform,
endure internal disagreement,
contribute to resolving party crises,
how can that same individual:
• resolve national crises,
• manage complex governance challenges,
• unite a deeply divided country?
Defection, in many cases, reflects not conviction, but convenience.

7. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR NIGERIA’S DEMOCRACY.
Nigeria’s democracy is suffering not because of lack of laws, but because of selective obedience to principles.
When:
• party supremacy is proclaimed but not enforced,
• defections are justified but not regulated,
• loyalty is demanded from citizens but not from leaders,
• public trust erodes.
• Democracy becomes unstable, not by force, but by contradiction.

CONCLUSION: A DEMOCRACY AT ODDS WITH ITSELF.

Nigeria must confront a hard truth:
You cannot preach party supremacy and tolerate political nomadism at the same time.
Either:
votes truly belong to parties, and defections must attract consequences; or
votes belong to individuals, and party ideology must be redefined.
The present middle ground serves only politicians, not democracy.

• FINAL THOUGHTS
A system that rewards disloyalty should not be surprised when governance itself becomes disloyal to the people.