By Festus Okoye
If all is well, the renewed debate and agitation for a single six-year tenure for the President and Governors will not arise. Its resurfacing suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the present arrangement and that the advocates are patriots seeking to advance Nigerian democracy and ensure an accountable government.
Conversely, the proponents may be engaged in plain mischief or attention-seeking to divert attention from other important national challenges. What is the existing constitutional and legal framework governing how Presidents and Governors hold and vacate office, and why should we reconsider it?
Is the problem the four-year singleterm policy for both positions, or the often-questionable automatic renewal of their mandates? Alternatively, does the idea that there is no vacancy in the government house no longer resonate with Nigerians?
If the proposal for a single sixyear tenure is meritorious, should it be limited to the President and Governors, or extended to members of the National and State Assemblies? Who is advocating for a single six-year tenure? Is that the challenge facing the Nigerian people? Presently, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, provides for the election of a single President for the country.
It also provides for the election of 36 Governors for the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 130 of the Constitution provides that there shall be for the Federation a President who shall be the Head of State, the Chief Executive of the Federation, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation.
Section 135(1) of the Constitution provides that a person shall hold the office of President until his successor in office takes the oath of that office; he dies whilst holding such office; the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
Subject to the foregoing, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date when, in the case of a person first elected as President under the Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and the oath of office; and in any other case, the person last elected to that office under the Constitution took the Oath of Allegiance and the oath of office, or would, but for his death, have taken such oaths.
In determining the four-year term, if a re-run election has tak- en place and the person previously sworn in wins, the time spent in office before the date the election was annulled shall be taken into account.
However, if the Federation is at war in which the territory of Nigeria is physically involved and the President considers it impracticable to hold elections, the National Assembly may, by resolution, extend the four years from time to time; but no such extension shall exceed six months at any one time.
The challenge concerns sec- tion 137(1)(b) of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be qualified for election to the office of the President if he has previously been elected to that office on two occasions.
The same applies to Governors under section 182(1)(b). While section 64(1) of the Con- stitution provides that the Senate and the House of Representatives shall each stand dissolved at the
But the reality of our situation contradicts this argument. The truth is that a President or Governor working in the national interest will not need to resort to mindless propaganda to win re-election expiration of a period of four years commencing from the date of the first sitting of the House, section 66 lacks an equivalent provision, meaning that members of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the State Assembly can contest elections ad infinitum.
One of the principal arguments in support of a single six-year tenure is that four years may be insufficient for a President or Governor to fulfil campaign promises and implement long-term development projects for the benefit of the people of Nigeria.
If four years are not sufficient, how are we sure that six years will be? What happens to the laudable projects if the people vote out the President and the Governors after four years and refuse to renew their mandate? This suggests the voters are ignorant and do not understand the dynamics of politics and governance.
But the Constitution has vested them with the sovereign power of ignorance, and the Constitution is supreme. Let the people wallow in their ignorance as they decide they do not want a President or a Governor after the first four years.
There is a counterargument that the struggle for re-election distracts the President and the Governors from concentrating on governance, and instead they are out canvassing for votes, campaigning, and making deals to be re-elected.
Hence, limiting them to a single six-year term will allow them to concentrate on gover- nance without distraction. But the reality of our situation contradicts this argument.
The truth is that a President or Governor working in the national interest will not need to resort to mindless propaganda to win reelection. The facts and the reality on the ground will be enough for the people to re-elect the individual. People will see and feel what the President or Governor has done. It is called the fact speaking for itself.
Is it true that the President and the Governors would perform bet- ter and avoid the distraction of campaigns if they were limited to a single six-year tenure? The facts, the reality, and the precedent do not align. The President and the Governors will be interested in who succeeds them, and sometimes this preoccupies them.
They go out of their way to scheme and plot their succession. Some of the Governors are plotting how to win Senate elections, and some of them would have served for eight years by the time of the 2027 general election.
Therefore, the argument that a single six-year tenure for the President and Governors serves as a basis for performance and would not distract them does not align with the facts on the ground. If the concern is truly the need for political renewal, the conversation should not be confined to the executive arm of government.
Equal attention ought to be given to the legislature, where the Constitution presently imposes no term limits on members of the National Assembly or State Houses of Assembly. Concretely, we must set our own term limits for members of the National and State Assemblies.
A two-term limit of four years each is sufficient for them to accom- plish whatever they want in the legislature. The ruse of having experienced legislators in our context does not hold water. It is difficult to point to any legislative or oversight achievements that a 20-year stay in the National and State Assemblies has delivered for Nigerian democracy.
After eight years as a Governor and eight years as a Senator, the individual should rest and step down, leaving the stage for others. It is not about ideology, principle, or performance; it is about platform and power.
Ultimately, the question is not whether a President or Governor should be guaranteed six years in office, but whether the electorate should retain the constitutional right to periodically assess performance and either renew its mandate or withdraw it.
Democratic accountability is best preserved when leaders remain answerable to the people at regular intervals. Under a constitutional and electoral framework that favours free, fair and transparent elections, Nigerians will be in a position to decide whether a particular President or Governor has done well and deserves a second term.
