Download the full edition:
Executive Summary
Nigeria’s democracy faces significant threat from the escalating trend of political defections, particularly the mass exodus of opposition figures to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). This policy brief, From Political Pluralism to Party Predominance: Rethinking Defections in Nigeria’s Democracy, highlights how this anomaly undermines political pluralism, weakens institutions, and erodes public trust.
Since the 2023 general elections, defections have surged, with prominent opposition politicians across all levels of government joining the APC. This has effectively dismantled opposition strongholds and significantly consolidated the ruling party’s power. These opportunistic switches exploit constitutional loopholes, as current laws (Sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g)) are rendered ineffective by INEC’s lack of enforcement authority and a judiciary that often enables these moves. The consequence is an environment of impunity, weakening party discipline and severing the link between political affiliation and genuine policy.
The implications of unregulated defections are dire: they undermine confidence in the electoral process, severely weaken the opposition’s ability to hold the government accountable, and limit legislative scrutiny, leading to unchecked executive overreach. Ultimately, this narrows electoral choice, fosters voter disillusionment, and can deepen instability.
Urgent reforms are essential to protect Nigeria’s democracy. These include amending the Constitution to tighten defection grounds, empowering INEC to enforce rules, and clarifying the judiciary’s role. Strengthening party ideology, increasing civil society and media oversight, and boosting public engagement are also crucial. International examples from India and South Africa demonstrate the effectiveness of robust anti-defection laws.
Without these reforms, Nigeria faces the risk of its elections becoming mere formalities, thereby placing the country’s democratic future in jeopardy.
Introduction: The Festering Crisis of Defection
Political defections are not new to Nigeria, but the evolving political landscape demands renewed policy scrutiny. The impact of defections on multi-party democracy, institutional development, and constitutional fidelity is too significant to ignore.
Political pluralism is the cornerstone of democratic governance. It fosters competition. It enhances representation. It strengthens accountability. Yet in Nigeria, this principle is under siege.
The increasing tide of defections, especially into the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), raises grave concerns about the integrity of the democratic order. While many politicians cite “national interest” as justification, the trend reflects deeper systemic dysfunction: a party system devoid of ideological coherence, marked by opportunistic realignments and undermined by eroded institutional checks. Over the past two years, these patterns have eroded opposition parties and entrenched a creeping one-party dominance.
This edition of Athena Perspectives analyses the consequences of this trend and outlines urgent reforms to safeguard Nigeria’s fragile democratic pluralism.
The Surge in Defections: An Alarming Pattern
Defections to the ruling APC have grown markedly since the 2023 general elections. Prominent opposition figures across key states have switched allegiances, often without transparent justification or clear political consequences.
In December 2023, 27 Rivers State House of Assembly members announced their defection from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the APC in alignment with the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, thereby undermining the incumbent governor’s authority. By April 2025, similar and more profound patterns emerged in Delta, where past and incumbent governors, state assembly members (including the speaker), as well as state party and local government chairmen, defected en masse. The domino effect also extended to Akwa Ibom, whose governor, elected on the PDP ticket, defected to the APC after months of rumours. This wave of defections, which peaked between April and June 2025, effectively dismantled longstanding opposition bastions.
By the second anniversary of the current administration, no fewer than thirty members of the National Assembly, primarily from the PDP and Labour Party, had defected to the ruling APC. The legislators, from multiple states (Kebbi, Edo, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Kogi, and Nasarawa, among others), further bolstered the ruling party’s dominance at the federal level.
The anomaly extends beyond high office. In Edo State, for instance, the Speaker of the State Assembly, joined by 17 local government chairmen, defected from the PDP to the APC, marking a notable consolidation of power at the grassroots.
The scale and frequency of defections indicate they are not isolated incidents but coordinated political manoeuvres aimed at consolidating one-party dominance. Moreso, the leadership of the ruling party had confidently expressed optimism of ‘more defections’ in the months ahead before the 2027 general elections.
These realisations have sparked concern in some quarters, with rising fears of an emergent one-party state. Should this trajectory persist, the implications are dire, not merely for the survival of the opposition but for democratic competition itself.
Table 1: Party Composition in the National Assembly (June 2023 and June 2025)
| APC | PDP | LP | |
| Senate | 59 | 36 | 8 |
| House of Representatives | 176 | 118 | 35 |
| June 2023 | 235 | 154 | 43 |
| June 2025 | 260 | 92 | 37 |
Table 2: Between APC and PDP: Number of State Governors by Party Affiliation (June 2023 and June 2025)
| Number of Governors | APC | PDP |
| June 2023 | 21 | 14 |
| June 2025 | 23 | 10 |
Source: Wikipedia
Why Politicians Defect
Power, Patronage, and Protection
Nigeria’s Constitution permits elected officials to defect without forfeiting their seats only if a division exists within their party. This clause was originally intended to protect lawmakers during genuine ideological splits. However, it has become a loophole that is being grossly exploited for political opportunism.
In reality, defections are rarely driven by principle. More often, they are motivated by access to power, central government patronage, and legal protection. In these contexts, joining the ruling party is viewed as a safeguard for one’s political future and interests. By and large, defection has become a mere tool to avoid scrutiny, secure appointments, or remain politically relevant.
The high-profile defectors all offered plausible justifications for their actions. Delta and Kebbi illustrate the point. Ned Nwoko, a senator representing Delta North, formerly under the PDP, cited deep internal divisions and factionalisation as the primary reasons for his departure from the party. According to Nwoko, such fractures had rendered it “increasingly difficult to unite and pursue the collective interests of our people” (Punch, 2025). His resignation underscores the broader institutional fragility within political parties and highlights how internal dysfunction continues to fuel strategic defections.
