The recent renewed call for a single six-year tenure for Nigeria's President and Governors has reignited once again an important constitutional debate.
The central argument of proponents like Distinguished Senator Opeyemi Bamidele and his colleagues is straightforward: a Chief Executive who is not seeking re-election will be less distracted by politics and more focused on governance.
This proposition has some appeal and merit. Under the current constitutional arrangement, Presidents and governors are elected for four years and may seek one additional term. In practice (like what is presently playing out) preparations for re-election often commence well before the expiration of the first term, creating political pressures that can influence policy choices. A single tenure no doubt, could potentially eliminate this concern and encourage long-term policy implementation.
However, it is not necessarily about administrative efficiency alone. Democracy is fundamentally built on accountability and good governance. The prospect of re-election serves as one of the most powerful mechanisms through which citizens evaluate governmental performance. Removing that incentive for appraisal may inadvertently weaken democratic responsiveness and accountability.
Comparative constitutional experience demonstrates that no direct correlation exists between the length of tenure and the quality of governance. Nations in American and North European continents with fixed and relatively short executive tenures have produced transformative leaders. Conversely, many countries in Africa that permitted lengthy periods in office have suffered from poor governance, institutional decay, and democratic erosion.
The Nigerian experience equally suggests that governance outcomes are influenced more by leadership quality and institutional effectiveness than by tenure duration. For me, strong institutions, respect for constitutional limits, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law remain the primary determinants of governmental success.
From a constitutional perspective, therefore, our debate should not be framed as a choice between six years and eight years alone. Rather, an exhaustive inquiry should focus on which arrangement best promotes accountability, stability, effective governance, and democratic development.
We all agree that a constitutional amendment introducing a six-year single tenure is legally feasible in Nigeria if it follows the amendment procedures prescribed by the Constitution. The more important question, however, is whether such a change would address the underlying challenges of governance in Nigeria.
The answer is likely nuanced. It is possible that tenure reform may alter political incentives, but it cannot substitute for competent leadership, institutional integrity, and citizen participation which we all crave for.
A good leader can achieve significant results within a limited tenure, while a poor leader may squander and ruin his or her country the more even when given an extended period in office.
The real challenge before Nigeria is therefore not simply how long a President or governor should remain in office, but how to ensure that whoever occupies the office governs effectively with attendant dividends of democracy, responsibly, and in accordance with constitutional principles. That objective remains the true measure of a dream of a democratic success.
Dr M.O. Ubani SAN
Legal Practitioner/Policy Analyst.
Comments
Post a Comment
Drop your comment here.