Why president’s, governors’ terms must be amended

The news that terms of office of the president, governors and local government chairmen may not be tampered with in the proposed amendment of the 1999 Constitution is a very disturbing one. Though it is still a rumour, our experience in the last 20 years with kite-flying on serious national issues makes it imperative that men of goodwill and courage should begin to take as serious, the rumour that has been reported in the press that the review exercise would not touch on this important aspect. At the first thought, one is likely to dismiss the rumour as the hallucinations of a mad man but, over the years, too many mad men had gambled with the destiny of this nation and ended up bringing ruins on Nigeria.

There was the case of the late General Sani Abacha who tried by all means to remain in power, deploying one trick after the other and ended up dying in office in circumstances that remain a miracle to majority of Nigerians. His was a helpless situation for the nation because at the point of his death, he had conquered all opposition. Some of those who dared him were killed; others were thrown into jail, while the remaining went into exile. Those left here simply watched the iron-fisted ruler execute whatever plans he had for himself. Suddenly, the man died one day and ended his dreadful reign.

Then came President Olusegun Obasanjo of the most recent memory who again tried many tricks to get a third term he did not deserve either by the quantum of services he rendered or by constitutional provision. In fact, he did not even merit a second term if his performances were to be used as a yardstick. But somehow, he got it. As soon as the second term was procured, he abandoned governance and busied himself with scheming on how to go for a third term. He lost at the Senate when the then Senate president, Ken Nnamani, and other courageous senators under him killed the constitutional amendment that would have given Obasanjo the tenure elongation he so much desired. The problem with the drive for tenure extension has always been that it derails the incumbent chief executives from pursuing any meaningful development for the nation. All their attention is directed in political calculations that will preserve them in office. And they get busy stealing from the nation’s treasury to prepare themselves for financial demands of winning the additional term. They steal by themselves; use their family members or even fronts to cart away money to execute tenure elongation. The deafening revelations coming out of the public hearing in the House of Representatives on power project and the failure of the Obasanjo-led administration to implement its reform programmes are some of the manifestations of excessive focus on tenure elongation to the detriment of national goal of economic development.

Having suffered so much from issues relating to term extension, it does not sound reasonable for anybody to say that the ongoing attempt to amend the 1999 Constitution should not tamper with tenure of office. As a matter of fact, there are three basic issues the committees of the two chambers of the National Assembly handling the amendment should concern themselves with. They are the tenure issue, the electoral process and autonomy of local governments. To do an amendment of the constitution without touching the clause on tenure is simply a waste of the precious time and resources of the nation. The fact remains that tenure extension has narrow and wide meanings. It is narrow when pursued outside the constitution or using unorthodox method to achieve a constitution amendment that will pave the way for extra term. It’s wide meaning is when it is done constitutionally. In this wider sense is included the constitutionally allowed second term.

The experiences we have had with both former presidents Shehu Shagari and Obasanjo showed that Nigerian civilian presidents are not usually popular enough to win a second term. The implication of this is that those who are saddled with amending the constitution must find a way of removing second term from the new constitution we are expecting from the National Assembly. What we can manage now is one term even if it is for eight years. It is still better than two terms of three years each. Perhaps, the most suitable for now appears to be a single term of six years. Let no fool come out to tell us that there should be ‘no-go-areas’, especially if such restriction affects the three critical areas mentioned above. It will not take long before these anonymous fellows flying this kite of ‘no-go-areas’ will surface in the open and begin to move money around and again derail whatever little rail this government has.