Still in the state, the wider wave of defections, as noted on the Delta State Government’s official website, was similarly framed as driven by “a need for change that will help cement the development in our state.” Such language suggests that defections are increasingly rationalised as developmental imperatives, rather than ideological or principled disagreements.
In the North-West, three senators from Kebbi State attributed their exit to their party’s “internal divisions, lack of ideological clarity and inability to provide a credible forward-looking agenda” (Vanguard, 2025).
These explanations, though varied in form, point to a consistent pattern: defections are no longer isolated acts of political recalibration, but symptoms of a party system struggling with coherence, internal democracy, and legitimacy.
Legal and Institutional Failure
Sections 68(1)(g) and 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) stipulate that a legislator must vacate their seat upon defection unless the defection is the result of a party split or merger. These provisions were designed to uphold party stability and protect democratic integrity.
Yet enforcement has been virtually non-existent. INEC lacks the institutional authority to sanction defectors or declare seats vacant. The judiciary, for its part, has often enabled defections, citing minor or manufactured “party crises” to justify them.
Party Indiscipline
Political parties, fractured by internal discord and lacking coherent ideology, have failed to enforce internal discipline. In many instances, they do not adhere to their constitutions or agreed procedures. This dysfunction, evident across all major parties, has fostered strife and internal divisions, thereby fuelling defections. As a result, party affiliation has become a mere label, disconnected from policy commitments and susceptible to personal ambition. This has fostered an environment of impunity, creating a political climate in which defection is an attractive option whenever it serves the interests of politicians.
Consequences of Defection: Undermining Democracy, Weakening Institutions
The consequences of unregulated defections are profound.
First, they erode confidence in the electoral process. When politicians can switch parties without consequence, elections become hollow rituals. The recurring wave of political defections contributes to a growing sense of disillusionment among the electorate. Voters increasingly perceive elections as inconsequential exercises, leading many to conclude that their votes do not count.
Second, defections weaken the opposition and hinder its ability to hold government accountable. Just two years after, the PDP and Labour Party, both of which mounted credible challenges in 2023, have been severely weakened by defections. The National Assembly, once a contested space, now functions as a rubber stamp; with its power of checks and balances weakened, it has become little more than an extension of executive authority.
Third, legislative debate and scrutiny suffer. In states where the ruling party commands overwhelming dominance, laws are passed with little resistance, and executive overreach goes unchecked. The few dissenting voices that remain are sometimes suspended, as was the case in the legislative assemblies of Edo, Kogi, and Zamfara in the recent past.
Fourth, defections limit electoral choice—an outcome with grave implications beyond party politics. As political competition narrows, voter disillusionment grows. When legislators abandon their platforms, public trust is eroded, civic engagement declines, apathy sets in, and instability deepens.
Comparative Lessons: How Stable Democracies Confront Political Defections
To place Nigeria’s experience in a broader context, it is instructive to examine how other stable multi-party democracies have addressed the challenge of political defections.
India
India, when faced with challenges related to political defections, enacted the Anti-Defection Act in 1985 to curtail such practices. The legislation provides that a defecting legislator shall be disqualified from the legislature unless the defection constitutes a merger endorsed by at least two-thirds of the party’s members. Though the Act has achieved mixed results, it functions as a credible deterrent.
The Indian model prioritises institutional accountability and strengthens party discipline. The prospect of losing one’s seat dissuaded many legislators from defecting for personal or opportunistic reasons. While not without flaws, it stands as a noteworthy example of legal deterrence.
South Africa
In the early 2000s, South Africa experienced a surge in political defections. As a response, it temporarily allowed a practice known as “floor-crossing” under tightly regulated conditions. The provision, however, was repealed in 2009 following widespread abuse. Under current law, defectors are required to resign and seek re-election under their new party affiliation, in accordance with the Anti-Defection Clause (Clause 23A of Schedule 2).
South Africa’s experience highlights the necessity of clarity and rigidity in electoral legislation. Excessive flexibility invites manipulation, whereas well-defined legal provisions help to uphold the integrity of electoral mandates.
Safeguarding Political Pluralism: Path to Reform
To rescue Nigeria’s democratic future, the following reforms are imperative:
- Amend the Constitution
Tonarrow the grounds for defection, Section 68(1)(g) should be amended to ensure automatic loss of seat unless a genuine, judicially confirmed party split has occurred. - Empower INEC
INEC must be granted authority to monitor party membership, enforce defection rules, and maintain a public database of defectors. - Clarify the Judiciary’s Role
Courts should develop consistent jurisprudence that upholds voter mandates and deters opportunistic defection. - Strengthen Party Ideology and Discipline
Political parties must adopt enforceable ideological codes. Parties should be required to submit and publish ideological frameworks as part of their registration. - Enhance Civil Society and Media Oversight
Civil society organisations and the media should track patterns of defection, expose opportunism, and demand reform. Public accountability, including naming and shaming, must replace silence. - Galvanise Public Engagement
Citizens should be motivated to actively challenge illegitimate defections through petitions, class actions, and peaceful protests. Constituents must be empowered to initiate recall proceedings, thereby making defection a politically costly act, rather than a routine one.
Conclusion: Democracy Demands Competition
Democracy is about choice. When opposition voices are silenced through defection, the electorate is deprived of meaningful alternatives. Nigeria cannot sustain a democratic future if one party absorbs all dissent. If this pattern continues, elections will serve not as instruments of change but as mere formalities. The current wave of defections is not a sign of stability but a clear and present danger to Nigeria’s democratic survival.
Legal, institutional, and civic reforms are now essential to protect political pluralism and restore accountability in Nigeria’s democracy.
Authors
Kosisochukwu Kingsley
Researcher, Athena Centre for Policy and Leadership
Chinaza Igwe
Research Assistant, Athena Centre for Policy and Leadership