The Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution (SCRC) has recommended, among others, a six-year single term for the president and governors instead of the present four-year two-term practice. The proponents believe the six-year tenure will make the Presidency go round the six regions faster, enhance unity and remove the tension arising from seeking re-election. But the opponents argue that the four-year tenure should be retained so that non-performing officials can be voted out after their first term rather than being in office for six years. A six-year tenure, according to them, can encourage corruption on a grander scale; dictatorship and voter disenfranchisement. Which is the way to go? JOSEPH JIBUEZE sought lawyers’ views.
Should the proposal by the Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution (SCRC) scale through, the president and governors will serve only a non-renewable term of six years.
This is contained in the SCRC report presented last Wednesday by its Chairman, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, who listed devolution of powers, creation of states, recognition of geo-political zones, local governments, fiscal federalism, mayoral status for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and executive immunity as other highlights.
On the six-year single tenure, the panel noted that considering the financial expenses often associated with re-election, and to ensure that executive heads are freed from the distractions and are able to concentrate on public policy issues, “a provision for a single term of six (6) years for president and governors is made in sections 135 and 180 respectively.”
It added that “Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of the section, the President shall vacate his office at the expiration of a period of six years commencing from the date—(a)in the case of a person elected as president under this Constitution, he took the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office and (b) in the case of the person elected to the office under this Constitution took the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Office or would, but for his death, have taken such oath.”
The committee recommended that: “If the Federation is at war in which the territory of Nigeria is physically involved and the President considers that it is not practicable to hold election, the National Assembly may by resolution extend the period of six years mentioned in subsection (2) of this section from time to time; but no such extension shall exceed a period of six months at any one time.”
The House of Representatives Committee on Constitution Review retained the subsisting four-year tenure for president and governors.
Last Thursday, the implication of the recommendation became clearer.
Ekweremadu, who spoke on the details in Abuja, said the six-year single tenure may exclude the president and governors from contesting the 2015 election. Asked when the six-year single term tenure will take off, he said since the recommendation did not provide any particular date, “it means as soon as the constitution is passed, it will start.”
He said governors are expected to make the sacrifice of not seeking re-election, if the recommendation is adopted.
His words: “We don’t want Nigerians to say that we colluded with the executive to elongate the tenure of some governors. But we decided that those who are currently serving should excuse themselves for the system to run. But if our colleagues think otherwise and feel that those who are serving should benefit, we will put it there.”
He added: “We believe that the best thing to do in the circumstance is that if you have had the opportunity of serving as a chief executive, so be it, so that you concentrate and do your work and finish instead of going to worry yourself scheming how to succeed yourself … and then start heating up the system and applying some rough tactics.
“So, these are some of the reasons why we felt that it is better if you just have the opportunity of being the president then, that should be it. You just concentrate on your job and do it and history will record that you were once a president. We don’t believe that the number of years you spend there as President translates to performance.”
But the Presidency is not taking the proposal lightly. Special Adviser to the President on Political Matters Ahmed Gulak was quoted as saying: “It is not a fair amendment to target a particular group of people. That proposal will not scale through because Nigerians are wiser. You can’t short-change some people in the name of amending the Constitution. I am sure there will be some considerations and the proposal will fail.
“The President and some governors were elected under a constitution that allows them to contest two terms of four years each. You can’t change the rule midway.”
Should this proposal be adopted? Is it what Nigeria needs? Will it scale through? Opinion is divided on the issue.
Some observers agree with the view that six-year tenure will enhance focus for those in office; the president or governor will not bother with the intrigues and distraction of scheming for a second term while state matters suffer.
But some analysts are of the view that staying six years in office will not suddenly make a bad leader good or effective. If he turns out to be bad, there will be no opportunity to vote him out. Nigerians or citizens of the state will endure the leader for two additional years. In effect, the masses suffer as a result of ineffective administrators as tenure protects. The process of removing them is not simple or swift.
Besides, there are fears the six-year tenure will encourage looting and general abuse of office. The thinking is that since the President or governor knows he has only one chance to serve, he may be tempted to grab as much loot as possible without a care.
Analysts think the fact a president or governor will seek re-election will probably spur them to work harder during the first term so as to earn a second term. Remove the chance for a second term, and there will be no motivation to perform.
Furthermore, the knowledge that a re-election will be sought and that they could be voted out for bad leadership could also serve as check on the excesses of elected officers. With nothing to lose, some observers fear a leader may become autocratic and assume absolute power.
But, more fundamentally, some critics argue that there are more pressing issues confronting Nigeria, which a Constitution review should have addressed. These include the critical national question, which should have been brought to the front burner. The issues cleverly avoided, analysts said, include the restructuring of the polity, devolution and decentralisation of power, state police, true fiscal federalism and lopsided federal-state relations.
Many, including lawyers, think that the tenure of office, as currently enshrined in the Constitution, is not the problem. The problem appears to be the operators of the system.
They believe the vision, ideological world view, integrity, credibility and capability of the President and governors, as well as their performance, good governance, observance of the rule of law and fulfilment of campaign promises to Nigerians, are more important than the number of years they spend in office.
