Much ado about single-term tenure for presidents, govs, others

The House of Representatives recently rejected a bill seeking an amendment to the 1999 Constitution to provide for a single-term of six years for the president, state governors and local government chairmen. That was about the sixth time the bill has been ‘killed’ in 25 years, yet its remains are far from being buried, SADIQ OMOLAOYE reports.

The single-term tenure agenda for the president and governors, among others, is perhaps the most sponsored and rejected bill in the democratic history of Nigeria.

The bill has been in contention since the Second Republic in 1979. It has been debated in several constitutional conferences and also presented and rejected not less than six times at the National Assembly.

It is obvious that the political class has found it difficult to reach a consensus on whether to alter the 1999 Constitution to allow for a single-term agenda for the public officeholders or not.

While some school of thoughts perceive the bill as the panacea to the challenges facing the nation’s electoral system and the desperation of politicians to winning election at all cost, others see it as a potential danger that is capable of not only disrupting the unity of the country, but will also deprive the electorate opportunity to select their best choice to rule.

The debate surrounding the single-term bill started as far back as 1979 to 1983 during the Second Republic. Deliberations on it commenced with the aim to prevent concentration of power and promote democratic stability. It was rejected in the 1979 Constitution after much debate before the Second Republic collapsed in the aftermath of 1983 general elections.

It was briefly discussed under the short lived Third Republic, which was supervised by former Military Head of State, General Ibrahim Babangida (rtd) between 1990 and 1993, but also failed to sail through.

The same debate resurfaced during the 1995 Constitutional Conference, convened by the military regime of General Sani Abacha. The conference recommended a single-term of five years for presidents and governors, with no option for re-election. Again it had no headway until the sudden passage of Abacha in 1998.

The 1999 Constitution, which came into effect after Nigeria’s return to democracy, retained the two-term limit for presidents and governors. Section 137(1)(b) of the Constitution states that a president or governor can serve for a maximum of two terms of four years each.

As if proponents of the single-term bill believed it is the only means through which Nigeria can overcome her recurrent political quagmire, the bill had resurfaced and simultaneously rejected in the National Assembly in 2010, 2012, 2017, and 2024.

In 2010, it was sponsored by Senator Anthony Agbo, who represented Ebonyi North Senatorial District on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) but the bill also hit a brick wall.

Also in 2012, the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan of PDP sponsored a single-term bill of seven years for president and governors, but it was shut down in the National Assembly. One of the reasons Jonathan’s single-term bill was killed was the fear that the former Bayelsa State governor wanted to use the idea to stay longer than 2015 in power as the first beneficiary.

The bill was later introduced by a lawmaker who represented Dala Federal Constituency, in Kano State, Ali Madaki. The Kano lawmaker proposed a single-term of five years for presidents and governors. As usual, the bill suffered a similar fate.

In 2017, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, also proposed a single-term bill of six years for presidents and governors; the idea again hit the rock. This was followed by another attempt by Senator Ovie Omo-Agege in 2020 but it was also rejected.

The bill, like no other one, has a long and complex history of outright rejection in the country. Though the bill often elicited significant public attention, it has never scaled legislative hurdles talkless attracting the executive accent for its implementation.

Curiously, the bill had resurfaced under the 10 National Assembly and has also been unanimously rejected. The rejected bill, sponsored by a lawmaker representing the Ideato North/Ideato South Federal Constituency, Imo State, Ikenga Ugochinyere, and 33 others, sought to alter the 1999 Constitution to provide for the rotation of the Office of the President between the North and South, and the governorship among the three senatorial districts in each state.

The bill sought to alter Sections 76, 116, 132, and 136 in the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Section 135 of the 1999 constitution states that the President’s term is four years, starting from the date they took the oath of office.

According to the provision of subsection (1) of this section, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date, when “(a) in the case of a person first elected as President under this Constitution, he took the oath of allegiance and the oath of office; and (b) in any other case, the person last elected to that office under this Constitution took the oath of allegiance and oath of office or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths.

Before the bill was introduced in the lower chamber, Ugochinyere and his colleagues had hitherto under the aegis of the Reform Minded Legislators, argued that the proposed legislation would lead to reduction in government spending, eliminate wastage; bring about efficiency in governance and national stability by providing a single-term of six years for the president and governors.

The general principles of the bill, is to ensure inclusive governance and to curb wastages occasioned by four-year periodic elections.  Other amendments proposed include that Section 76 of the Principal Act is altered by inserting a new subsection (3) as follows; (3) for the purposes of Section (1) of this section, all elections into the offices of President, governors, National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly shall hold simultaneously on the same date to be determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission, in consultation with the National Assembly and in accordance with the Electoral Act.

