The six-year single tenure gamble

A bill in the House of Representatives seeking an amendment of the constitution to grant the President, governors and lawmakers a single tenure of six years, rather than two terms of four years, has failed. VICTOR OLUWASEGUN looks at the merits and demerits of the proposal.

 

For most Nigerians, the phrase: “one term six years presidency” may be new, but it’s an old expression. A constitutional convention from the United States of America which Nigeria modeled its system of government after turned it down in 1787.

Two hundred years after, it is yet to be inserted in the American constitution. This is from the period of George Washington, through 43 other presidents till the ascendancy of Donald Trump.

Similarly, an opinion published in The New York Times of December 31, 1985, and co-authored by Griffin B Bell, Attorney General of the United States from 1977 to 1979, evaluated whether the quest for re-election enhances or diminishes the effectiveness of a president’s ability to govern effectively.

The conclusion was that there is the need to limit the official period of political officeholders, and the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951 (that no US president can do beyond two terms) established that.

The usual excuse for bringing up such a proposal had always been that the quest for re-election does not allow presidents to make “hard decisions”.

Coming down to Nigeria, it appears a new coloration has been added to the effort, as Governors and lawmakers at the federal and state levels have been added to the bill, which is seen as an anathema to the principle and philosophy of democracy.

A good number of Nigerians are of the view that amending the 1999 Constitution to provide for a six-year single tenure for the president and governors is not a good development. The bill sponsored by John Dyegh, an All Progressives Congress (APC) lawmaker from Benue State, also sought a six-year multiple tenure for federal and state legislators.

Straightaway, some members saw the bill as a way of seeking a third term for President Muhammadu Buhari. They couldn’t fathom any positive reason a lawmaker could have cranked up to have crafted such an ill-timed, volatile and anti-people piece of legislation.

They believed It would reinforce the general belief that members of the National Assembly is selfish, self-seeking, insensitive, indifferent and lackadaisical when it comes to issues that have to do with the common man, but conversely, go into overdrive on matters that relate to their own welfare.

Some political watchers wondered how an amendment that couldn’t pass in an advance democracy like America for over 200 years could be expected to sail effortlessly through the Nigerian parliament.

So, on Tuesday, December 17, 2019, members of the House of Representatives rejected the bill and stopped it from going through second reading on the floor of the House.

In the first instance, it offended the sensibility and sensitivity of lawmakers who felt it was a rehash of the alleged third term agenda of President Buhari.

The allegation had gained ground recently. It was fuelled by the action of a lawmaker, Charles Enya, a member of the APC in Ebonyi State, who reportedly filed a suit (FHC/AI/CS/90/19) to that effect before a Federal High Court in Abakiliki, Ebonyi State capital.

Enya had approached the court asking it to declare that President Buhari has the constitutional right to contest election for a third term.

However, many of the members believed that there were other more important issues than seeking for additional years for the president, governors and federal and state lawmakers at this time.

Besides, both the APC and the Presidency have distanced themselves from the suit and the campaign.

Nonetheless, the members couldn’t wait to put the bill to eternal rest as the Plenary became rowdy when members started shouting ‘put the question!’, as Deputy Speaker, Rep. Ahmed Idris Wase who presided over the House read out the bill.

It simply goes to show that no matter what people say about the parliamentarians; there are times that it’s crystal clear what their constituents are not interested in.

Quite a number of the lawmakers saw the bill as a way of seeking third term for the President, and it was therefore difficult for Dyegh to prove otherwise.

Hence he lost the critical positive input of his colleagues to support the second reading of the bill.

The House Leader, Peter Akpatason put the issue in perspective by informing the House that President Buhari has already told Nigerians that he was not interested in a fresh tenure of office. The wishes of the President should be respected, he said.

But Dyegh wouldn’t let go as he insisted that the bill is futuristic and would not affect the present dispensation. The take-off period for the amendment should be 2023 and not affecting the tenure of those already in office, he said.

He said since the inauguration of the parliament, about two-thirds of lawmakers always lose their election and do not return to the chamber, thereby throwing away the experiences and knowledge gathered.

He said over 200 members of the House did not make it back to the House, in 2011, 2015 and even in 2019. He added: “If we lose two-thirds of members every four years, there will be a huge turnover of lawmakers who go away with the experience and knowledge gathered which should be useful to the parliament.”

Dyegh said the development was at variance with the practice in the executive and the judiciary as they have career progression which turns them into experts in their various fields. He said: “There are constituencies in the country where lawmakers spend only one term of four years before being thrown out.”

He said there are lawmakers in advanced democracies that have spent several years in the parliament with huge experience, and that allowing Nigerian lawmakers to have six-year tenures will increase their level of experience.

The lawmaker also spoke of the high cost of re-election for the president and governors, which he claimed cost three times more than the first election. He said such elections are characterised by violence.  A single term of six years, he added, “will change the narrative of violence and other irregularities associated with re-election”.

But, it was difficult for members to see reason in his argument and he was not allowed to finish his lead debate before members started murmuring and shouting him down.

Read Also: VPs who complete presidents’ tenure eligible for only one term… as Buhari signs bill into law

 

But a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lawmaker from Akwa Ibom State, Archibong Okon said making the electoral process better is what should concern the House. He pointed out that the high turnover of legislators was because of the lack of information available to the constituents.

Another lawmaker, Rep. Yusuf Gagdi said it was important for the House to gauge the mood of the nation before taking any step towards giving governors and presidents six-year single tenure.

He said any decision taken by the House which will affect the understanding of the Nigerian people will not be doing justice to them. He added that “in a democracy you cannot ask a governor or a president to do one single term and expect performance”.

He said the problem with the Nigerian state was the fact that elected leaders don’t respect the rules, saying “We should maintain the four years of two terms and take another look at our electoral framework and see how we can elect leaders that will not fail us.

Every four years, there is an opportunity for the electorates to appraise the performance of their elected leaders and decide whether to return them or not, Rep. Haruna Isa Dederi (APC, Kano) argued.

Other lawmakers spoke against the bill. This included the Minority Leader, Rep. Ndudi Elumelu and this sealed the fate of the bill when it was put to vote.

But Sergius Oguns (PDP, Edo) stood out from the crowd — he was the only member who spoke in favour of the bill. He said the essence of the bill was to curb executive spending on election in search of the second term.

He said: “If the executive will be honest to tell us what they spend in search of the second term, you will be shocked. The bill wants to address that and when you don’t work for the people, your party will lose that state.”

But with the failure of the bill in the House, it is evident that the clamour for the one term of six years for the president, governors, and lawmakers at the federal and state legislatures are on hold for now at least.

But considering the damage to the goodwill of the House before the people, it is yet to be seen if the gamble was worth it.