•Nigerian Senate
The plan by Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, to sponsor a bill seeking to introduce a single six-year tenure for presidents and governors after the 2027 general elections has heightened fears about plans to introduce a constitutional amendment to allow incumbents stay longer in office.
Senate Leader Bamidele in an interview with journalists in his office yesterday, stated that the proposed legislation would be among the first bills he intends to introduce when the next Senate is inaugurated.
He said if the legislation sails though, it would enable elected leaders to focus on governance rather than re-election campaigns as the current two-term arrangement often compels office holders to devote a significant portion of their first term to political calculations and preparations for re-election, adding that a single tenure would eliminate distractions associated with seeking a second term.
But reactions that trailed the statement have indicated that Nigerians view the proposal as more of a plan to elongate the tenure of those in office who would have been serving their second terms and are constitutionally barred from seeking same offices, reports Daily Trust.
Though Opeyemi did not say if the proposed bill would commence with those in office, many Nigerians fear that it may not be altruistic and if it sails through, those in office would take advantage of it.
There are, however, those who said the proposal would make office holders concentrate more on governance rather than in the politics of second term.
Bill will require extensive constitutional amendment to become law – Lawyer
A Kano-based lawyer, Barrister Kamilu Ahmad-Paki, said the proposed bill seeking to establish a single six-year term for presidents and governors in Nigeria will require extensive constitutional amendments before it can become law.
Speaking on the development, Ahmad-Paki confirmed that Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele intends to support the bill in the 11th National Assembly.
He noted that the current provisions of the 1999 Constitution clearly stipulate a four-year tenure, renewable once, for both the president and state governors.
“Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution establishes the office of the president and sets out that the president shall spend a four-year term in office, with the possibility of re-election for another four years. Similarly, Section 180 provides that governors shall serve four years and may be re-elected once. If this bill is to see the light of day, these sections must be altered,” he explained.
Ahmad-Paki further pointed out that Section 182 bars governors from serving more than two terms, while Section 137(1)(b) places the same restriction on presidents. He stressed that any attempt to introduce a single six-year tenure would, therefore, require amending these provisions.
He added that even the tenure of local government councils, as provided under Section 7, may need to be reviewed to align with the proposed changes.
According to him, Section 9 of the Constitution also sets a high threshold for amendments, requiring the support of two-thirds of members of the National Assembly and approval by at least 24 state Houses of Assembly.
“If that majority is not achieved, the bill will not see the light of day,” Ahmad-Paki concluded.
Speaking on the matter, Abeni Mohammed (SAN) said some lawmakers, including Bamidele, are acting out of self-preservation rather than national interest.
According to him, the push is driven by political survival ahead of possible rejection by the electorate.
“They are looking for self-survival before they are booted out naturally or by a violent revolt,” he said.
He expressed concern that insecurity in the country is being sidelined by what he described as “political distractions” in the Senate.
“The issue of insecurity is more important to me than all the nonsense coming out from the Senate. School children and their teachers have been kidnapped for days and are still in the forest, and the only thing they are talking about is seeking provision for a single term. Do they even deserve one term?
“What have they done since they have been there except passing useless bills and approving loans, both foreign and domestic, for the president,” he added.
Also reacting, Salam Jawondo (SAN) said the proposal by the Senate leader would require a constitutional amendment supported by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly and state assemblies.
He noted that the move would likely fail if it does not reflect the priority of other lawmakers.
On concerns that it could amount to a backdoor attempt at extending the presidential tenure, he stressed that the constitution is clear that no one can serve more than two terms as president, unless the relevant provisions are amended.
“I doubt such an amendment will scale through,” he said, adding that the country is currently facing more urgent challenges such as insecurity and worsening hardship.
He warned against political distractions, saying governance should focus on resolving national problems rather than tenure debates.
“My advice is that every politician should concentrate more effort on solving the prevailing problems, especially insecurity,” he added.
On his part, a Niger-based political scientist, Dr Kamar Hamza, said the proposal may be well-intentioned, but could also be politically motivated.
“Who knows, maybe he is being used as a conduit by politicians to actualise their plans. There may be some hidden agenda,” he said.
‘Six-year single term will reduce election cost, allow tough decisions’
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Sunusi Musa, said the proposed introduction of a single six-year tenure for presidents and governors could reduce election costs and enable leaders to take difficult but necessary decisions without the pressure of seeking re-election.
Speaking in an interview with our reporter last night, Musa described the proposal as part of the constitutional evolution process, stressing that Nigerians, through their elected representatives, have the right to alter the constitution whenever the need arises.
