The decision by the Delta State House of Assembly to declare the seat of Hon. Collins Egbetamah vacant following his defection from the APC to the NDC raises a fundamental question that goes beyond politics: Can the law be applied selectively depending on whose interests are affected?
The Speaker of the House, Rt. Hon. Emomotimi Dennis Guwor, justified the declaration by relying on Section 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a legislator who defects from the political party on whose platform he was elected should vacate his seat, except where there is a division within the party or other constitutional exceptions.
On the surface, that sounds legally sound.
But the real issue is not whether Section 109 exists. The issue is whether the Delta State House of Assembly has chosen to apply the Constitution consistently or only when it serves political convenience.
Only a little over a year ago, in April 2025, the political landscape in Delta State witnessed one of the most dramatic defections in the state’s history. The Governor, alongside virtually every member of the Delta State House of Assembly, abandoned the PDP, the very party upon whose platform they were elected, and joined the APC.
Not one legislative seat was declared vacant. Not one motion was moved invoking Section 109. Not one constitutional sermon was preached from the Speaker’s chair. No one claimed that the Constitution demanded immediate compliance. The House simply continued with business as though nothing extraordinary had happened.
Today, however, when a single lawmaker chooses to leave the APC for the NDC, the same House suddenly discovers the urgency of constitutional fidelity. The same constitutional provision that was conveniently ignored in 2025 has now become the basis for swift and decisive action.
This inconsistency is troubling. The Constitution should never become a political weapon. It is either supreme at all times or it is reduced to an instrument deployed against political opponents.
Justice loses its moral authority the moment it is applied selectively. If Hon. Collins Egbetamah deserves to lose his seat because he defected to the NDC, then basic fairness demands that the same constitutional standard should have applied to every legislator who crossed from the PDP to the APC in 2025, unless the House can convincingly demonstrate that those earlier defections fell within the constitutional exceptions.
The burden of explaining that difference rests squarely on those now invoking Section 109. Otherwise, the unavoidable public perception is that the law is being enforced not because it is the law, but because it has become politically expedient.
A democracy governed by selective constitutionalism is a dangerous democracy. Citizens begin to lose confidence in public institutions when they see one rule for the powerful and another for everyone else.
Legislatures are expected to defend the integrity of the Constitution, not interpret it according to changing political alliances.
The Speaker and members of the Delta State House of Assembly owe the people of Delta State an explanation. Why was Section 109 effectively ignored when almost the entire House defected from the PDP to the APC? What constitutional principle justified that decision? More importantly, what has changed today that warrants a completely different interpretation?
These are legitimate questions. This is not about defending one political party against another. It is not about the APC, the PDP, or the NDC. It is about preserving the credibility of constitutional governance. The law cannot have two meanings depending on who is crossing the political aisle.
If defection warrants loss of a legislative seat, then the principle must apply equally to everyone. If exceptions existed in 2025, the House should clearly state them and explain why they do not apply today.
Anything less creates the impression that justice has become partisan. The Constitution deserves better. The people of Delta State deserve better. And democracy certainly deserves better than selective justice disguised as constitutional compliance.