Though the aspect of single-tenure for presidency gained more traction perhaps because of its wider implications on the nation’s political landscape, the bill also proposed a constitutional amendment to create the office of two vice presidents from the southern and northern parts of Nigeria.

The proponents noted that the first vice president shall be a succession vice president, while the second vice president shall be a Minister in charge of the Economy, and both shall be Ministers.

If this provision in the bill is implemented, it means the 2027 general election will be shifted to 2029 to allow President Bola Tinubu to complete a six-year single tenure.

The sponsors also argued that if the rotational clause is applied, it would mean the next president must come from the North and no one from the South would be eligible to vie for president.

However, when the bill came up for second reading in the lower chamber, members rejected it and disallowed the sponsor’s opportunity to lead the debate on the general principles.

However, with strong determination exhibited by Ugochinyere and his 33 colleagues, there are strong indications that the end of the single-term bill is yet to be seen as they have vowed to represent it.

According to Ugochinyere, all hope has not been lost as more consultations will be explored regarding the bill and re-presented at a later time, expressing optimism that the decision at plenary will not truncate their agitation as they are still on course to sail through.

Interestingly, that was not the first time the proposal for a six year single year tenure has been brought to the floor of the National Assembly. In 2019, the bill which was then sponsored by John Dyegh from Benue State, also failed to progress to the second reading.

One of the major reasons the bill has been suffering a setback in the National Assembly is the fear that incumbent Presidents and governors may take advantage of it to extend their stay in power.

Former Vice President and candidate of PDP in the last general elections, Atiku Abubakar, threw his weight behind the proposed amendment on the single-term bill, saying the office of the president should rotate among the six geopolitical zones on a single term.

He said section 135(2) should be amended to read: “Subject to the provisions of the subsection (1), the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of six years commencing from the date of swearing-in.”

But besides the position of Atiku, The Guardian, was informed that the lawmakers’ reluctance to support the single-tenure bill stems from several key factors. Primarily, the bill’s provision to limit the President’s tenure to six years, rather than the current eight, is unappealing to many lawmakers.

Members from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), to which President Tinubu belongs, who are also majority in the House, are unwilling to support it since it would reduce President Tinubu’s time in office.

Also, governors who have just begun their tenure are unwilling to support the bill, as it would cut short their ambition of seeking a second tenure of another four years.

Another issue is there are questions whether if passed into law, the provisions would apply to governors who have done one term of fours and are in their second tenure. So there is the fear of it leading to a constitutional crisis.

Aside from the political implications, some analysts are of the opinion that the proposed bill was introduced inappropriately. They contended that It should have been presented as a constitutional alteration bill, handled by the Constitutional Alteration Committee of the National Assembly, rather than being initiated by 34 members of the House of Representatives.

Spokesman of the House, Akin Rotimi, told The Guardian that the decision of the House to reject the bill was a collective wisdom by the lawmakers.  He, however, noted that the rejection of the bill doesn’t mean the end to efforts to achieve accountability, adding that there are various ways to ensure accountability in governance.

For the Regional Advocacy Officer and ECOWAS Liaison Lead, West Africa Democracy Solidarity Network (WADEMOS), Austin Aigbe, one of the main concerns around the bill is that the sponsors assume that longevity in power is directly correlated with development, noting that this is not always the case.

Citing examples of Rwanda and Cameroon, he said both poor countries have had different development trajectories despite having long-serving presidents.  He noted that the key to good governance is not the length of a leader’s tenure, but rather the strength of the electoral system, maintaining that a strong electoral system would ensure that leaders are accountable to the people.

Aigbe said: “When a system can be easily manipulated, anybody, particularly the bad guys, can actually secure the six years and turn it around, it will be six years of bad leadership. You have not solved the challenges posed by bad governance. At the threshold, at the foundation of bad governors, is to address the leadership selection process.

“We must make our leadership selection process to be seamless and shielded against manipulation, particularly from human interference. My proposal for an efficient electoral system is what has actually been thrown up many times, but people have turned it down because of the possibility of hacking which is electronic voting system”

An election expert, Armsfree Ajanaku, who applauded Ugochinyere and his lawmakers for coming up with such legislation, however, blamed them for not engaging in wider consultation before introducing the bill.

He said if such a bill is passed into law, it would have been an important reform in the nation’s political process and could have resulted in the reduction of tension, desperation and the deployment of state resources for the purpose of securing re-election at all costs.