“This is not the first time that the issue is coming up,” he said. “If you may recall, President Jonathan proposed something like that, which he clearly said he would not be a beneficiary of. But it was rejected by Nigerians at that time,” he said.
He noted that constitutional amendments have remained a feature of Nigeria’s democratic journey since 1999.
“The constitution is an evolving document. The people that are governed by the constitution have the right, through their representatives at both national and state assemblies, to look at it and see if there are things that need to be amended,” he said.
Musa argued that a six-year single term could significantly reduce the frequency and cost of elections.
“If we look at it critically, it will reduce the cost of elections. The money that you normally spend in eight years can only be spent in 12 years if you make it six years. So, it means that you have reduced the cost of election by four years in two terms,” he said.
According to him, the arrangement could also improve governance by freeing office holders from electoral calculations.
“Maybe it will give those in power the concentration to do what is right because when somebody is concerned with running for a second term, there are things he is supposed to do which he will be thinking of the consequences because of his second term.
“What I am saying is, leadership requires taking painful but necessary decisions. Most politicians are prevented from making such decisions because they are considering elections,” he added.
On whether current office holders could benefit from the proposed arrangement if it becomes law, the constitutional lawyer said the answer would depend on the wording of the amendment.
“It is for the new alteration to clearly state that any person that has been a governor or president for eight years is precluded from benefiting,” he said.
He warned that failure to include such a provision could create room for incumbents to seek an additional six-year term.
Reflecting on former President Goodluck Jonathan’s failed proposal, Musa said public mistrust contributed to its rejection.
“The mistrust was the thinking that it was going to be done for him to do four years and then stick on a six-year term. That was what killed the entire thing,” he said.
He urged Nigerians to examine the current proposal objectively, adding, “Let us look at it critically. Politicians should be statesmen and critically examine it. Rejecting it simply because we do not like the face of the person bringing it is not the right approach,” he said.
Musa added that constitutionally, the amendment is feasible if it secures the required support of two-thirds of the National Assembly and at least 24 state Houses of Assembly before presidential assent.
Also commenting on the issue, Barrister Morakinyo Ogele, a constitutional lawyer said it may be a guise to elongate the tenure of the president and the governors.
“You know, the president is in control of everything now. It is another avenue for tenure elongation for Tinubu and the governors. It’s just a strategy for tenure elongation.
“So, let me tell you, we are fed up with them. We don’t believe in them anymore. They are just there doing what they like. It’s a strategy. We have become the national house of APC, period”, he said.
Ogele said he doubts if the proposed single term of 6 years will see the light of day, saying those proposing the amendment are not even sure they will win in the coming general election. He added that though the National Assembly possesses the powers to amend the constitution, they should do it with caution.
‘…It won’t fix Nigeria’s problems’
A public commentator, David Adenuga has urged Nigerians to assess the proposed single tenure for the president and governors based on its likely impact on governance, accountability and national development.
Speaking on the development, he said the debate should go beyond politics and focus on whether the proposed arrangement would deliver better governance than the current two-term system.
“The key question is whether a single six-year term will improve accountability, governance and national stability better than the current system of two four-year terms,” he said.
According to him, the success of any political system depends largely on the strength of democratic institutions, credible elections and effective leadership rather than the length of tenure.
He noted that while advocates of the proposal believe it could reduce the distractions associated with re-election campaigns, Nigerians must carefully consider both its benefits and possible drawbacks.
Adenuga added that the proposal is not new, noting that similar recommendations have been made by political stakeholders in the past and have remained a subject of public debate.
He maintained that the issue should be subjected to broad consultations and objective analysis before any constitutional amendment is undertaken.
“Whether a single six-year term is better than the current arrangement remains a matter of debate. What is important is choosing a system that will strengthen democracy and improve governance,” he added.
The analyst called on lawmakers and other stakeholders to place national interest above partisan considerations as discussions on electoral and constitutional reforms continue.
Resurfacing for third time
If the bill for the amendment to the Nigerian Constitution resurfaces in the 11th Assembly, it would make it the third time that such an amendment would be proposed in the current dispensation.
The first time, allies of then President Olusegun Obasanjo sponsored a similar constitutional amendment bill, seeking to alter the 1999 Constitution to extend presidential and gubernatorial term limits from two four-year terms to three four-year terms.
The bill did not see the light of day as the Senate voted overwhelmingly against the second reading of the bill, thereby terminating the legislative process.
Former Nigerian President, Jonathan also proposed a constitutional amendment for presidents and governors to serve a single, non-renewable six-year term in 2011.
The proposal failed to sail through the National Assembly as it was rejected by lawmakers who preferred the four-year renewable term existing framework.
