The proposal for a six-year single-term tenure for the president and state governors is not new to Nigeria’s political horizon. It did not find favour in the polity mainly because it failed to address the governance deficit among personnel in the presidency and the states. It is glaring that if governors and presidents focus on their constitutional responsibility to provide security and welfare for Nigerians, rather than engaging in self-service, the proposal would amount to no more than a distraction. 
  
A few days ago, the Senate Leader, Senator Bamidele Opeyemi, made headlines with his not-so-new proposal for a six-year single tenure for the executives, namely the office of the president and governors. His worn arguments are the need to allow elected governors to focus on the business of governance and avoid a preoccupation with re-election matters.

In his words, “One of the first set of bills that I look forward to moving, by God’s grace, when we come back for the 11th Senate, God willing, is for a bill that will only make it possible for anyone who wants to be president of this country, or governor in any part of this country, to spend only one term of six years…So that you don’t even have to worry about wasting almost one and a half years of your first term thinking and struggling and looking forward to how you’ll be re-elected…If you know you are there for six years, only one tenure, you put in your best from day one. You know this is the only chance that you have.”
 
One other reason advanced in support of the proposal is that a six-year single tenure would lower the cost of electioneering, which has become prohibitive and often results in the imposition of unworthy persons, with deep pockets, for public offices. There is also something inherently hollow about this point: the prohibitive cost of elections is self-inflicted by the ad hoc structures that passed for political parties. True political parties are supposed to field their best candidates for public offices, not based on monetary considerations. Ideally, parties ought to fund their candidates, not the other way round.
 
Thus, the proposal has its drawbacks. At the core of it is tenure elongation or what Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the late sage, once called tenacity in office borne out of sheer quest for naked power, and not for emendation. Also, it serves as a useful diversion from the poor legislative outputs of incumbents who have not impacted the well-being of their citizens. The fear of facing the electorate after a tenure of non-performance is a bugbear that incumbents dread, which somewhat reinforces the popular sovereignty that resides in the people. This realisation could spur desire for concrete performance in ways that are accountable to the electorate.
 
However, opinions are free; evidence is another. What experience has shown so far in the prevailing fourth republic is that the country reels under poor political leadership unleashed by a perverted elite recruitment process. The reality is that the governing elite barely exude love of country and a service ethos. Instead, it is preoccupied with self-aggrandisement. This is compounded by the prevalence of weak institutions, poor policy implementation, lack of accountability, and absence of political will to solve obvious governance problems in the country.
 
Therefore, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the existing two-term tenure limits provisions in the 1999 Constitution as amended. In the second republic, Nigerians witnessed leadership that worked as if a second term did not exist, with an outstanding performance scorecard. Therefore, the call for a six-year single term for elected public officers is self-indicting of incumbents who have abandoned the goal of governance in their pursuit of self-interest to the neglect of the governed. Besides, it speaks to a sinister disdain for the political judgment of the electorate, who have always voted fairly, only for their votes to be subverted by the enemies of the democratic process.
  
What is concerning, however, is that the quest for a six-year single tenure has become a recurring decimal in the prevailing republic. In December 2019, under the Buhari administration, the issue came to the fore, but the House rejected the bill sponsored by John Dyegh from Benue State during the second reading. In November 2024, the House of Representatives rejected a constitutional amendment bill with a similar intent.  By this recurring cycle of tenure elongation on the part of the political elite, they seem to suffer from what may be termed the American complex that saw proposals in the Congress on the elongation of the tenure of the president to a single tenure of six years, but incessantly suffered setbacks in the Congress, as shown in the congressional history of the United States.
  
It is high time that Nigerian elected leaders focused on the daunting crises facing the country rather than a fixation with tenure, a trend that has not advanced democracy on the continent but has retarded development and bred autocracy. Today, the country faces crippling economic hardship accentuated by the prohibitive cost of living, unemployment, insecurity, and a trust deficit in those who govern. These concerns ought to be the preoccupation of any serious governing elite.
 
Above all, it is imperative for lawmakers and the executives to attend to the business of governance squarely; focus on delivering the goals of governance, which is improving the well-being of the citizens through planning for sustainable development. There is an obvious vacuum in this respect. So, they should eschew diversionary preoccupation and put the country first; this way, they can etch their names in the sands of time.