Before the House of Representatives proceeded on its 2019 break for the yuletide, a proposed bill seeking alteration to the 1999 constitution (as amended) to make provisions for a six-year single term for offices of the president and state governors could not scale second reading. JOSHUA EGBODO writes on the drama surrounding the failed move.
The first attempt
Way back in 2011, then incumbent president, Dr Goodluck Jonathan, had mulled the idea of instituting a six-year single term for the office of the president and governors of states. The move immediately stoked up controversy, and widespread debates that the then president was playing some smart cards at elongating his tenure in office.
His announcement of the plan to transmit the proposal to the National Assembly sparked speculations that the bill is specifically intended to help the president elongate his tenure of office as he will be the first beneficiary of the amendment. President Jonathan’s spokesman, Reuben Abati (Special Adviser on media and publicity), in a statement to that effect, explained that the tenure of members of the National and State Houses of Assembly will also be a little more than four years.
The communication suggested that the length of time elected parliamentarians stays would be determined by their respective constituents. Expectedly, and in view of the perceived reactions, the presidency followed with further justifications of the move, explaining that if pushed through, the amendment would help public officers focus on development and reduce distractions of too frequent elections.
“President Jonathan’s commitment to a single term for the president and governors is borne out of a patriotic zeal, after a painstaking study and belief that the constitutionally guaranteed two terms for presidents and governors is not helping the focus of governance and institutionalization of democracy at this stage of our development. A longer term for lawmakers would also help to stabilise the polity”, Abati said in the statement.
According to the president, extension of the tenure of elected officials will help to reduce the cost and acrimony associated with contesting for public offices. “President Jonathan is concerned about the acrimony which the issue of re-election, every four years, generates both at the Federal and State levels.
“The nation is still smarting from the unrest, the desperation for power and the overheating of the polity that has attended each general election, the fall-out of all this is the unending inter and intra-party squabbles which have affected the growth of party democracy in the country, and have further undermined the country’s developmental aspirations.
“In addition, the cost of conducting party primaries and the general elections have become too high for the economy to accommodate every four years. The proposed amendment Bill is necessary to consolidate our democracy and allow elected executives to concentrate on governance and service delivery for their full term, instead of running governments with re-election as their primary focus”, the then presidential spokesman submitted.
To douse the suspicion, Abati explained further that the proposed amendment will not lead to elongation of the tenure of President Jonathan as it will not have a retrospective effect. “The details of the bill will be clear in terms of its provisions when it is forwarded to the National Assembly for consideration. The president makes it clear that his push for a single tenure for the office of the president and that of the governors is not borne out of any personal interest.
“The proposed amendment will not have anything to do with him as a person; what he owes Nigerians is good governance, and he is singularly committed to this. Besides, it is trite law that the envisaged amendment cannot have a retroactive effect. This means that whatever single-term tenure that is enacted into law by the National Assembly will take effect from 2015 The President also states that the greater good of Nigeria is greater than the ambition of any one individual.
“The envisaged bill is part of the Jonathan administration’s transformation agenda aimed at sanitizing the nation’s politics. The president believes that this single move, when actualized, will change the face of our politics and accelerate the overall development of our nation. If the proposed amendment is accepted by the National Assembly, the President assures that he will not in any way be a beneficiary”, he stated.
In spite of the explanations however, the idea was to be rested when it was all glaring that it was difficult to subdue the deep rooted suspicion, that the proposed bill was a backdoor entry plan by Jonathan to elongate his stay in the Aso Rock Presidential Villa.
The second coming
One of the speakership contenders in the build up to inauguration of 9th assembly of the House of Representatives, Hon John Dyegh never hid his desire for a little longer, and single term tenure for office of the president and governor of a state. He was also of the idea that office term for members of the parliaments should be extended beyond four years, and made unlimited. It was a key point in his campaign for speakership of the lower legislative chamber of the nation’s apex parliament. So even after backing out of the race that eventually saw the emergence of Hon Femi Gbajabiamila as speaker of the current House of Representatives, the Benue state-born lawmaker kept close to chest, the idea.
It was, however, dramatic when Dyegh’s proposed amendment bill to that effect got listed for second reading last week. His colleagues overwhelmingly voted against it.
Members’ views
To majority of members of the house, the length of tenure of office for public officers doesn’t seem to be the real problem in Nigeria’s political system, but rather getting the electoral process right. In debating the general principles of the bill therefore, majority of members opposed the proposal, arguing that there was nothing wrong with the system in operation today.
Leading debate on its general principles, Dyegh argued that the need for the proposal was necessitated by the fact that a single term, especially for federal and state lawmakers will allow them to have more experience instead of being rejected or reelected every four years, adding that since 1999, the percentage of new members who lack institutional experience in lawmaking have been on a steady rise, which, according to him is having a negative effect on the National and State Houses of Assembly.
However, in the opinion of Hon Henry Archibong, the focus should be on improving Nigeria’s electoral process and not on the length of time an elected officer stays in office. “How can we make electoral processes and elections credible and less expensive? This is the issue we ought to address and not the number of terms”, he said.
Sargius Ogun, who was one of the members that spoke in support of the proposed legislation, could not convince his colleagues. He said the proposal will help in addressing the energy and resources usually deployed in efforts at retaining power at all cost.
Yusuf Gagdi in opposing the bill said introducing the amendment at this time will add to the already existing apprehension about 2023′ which he noted will portray the 9th National Assembly as planning to make laws that will extend members’ tenure, adding that tampering with extant arrangement would yield negative consequences.
Opposition
Also, Haruna Dederi opposed the proposed amendment, saying that bringing it will heighten the speculations that, the 9th assembly is planning with the executive to extend the tenure of President Buhari and that of the current state governors. He added that allowing the bill scale through would be tantamount to admitting to the wide speculations that the current National Assembly was a rubber stamp in the hands of the executive arm of the federal government.
Minority Leader of the House, Hon Ndudi Elumelu, also argued that rather than seeking a tenure extension, the immunity clause as provided in the existing constitution should be expunged, which he said would help in addressing the perceived acts of impunity by elected executive leaders.
Speaking on the allowance of right of reply after several arguments against its passage, sponsor of the bill, Dyegh said he was not by any means canvassing for tenure elongation for the President or anybody, adding that the bill was intended to enhance outcome of the 2023 general, by reducing acts of desperation that usually characterize the desire for second term in the existing system.
When a question was put for voice votes on the desirability or otherwise of the bill scaling second reading by the Deputy Speaker, Idris Wase, who presided over the session, majority of members voted in the negative, signaling a second failure in the attempt at adjusting the tenure of the president and governors of states.
Final death of idea?
The House is expected to resume regular plenary from the yuletide break on January 28, 2020, with the leadership promising Nigerians that further alterations to the nation’s extant constitution would commence as it reconvenes, it is however to many analysts, doubtful that a move in the direction of tenure adjustment for the president and governors of states would ever resurface, at least not likely in the life of the current assembly.