Court Dismisses PDP`s Suit Seeking Lawmaker’s Removal Over Defection

Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday dismissed a suit filed by the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, seeking the removal of the member representing Okpokwu Constituency in the Benue State House of Assembly, Anthony Attah, following his defection to the All Progressives Congress, APC.

In a judgment delivered in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/2408/2025, Justice Muhammed Umar held that while Attah did not dispute leaving the PDP for the APC, the court lacked the constitutional authority to declare his seat vacant.

The judge said the constitution assigns that responsibility to the Benue State House of Assembly and its speaker, adding that the court could not exercise powers reserved for those institutions.

“The announcement of the defection of the third defendant from the plaintiff to the second defendant is not enough,” Umar held.

He explained that under Section 109 of the 1999 Constitution, the House of Assembly must first declare the lawmaker’s seat vacant before the speaker notifies the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to conduct a bye-election.

“Unless and until this is done, the first defendant cannot act.

“Therefore, this court cannot usurp the powers of the speaker or the members of the House of Assembly,” the judge said. 

The PDP had sued INEC, APC and Attah, asking the court to determine whether votes cast for a political party could be transferred to another party after a lawmaker defects.

The opposition party also sought declarations that Attah’s continued stay in the Assembly after leaving the PDP is unlawful, that every legislative action he participated in after the defection was invalid and that he should refund all salaries, allowances and other benefits received since joining the APC.

In his judgement, Umar noted that the suit centred on Attah’s defection and observed that the lawmaker had not denied leaving the PDP.

“The third defendant did not deny his defection to the second defendant,” the judge said.

The judge also dismissed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit, holding that the originating summons disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

He, however, found no merit in the substantive claims and dismissed the case.

“On the whole, this application has no value and it is hereby dismissed,” the judge held.