Some lawyers back proposal
Lawyers are divided on the issue. Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) Mallam Yusuf Ali, Mike Igbokwe and other senior lawyers backed the proposal.
Ali said he had always supported a single six-year single-term tenure as it would remove problems associated with re-election and succession.
“Let everybody go for a single term of six years and then you go. My argument is that something you cannot achieve in six years, you won’t achieve it in 60 years. So, the proposal is an affirmation of my position.
“If we are matured to practise second term, why should we not be mature enough for someone to serve for six years and leave? The attendant tension associated with second term electioneering will be reduced.
“It will also reduce the number of years each region will wait to get to the Presidency if we want to do it that way. Now, you have to wait for eight years, but if it’s six years, you would have reduced it by two years – from one zone to the other. It is going to work in favour of making the thing go round every part of the country. Instead of waiting eight years, people will wait six years,” Ali said.
For Igbokwe, the merits outweigh the demerits. “I believe the merits of adopting it are that it would reduce the tension, acrimony and usual violence associated with elections and cost of organising presidential and gubernatorial elections due to the fact that elections would now be once in six years instead of four.
“Lazy presidents or governors would now be forced to work hard and perform because they would realise that they have only one term and not two terms to perform. Aspirants to the offices would have a shorter time of six years instead of eight years to wait to contest or re-contest.
“Demerits are that geo-political zones whose extractions are yet to serve two terms of four years each would be spending less time than their counterparts from other zones which is, therefore, unfair; and a performing president or governor would not have enough time to do more for Nigeria or his state.”
A North-based lawyer, Mr Mike Edegware, called to bar over 30 years ago, also backed the six year tenure.
He said: “The proposed single six-year term may just be another ‘doctrine of necessity’ that may save Nigeria from being torn to shreds by political hawks. Our experience so far is that after each (s)election, the victor spends half of his tenure on fence-mending and controlling the damage resulting from the circumstances of his election. Once that is achieved, the pressure is on for a second term and again, actual governance is relegated to the back burner.
“If adopted, therefore, the proposed six-year single term will give the occupants of the seat of power more time to focus on his job. What will be left to be addressed is when and how to implement it. In my opinion, this should be in 2015 and should apply only to those who will be elected for the first time then.”
Lagos-based constitutional lawyer Mr Ike Ofuokwu is of the view six years is enough, saying: “The issue here is neither about the existing two terms of four years each, nor the proposed single tenure of six years. To make it an issue is simply reductionist. The problem is the quality of politicians we have.
“Our supposed leaders have chosen to be rulers whose only interest is their personal interest and self-aggrandisement. Hence, they believe that the longer they stay the better for them to indulge themselves in primitive acquisition. Any quality mind will make a lasting and positive impression in government even if he is spending just one year.
“However, if one puts into consideration the level of distraction in government that is associated with re-election, both pre- and post-election here in Nigeria, then one is compelled to agree with a single term of six years. Moreover anyone who cannot deliver and make meaningful impact in six years, even with 10 years the person will still have no impact. That is to say a bad leader is incurably bad and it has nothing to do with how many years spent in office.”
Principal partner of Lagos-based law firm, T.C Akanwa and Co, Mr Theophilus Akanwa, said: “I support the proposal. If adopted, it will eliminate the fierce politicking we have always seen by a sitting person to succeed himself by all means. Virtually nothing is done by these groups in their second terms. One wonders whether the allocation is reduced during a second term to warrant the poor performance seen.
“If some of the governors achieved so much in the first four years, six years is time enough for anybody who has the country/state at heart to deliver good governance to Nigerians.”
Those who oppose plan are:
Three Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Emeka Ngige, rights activist Femi Falana and Dr Joseph Nwobike; Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Chairman, Lagos Branch Taiwo O. Taiwo and others opposed the proposal.
Ngige said: “No matter how altruistic the recommendation may be, single tenure option is not the solution to our political problems. Instead it will worsen it. One of the beauties of democracy is the provision for re-election of elected officials.
“Once an elected official is conscious of seeking another term, there is always the tendency to excel, tendency to do good; to produce results which will be used as campaign issues during re-election. It also offers the electorate the opportunity to assess the elected official. Non-performing ones are rejected at the polls while those that performed are reelected.
“Now, a single tenure option promotes the opposite: complacency, impunity, corruption, non- accountability. The worst aspect is that it also promotes tyranny and dictatorship.
“If you want a typical illustration of evils of single tenure system, come to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). Since 1998 when NBA opted for a single tenure option to promote peace and unity, we have seen how some presidents (past and present) and even branch chairmen have desecrated the office with acts of impunity, lack of accountability and outright dictatorship.
“For a fledgling democracy like ours, a single tenure option will kill the experiment. Nigerians should learn from the failure of the NBA experiment and reject the Senate’s recommendation.”
Nwobike said the lawmakers should rather concentrate on improving transparency in governance.
His words: “There is nothing magical about single tenure with particular reference to good governance and accountability of elected officials. I really do not see any objective which the proposal would achieve or drive.
