By Omoniyi Salaudeen
That Nigeria is not getting the best out of the present structure of government is a known fact. Over the years, the issue of tenure review to check the excesses and authority of the president and state governors has remained on the front burner of public discourse.
While some people have argued in support of the existing two-term tenure, there are a legion of others who are rooting for a single term.
For the protagonists of single tenure, the major attraction is that incumbents are less likely to use the state’s institutions to manipulate elections or alienate their rival contenders. On the part of the leaders, they feel more pressure to deliver results and leave office with a positive legacy.
More importantly, the need to change leadership encourages a new generation of political leaders, fresh ideas, and possible policy changes.
It also promotes healthy competition needed to strengthen democratic institutions and the democratic process thereby focusing politicians on governance rather than re-election. It also reduces campaign costs and tempers the unrest caused by the elections.
From the botched Second Republic to the present dispensation, the idea of single tenure has endured all successive governments. However, due to a lack of consensus, it has died many times and resurrected accordingly.
Apart from its inclusion in the recommendations of the national political conference organized by former President Olusegun Obasanjo along with its third term agenda, the administration of Goodluck Jonathan also made a feeble attempt to send the proposal to the National Assembly to pass into law.
On Tuesday, a fresh debate ensued again in the House of Representatives over the desirability or otherwise of a bill proposing single tenure for the president and state governors.
The bill was sponsored by a group of over 30 lawmakers under the aegis of the Reform Minded Legislators seeking constitutional alterations to provide for the rotation of the presidency among the sigeo-political zones.
According to them, when the bill becomes law, it will reduce government spending, eliminate wastage, and bring about efficiency in governance and national stability following the practice of a single term of six years for the president and the governors.
Already, the bill has passed the first reading. The Coordinator of the group, Hon. Ikenga Ugochinyere, said: “The electoral reform bills have gone through first reading.
“We are a group of Reform-minded lawmakers committed to using the instrument of lawmaking to reform Nigeria and our political process, constitutional and electoral reform has been a burning topic in Nigeria since independence from Britain in 1960.”
He explained that the current political arrangement had some identified distortions, defects, and limitations that called for urgent, focused, and realistic attention.
So, it’s a whole range of reforms, covering governance, economic, security, and justice sectors, among others.
The section of the proposed bill that is of particular interest to the majority of stakeholders is the one seeking to amend Section 3 of the Constitution to provide for the recognition of the division of Nigeria into geo-political zones, as well as the creation of the office of two vice presidents from the southern and northern parts of Nigeria.
According to the lawmakers, the first vice president shall be a succession vice president, while the second vice president shall be a Minister in charge of the Administration and Economy, and both shall be Ministers.
While some leaders of thought described the tenure limit as a welcome idea, others dismissed it as a distraction.
Chief Chekwas Okorie, sharing his perspective of the bill with Sunday Sun, said that the intention of the sponsors might be good, but it was done in bad taste.
He went down memory lane, narrating how the late Alex Ekwueme frantically fought for the inclusion of six geo-political zone arrangements in the constitution, but all to no avail.
His words: “The idea of the bill is not novel. It has been on the front burner for a long time. In the case of the late former Vice President Alex Ekwueme, he fought gallantly at the national conference and included it in the new constitution Nigeria had under the late General Sani Abacha. It was Ekwueme who proposed six zonal structures for Nigeria for the rotation of the presidency.
“The idea was that Nigeria would have attained stable nationhood by the time the rotation goes round in 36 years so that it would not matter anymore where the president comes from. However, the provision was dropped. It was well debated, adopted, and recommended.
“However, the Northern political elite that wouldn’t want power rotation in that order went and advised Abacha to come up with another committee to review the recommendation of the conference. It was at that point that that brilliant suggestion was dropped.
“That is why till today the provision for the six geo-political zones is not contained in the 1999 constitution. Nigerians just mention it at their convenience. If Ekweume’s proposal had been allowed into the constitution, every zone would have had the presidency for one term. By now, Nigeria would have attained unity and coercion. The issue of where the president comes from will no longer matter.
“After Ekwueme, some other leaders like former President Goodluck Jonathan made a similar suggestion, but did not take any direct steps to ensure the implementation by using the executive bill. It is so unfortunate that the sponsors of the bill are now coming up with such an idea at this time to distract all of us.
“To me, it is a mere distraction. The condition put in the 1999 constitution for the creation of a state makes it impossible to create new states. It is like the biblical proverbial camel passing through the eye of the needle. Coming with a private member bill at this time is ridiculous and diversionary.
“No matter the good intention of the proposal, it is in a very bad taste. The sponsors of the bill even named the state he wanted to see created from his local government. Two days later, Hon Ned Nwoko submitted his bill, calling for the creation of Anioma State, and even went further to say that Anioma should be incorporated in the Southeast so that the imbalance in the state creation would have been resolved. I don’t see it passing the second reading. It will end at first reading.”
Okorie maintained that only a restructuring of the country could address some of the fundamental problems inherent in the existing federal system, urging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to take the bull by the horns.
“Let them amend the constitution and incorporate this thing we are talking about in a new constitution. If it is to ensure equality of the zones, let it be in the constitution. It becomes constitutional.
“Already, some people are saying that the issue has been overtaken by events. All we need to do now is restructure Nigeria and let states be the federating units and give each unit the latitude to develop at its own pace. That is why we are expecting President Bola Ahmed Tinubu who has been part and parcel of true federalism in Nigeria to use his good office to either support constitutional arrangements to make Nigeria a more federal state or produce the executive bill in that regard. This private member bill will not see the light of day because it is self-centred. It is dead on arrival,” he declared.
Another elder statesman and Second Republic politician in Kano State, Tanko Yakassai, also speaking with Sunday Sun, argued that single tenure would add more to the cost of governance in the country.
He said: “I think they have not done their homework very well because the more you hold elections in the country, the more costly it will be. I don’t support the proposal. According to my calculation, the more you hold elections, the more costly it will be for the country. If you reduce the tenure of the president or governors, it will mean more elections. The idea of a second term is to make people perform not the other way round.
“If they know that they have no stake again after six years, they will do worse things. Again, you know what the legislators in the national and state assemblies are taking as salaries and allowances. The more elections we hold, the more money they will make and the more costly it will be for the country. What we need now is a reduction in the cost of governance.”
However, former Deputy National Chairman (Southwest) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Shuiab Oyedokun, in his opinion, applauded the bill as a welcome development, saying that it would reduce unhealthy competition characterizing the present system.
“Both single and two-term tenures have advantages and disadvantages. But for some reason, I prefer a six-year tenure. In my view, I think it is a good development. The main disadvantage of two-term tenure is the usual cutthroat competition which distracts those who seek a second term from governance while in their first tenure. They always concentrate on subtle mobilization as preparation for a second term. And that discourages many other people who can also aspire because they deliberately alienate other contenders.
“A single term of six years will enable those elected to concentrate on governance. However, to make it effective, the immunity of the governors must be reduced. If they know that they have only six years to spend in office, they could unleash some havoc on society. Therefore, it should be accompanied by checks and balances so that people will not become autocratic within six years,” he posited.
By and large, the debate is still raging on. The next few weeks will determine how far the lawmakers can go in seeking concurrent approval from the two chambers of the National Assembly.
