Fresh details have emerged surrounding a new legal battle triggered by the defection of Delta State Governor, Sheriff Oborevwori, from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC).
The lawsuit, filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, challenges the constitutional validity of the governor’s defection while he remains in office and seeks judicial clarification on whether a sitting governor can lawfully retain an electoral mandate after switching political parties.
Ejes Gist News reports that the suit was instituted by Alex Akporute, a registered member of the PDP from Ward 3/7, Ughelli North Local Government Area of Delta State.
Background to the Legal Action
Governor Oborevwori’s recent defection to the APC has generated intense political debate within Delta State and beyond, particularly over its constitutional and electoral implications.
The plaintiff contends that Oborevwori’s electoral mandate was secured under the platform of the PDP and cannot be lawfully transferred to another political party without undermining the will of the electorate.
In the originating summons filed before the court, Akporute argues that while the Nigerian Constitution guarantees freedom of association, that right does not extend to allowing an elected office holder to migrate with a mandate freely given to a political party by voters.
Parties Listed in the Suit
Court documents show that the governor has been listed as the 1st defendant in the suit.
Other defendants include:
- The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
- The All Progressives Congress (APC)
- The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
- The Attorney-General of Delta State
The case is marked Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/2601/2025.
Filing Date and Court Assignment
The suit was filed on December 3, 2025, according to court records.
Documents obtained indicate that all defendants were duly served with hearing notices on December 17, 2025.
The matter has been assigned to Justice Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, for hearing and determination.
Also Read:
- Senator Nwaoboshi Dies, Cause of Death Emerges as Delta Gov Mourns
- Delta Govt Approves ₦42bn Infrastructure Projects Covering Roads, Flood Control, Power
Core Constitutional Questions Before the Court
The plaintiff has asked the court to determine four key constitutional issues, with the central question being whether a sitting governor can defect to another political party and still lawfully retain the mandate obtained under a different party.
Akporute maintains that the electoral mandate belongs to the PDP, which sponsored Oborevwori in the governorship election, rather than to the individual office holder.
According to the suit, voters in Delta State cast their ballots for the PDP as a political party, not for the APC, and any post-election defection distorts the collective will of the electorate.
Argument on Electoral Mandate
In his legal argument, the plaintiff insists that political parties remain the primary vehicles for contesting elections under Nigeria’s constitutional framework.
He argues that allowing a governor to defect mid-tenure without consequences effectively transfers the people’s mandate to a party they did not vote for, thereby weakening democratic accountability.
The suit further contends that such actions undermine public confidence in elections and political institutions.
Alleged Constitutional Breaches
Akporute asserts that Governor Oborevwori’s continued stay in office after joining the APC violates multiple provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Electoral Act 2022.
According to the originating summons, the governor cannot lawfully promote, implement, or align state policies with the APC, having not been elected under that party’s platform.
The plaintiff maintains that any executive authority exercised on behalf of the APC lacks constitutional legitimacy.
Four Reliefs Sought by the Plaintiff
Among the reliefs sought before the court are:
- A declaration that the governor’s constitutional rights cannot be exercised in a manner that conflicts with the electoral mandate granted to the PDP by voters in Delta State.
- A declaration that any executive or political action taken by Oborevwori on the platform of the APC while in office is unconstitutional, null, and void.
- An order restraining the APC from presenting itself as the ruling party in Delta State for as long as Oborevwori remains governor.
- A declaration nullifying Oborevwori’s membership of the APC on grounds of constitutional and electoral violations.
Interpretation of Freedom of Association
A significant aspect of the suit revolves around Section 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of association.
Akporute argues that while Oborevwori enjoys this constitutional right, it can only be fully exercised after resignation from office or upon the expiration of his tenure on May 29, 2027.
According to the plaintiff, exercising freedom of association in a way that alters the political basis of an electoral mandate while still in office amounts to an abuse of constitutional rights.
How the Case Differs from Previous Defection Suits
Legal observers note that the suit takes a different approach from earlier cases involving defecting governors.
Rather than asking the court to compel Oborevwori to vacate office, the plaintiff is seeking to restrict the political and executive consequences of the defection while the governor remains in power.
This distinction may shape the court’s interpretation and ultimate ruling on the matter.
The legal action comes amid reports that Governor Oborevwori has been actively participating in APC activities since his defection.
These activities reportedly include attendance at high-level party meetings and public engagements associated with the APC’s political agenda.
The developments have intensified political tension in Delta State, a region historically dominated by the PDP.
Implications for Nigerian Democracy
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s political system, particularly concerning party defections by elected executives.
A ruling in favour of the plaintiff may redefine the limits of political realignment while in office, while a contrary decision could reinforce the personal nature of electoral mandates.
What Happens Next
The Federal High Court is expected to fix a hearing date, after which parties will present arguments on the constitutional questions raised.
Until then, the case remains one of the most closely watched political litigations in the country, given its potential impact on party politics, electoral law, and governance.