“I think that rather than amend the provisions of our Constitution relating to tenure of elected officials, specific legislative agenda, which would ensure and enforce executive responsibility and continuous assessment, should be developed and implemented.”
Falana described the single term tenure debate as “so diversionary and irrelevant.” He said: “The proponents of a single tenure of six years are of the view that it will reduce tension and eliminate the use of incumbency by those who are in power. It is not a well thought out idea. Infact, it is a superficial proposition.
“The Senate should have addressed the culture of impunity which allows a sitting president to seize the state apparatus of violence, overrun all institutions including the legislature and political parties, distribute largesse and engage in executive lawlessness.
“If you have a president who has unrestrained access to the nation’s wealth it is irrelevant whether he spends six or eight years. The Senate just found that Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, the late Umaru Yar’Ádua and Goodluck Jonathan misappropriated N1.52 trillion.
“In 2011, alone about N2 trillion was cornered in the name of fuel subsidy. Do you know any president in any oil producing nation who can give oil blocks to friends and family members? Do you know any elected president in a modern state who assembles his ministers every week to share contracts?
“By virtue of Decree 24 of 1999 otherwise called the 1999 Constitution, the President of Nigeria is the most powerful ruler in the world. The decree merely transferred the absolutist powers of a military dictator to an elected president. President Barrack Obama’s salary and allowances can be found in the internet. You can’t find those of our president anywhere.
“He receives the highest estacodes and travels with the largest delegations in the world. He can deploy soldiers to kill unarmed people as was the case in Odi and Zaki Biam. He connives with the police to rig elections as we witnessed in the ‘do or die’ wuruwuru (fraudulent) elections of 2007. He controls the political party that sponsored him. He disregards court orders and violates the law with impunity. He is accountable to no one.
“The debate on the single term tenure is so diversionary and irrelevant. The debate should centre on how to democratise powers with a view to reducing the enormous powers of elected officials which enable them to exercise incumbency powers to remain in office or install their surrogates to spend six or eight years in power.”
Taiwo said Nigeria’s problem goes beyond tenure. “The problem is quality leadership and commitment to combating corruption. What has been achieved in four years? Give a bad leader 10 years; he will still fail. I do not support one term of six years. Two terms of four years is okay for Nigerians to vote out a rudderless government. Let Nigerians make up their mind every four years!”
Lagos lawyer Emeka Nwadioke described the proposal as dead on arrival. “It has been said that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Nigerian Constitution. I agree. The same is true of the four-year renewable tenure as currently obtains. That arrangement has served other countries, notably the United States, well. However, the Nigerian politician has characteristically distorted this otherwise harmless provision, to the effect that campaigns for re-election starts immediately one is sworn in. So, fundamentally, what is required is an attitudinal change.
“However, to the extent that the Senate Committee has proposed a single six-year term, this may look attractive at first glance. As argued, it may curb the tensions generated by re-election tussles. It has been argued that the current arrangement rewards performance, as the single tenure may encourage embezzlement.
“But, who says that the office holder may not focus on embezzlement during his second tenure, having hoodwinked the electorate with ‘stellar performance’ during his first term? What we also need are strong institutions that make office holders pay fully for any malfeasance, whether during first or second term.
“I am not certain that one option is fundamentally better than the other insofar as politicians refuse to see public office as an instrument to promote the commonweal. Otherwise, we will only be going round in circles. We need integrity within the political elite and transparency in the electoral process.
“What is even more worrisome is the clause which seeks to “ban” incumbents from recontesting. Section 4(9) of the very Constitution we seek to amend frowns on legislations that tend to retrospectively ‘punish’ persons, though this relates to criminal matters. It would seem that this extends in principle to even civil matters.
“It is equally ludicrous that the proposal seeks to bar a Vice President who has only served out, for instance, two months of a joint ticket from contesting. These issues touch on the fundamental rights of citizens and must not be treated lightly, as they have far-reaching and long term effects. We must pull back from our propensity towards expediency.
“The spirit of every constitution enlarges than shrinks basic rights. A better option may be to encourage the political parties to dissuade such persons from running. At any rate, with The Presidency already kicking against the clause and incumbent Governors pulling strings at the various state Houses of Assembly should the proposal sail through the National Assembly, it seems to me that the proposal, whatever its merits, is dead on arrival.”
President, Coalition of Lawyers for Good Governance (CLGG), Mr Joe Nwokedi, said rather than six-year tenure, the present four years should be reduced to three.
“I don’t think we need a single term of six years. We cannot because of the challenges we usually face during re-election, delve into an issue that will spell immeasurable doom to us. It is tantamount to throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Single term of six years will produce more embezzlers, insensitive and incorrigible leadership in our country.
“It will also extirpate the little checks and powers the electorates often exercise during re-election of our leaders. Proponents of such ideas should also consider its enormous demerits. They can reduce the tenure of governors to three years instead of four years. Re-election is a very essential component of any successful democracy.
“Our leaders can grow wild, ruthless, heartless and dangerously arrogant with single term of six years. Some will embark on ceaseless embezzlement from the day of swearing in to handover. In my humble opinion, I think it is not a welcome initiative to our democracy. We can triumph over our present challenges with time.”
