Six-year single term for president, governors

Recently, a coalition of some dozen members of the House of Representatives, under the umbrella of ‘Reform Minded Lawmakers,’ informed the country that they were sponsoring a constitutional amendment bill for a single six-year term for the president and governors. This, they argued, would help in curbing government spending, enhancing governance efficiency and promoting national stability.

Indeed, the spokesman for the coalition, Rep Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, told a news conference in Abuja that constitutional and electoral reforms had been long-standing issues in Nigeria since independence, fueling unrest and deepening religious and ethnic divisions within the nation and it was necessary to address the twin issues once and for all.

Ugochinyere further said, “As a first step in our commitment, we are presenting a series of bills and proposals to the public, which are currently under consideration on the floor of the 10th Assembly. These bills, numbering 50 in total, have already undergone the first reading. Today, we are unveiling approximately six of them to the public, with the remainder to follow in the coming weeks.”

The lawmaker also spoke about the proposal for the creation of the office of two vice presidents, representing the southern and northern regions of Nigeria, wherein the first vice president will come from the same part of the country as the president so as to serve as a successor in the event of incapacitation or death, while the second would oversee the economy, and both would hold ministerial positions.

• NIGERIA DAILY: The Blueprint For Peace And Security In The Northwest
• Bandits levy Benue community N20m

As to be expected, this announcement has elicited diverse reactions from various segments of Nigeria. This is so because issues of leadership have always been received differently, based on the different realities that make up Nigeria.

While we fully support the sharing and exchange of ideas in our quest to get it right as a country, it is also necessary to remind the lawmakers that the system we currently operate, which allows public office holders to run for a maximum of two four-year renewable terms, no matter its shortcomings, can be made to work for us. It is working perfectly in several other climes because the players have agreed to play by the rules.

Without all the stakeholders agreeing to respect laid down procedures, the difference between the four-year renewable tenure and the proposed six-year single term may only be in name. The players can abuse the single term of six years the same way they have been abusing the system currently in operation. Single term, like its renewable counterpart, can also breed corruption. We can’t be focusing on changing the vehicle when the driver is the problem because the vehicle will ultimately be driven by the driver.

A lot can change if we can ensure that anybody aspiring for a leadership position has an articulated programme that will impact the country, state or the local government area he is seeking to govern. The same thing applies to our lawmakers, whether at the national or sub-national level.

Most often than not, every administration tends to come up with its own projects instead of completing those it met on the ground, leading to a plethora of abandoned projects and wastage of our scarce, hard-earned resources.

Our leaders must agree that governance is a continuum and some projects or policies may take a number of years and even tenures to accomplish. We also have a serious problem with our leadership recruitment process. Like many have argued, it is not the shortage of good leaders that we suffer from. We can boast of competent leaders in virtually every segment of our society, but the ones we end up with are those that are either incapable, not ready, or both. We should concentrate on capable leadership, not how long their tenure will last.

Also, the idea of rotational leadership is almost always a diversionary tactic by those who seek to benefit from the system. It is not in the interest of democracy, because it limits opportunities.

It is poor leadership that creates envy among the units that make up the country. When a leader lives up to his responsibility, leading to positive improvement in all the relevant indices, the people may not care about his name, religion or where he comes from because they are assured of his fairness and capacity.

The lawmakers should channel their energy through oversights and other constitutionally assigned roles into ensuring that leaders uphold their oath of office, which is necessary to bring about good governance, transparency and accountability, without which our quest for development will remain a pipe-dream.