By Casmir Igbokwe
Last week, President Bola Tinubu attended the second-term inauguration of Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa as the President of South Africa. As usual, rather than focus on the main issue of the day, many Nigerians busied themselves discussing what they termed the snubbing of our President by the former apartheid nation. In a viral video, Ramaphosa was seen shaking hands with some world leaders. But he ignored Tinubu, who was even not standing in the front row.
Some Nigerians see this as an insult on the giant of Africa. Some gloated over the seeming ‘disgrace’ of whom they consider an ‘illegitimate’ President. Some others see it as South Africa’s way of showing disdain for Nigeria’s 2023 general election and the failure of the country over the years to put its house in order. Somehow, these comments reflect the anger of many Nigerians at the state of affairs in the country.
Since she gained independence from Britain in 1960, Nigeria has tried very hard to govern herself. The country experimented with the parliamentary system of government at independence in 1960. Then, regional governments thrived more than the central government. The military struck in 1966 to truncate that democratic system. The unitary system that came with the military ensured that the central government became a behemoth. Even with the advent of the second, third and the current fourth republic, the central government still controls most things in the country. The federal system which we claim to be practising is only in name. In reality, what we practise is unitary system.
We have had different constitutional and national conferences. But none has satisfactorily assuaged the demands by Nigerians for a system that will ensure an equitable and egalitarian society. The 1994/95 constitutional conference, for instance, made good recommendations that would have brought about some positive changes to our political system. The recommendations of that conference were later thrown into the dustbin. The Goodluck Jonathan administration also set up a national conference in 2014 which brainstormed and came up with wonderful recommendations on how to restructure the country for better governance and a more united country. The proposals of that conference ended up gathering dust on the shelves. Even Jonathan himself recommended a single term of six years when he was the President. It was thought that he wanted to elongate his term in office. Despite his explanations that he would not be a beneficiary of the single-term proposal, his opponents shut the proposal down.
Now, a group of 35 members of the House of Representatives have introduced six constitution-alteration bills on the floor of the House. The major one seeks the same six-year single term for President and state governors. The lawmakers also proposed rotational presidency for the six geopolitical zones in the country. They also proposed, among others, that all elections starting from the presidential election to that of the governorship, Assembly and local governments should be held in one day. They also want an amendment to the constitution which will create the office of two vice-presidents – the first one will be for succession and the second one will be a minister in charge of the economy. These two vice-presidents will come from the northern and southern parts of Nigeria. The lawmakers believe their proposals will bring about a reduction in the cost of governance and unprecedented development, among other advantages.
The House has not started debate on these proposals. But there are voices already opposing the bill. Some people say the single-term proposal will make the president or the governors to grow wings and feel they are not accountable to anyone. The belief here is that once someone is elected for a single term, he does whatever he likes, knowing that he will not campaign for a second term. This, they say, will affect accountability. Some say the term of office is not our problem; that our major problem is leadership deficit whether the leader has single or two terms to stay in office. These are good points.
Nevertheless, I believe a single term of six years rotated among the six geopolitical zones will pay us more. With a single term, a president or governor will not be distracted by the usual fight to win a second term in office by all means. What has been happening is that an incumbent president or governor starts preparing to win a second term from his second year in office. He begins to amass wealth and, sometimes, compromise the various institutions of state which he now controls, to work towards his re-election. Corruption manifests fully here because he will use state resources to achieve his aim. At this point, development suffers. But if he is not bothered about the bid to win a second term in office, he will most likely concentrate to do his best within the stipulated period he has to govern.
With regard to rotation of offices, it is pertinent to note that many states already practise rotation even though it is not backed by any constitution. In Anambra State, for instance, there is an understanding among the citizens that the governorship position should rotate among the three main zones in the state: Anambra North, Anambra South and Anambra Central. Former Governor Peter Obi who appeared to have initiated the idea, handed over to Willie Obiano who is from the North. Obi is from the central part of the state. After Obiano, Professor Chukwuma Soludo who is from the South is now in the helm. After his tenure, it is expected that the position will go back to the Central. This is not sacrosanct because anybody from the other zones can still come up to contest since it is not constitutional.
The same thing happens in the case of the entire country. There is some form of understanding that the presidency rotates between the North and South of Nigeria. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo from the South-West completed his tenure in 2007 and handed over to Umaru Yar’Adua from the North-West. Yar’Adua died in 2010 while his deputy, Goodluck Jonathan, took over. Jonathan, who is from the South-South, handed over to Muhammadu Buhari from the North-Central in 2015. Buhari completed his second term in office and handed over to the incumbent President, Tinubu, who is from the South-West. After the South, the North will definitely agitate for this position again.
Although we are running some form of rotation now, many parts of Nigeria still cry about political marginalization. This is because the rotation principle is not well implemented. It has been between the North-West and the South-West. Other zones feel alienated from the scheme of things. The majority of people in the South-East, for instance, expected that since the South-West and South-South zones have had their turns in the presidency, that it should be the turn of the South-East in this current dispensation. This was not to be because there is no constitutional backing for rotation among the zones. The South-East still feels strongly marginalized resulting in some agitations for self-determination in that region.
This same feeling of marginalization occurs in some states where some sections of such a state feel they are alienated from the governance structure of the state. Rotation of political offices is what will give people a sense of belonging and equity. It will drastically reduce the political violence which the feeling of injustice engenders in some of our elections.
The questions are, why can’t we embark on serious restructuring or constitutional amendment that will give every section of this country a sense of belonging? Why have we continued to operate what we know has failed us without making efforts to change it?
It is because we like to lie to ourselves. The Senate said it would concur with the single-term cum rotational bill if it was the popular wish of Nigerians. This is the beginning of the failure of the bill. For the alterations to be passed into law, the two chambers of the National Assembly and the majority of the 36 state Houses of Assembly will also give their support. When it comes to issues of restructuring, some sections of the country feel agitated as if the word means dismembering the country. This is not how it should be.
President Tinubu is an apostle of restructuring. Now that he is in the driving seat in Nigeria, he should not relent on his promise to inject equity and unity in the jugular vein of our national life. Just as he changed the national anthem from “Arise o compatriots” to “Nigeria we hail thee”, many Nigerians expect that he should put machinery in motion to change the political structure that has yielded divisions in our polity.
Re: Defects in Tinubu’s Democracy Day speech
Casmir, Tinubu regaled us with rhetoric that is now a familiar groove on national issues! Tinubu’s speech laboured hard creating the impression that all is well with our elections! Of course, with Tinubu as a major beneficiary of our flawed elections, all cannot, but be well. Does the do–or–die approach of the Obasanjo era of 2003 and 2007 elections connote free & fair elections? Mix this with Tinubu’s FGSR (fight, grab, snatch & run) advocacy, then it becomes obvious that Nigeria’s democracy is on a purple patch. The foundation is on a weak electoral process. Hence, the superficial shift of the date of our democracy day has not had any intrinsic value to the lives of Nigerians nor to our democratic culture. Our democracy is still a toddler after 25 years of practice. A good government must be tolerant of oppositions’ constructive criticisms. She must be accommodative and do away with extravagancy! Prof. Nwosu has kept mute after the annulment of June 12. Post annulment, was he a defender of June 12? For him to be recognised, the election has to be de-annulled. The announcement of the results of the election has to be completed. If done, it would translate Abiola from being tagged a ‘presumed winner’ to an actual/genuine winner.
–Mike, Mushin Lagos, 0816 111 4572
•Also published in the Daily Sun of Monday, June 24, 2024
casmirjomecblog 
Leave a comment