Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has sparked controversy by alleging that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu harbours ambitions to extend his tenure beyond constitutional limits, likening him to Cameroon’s long-ruling President Paul Biya. Such claims, however, collapse under the weight of Nigeria’s democratic structures, constitutional safeguards, international commitments, and Tinubu’s reformist track record. Beyond this, the remarks reveal more about El-Rufai’s political bitterness than about Nigeria’s democratic reality.
This report examines the issue in depth — through historical, constitutional, comparative, and political lenses — to demonstrate why Nigeria is structurally protected from tenure elongation, why Tinubu’s focus is legacy not dictatorship, and why El-Rufai’s words are better understood as political blackmail than credible warning.
Nigeria’s Constitutional Order and the Finality of Term Limits
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is unambiguous: a president can serve a maximum of two four-year terms. Amending this framework requires a rigorous process: two-thirds approval from both chambers of the National Assembly, followed by ratification from at least 24 of the 36 State Houses of Assembly.
Unlike Cameroon, where constitutional changes in 2008 scrapped term limits under a compliant legislature, Nigeria’s federal structure makes such manipulation highly improbable. The National Assembly is often fractious and independent; state assemblies reflect diverse regional interests; and civil society remains vocal.
Attempts at elongation have failed before. In 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo’s alleged “third term agenda” collapsed spectacularly despite the support of some political elites. Legislators, civil society groups, media outlets, and the general public rejected the idea outright. That rejection remains a touchstone of Nigeria’s democratic culture — a reminder that tenure elongation has no legitimacy here.
Lessons from Nigeria’s Democratic Trajectory Since 1999
Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999 has produced important precedents:
Obasanjo (1999–2007): Handed over power after two terms despite immense influence. His third-term attempt failed, reinforcing the sanctity of constitutional limits.
Yar’Adua (2007–2010): His untimely death saw power transition constitutionally to Goodluck Jonathan, proving resilience under stress.
Jonathan (2010–2015): Despite incumbency, conceded defeat to Muhammadu Buhari in 2015 — the first time an African incumbent voluntarily acknowledged electoral loss.
Buhari (2015–2023): Stepped down after two terms without hesitation, reinforcing the institutionalisation of democratic norms.
President Tinubu inherits this trajectory. Far from breaking it, his record as a NADECO activist who fought against military dictatorship shows his long-standing commitment to democratic principles.
Why Paul Biya’s Cameroon Is Not a Useful Analogy
Cameroon under Paul Biya illustrates a very different political system. Since assuming office in 1982, Biya has entrenched himself through constitutional manipulation, weak opposition, and heavy centralisation of power. The 2008 constitutional amendment removed term limits entirely, facilitated by a pliant legislature. Opposition parties were fragmented and civic freedoms curtailed, leaving little room for resistance.
External dynamics also mattered. France’s continued control over Cameroon’s foreign reserves created an environment of external dependence that reinforced domestic authoritarianism.
Nigeria is structurally different. It is a federal state with 36 semi-autonomous states and strong opposition parties. Civil society is active, the press is robust, and elections are fiercely contested. The judiciary has in several instances overturned flawed election results, reinforcing its independence. Nigeria controls its financial reserves and does not rely on external colonial structures in the way Cameroon has.
The conclusion is clear: the Nigerian system — with its federalism, institutional checks, and democratic culture — makes Biya-style longevity structurally impossible.
Comparative Lessons from Africa
Elsewhere in Africa, leaders have sought tenure elongation with mixed results:
Uganda: President Yoweri Museveni scrapped term limits in 2005 and later age limits in 2017, remaining in power since 1986.
Rwanda: Paul Kagame extended his tenure through a 2015 referendum that approved constitutional changes.
Côte d’Ivoire: President Alassane Ouattara controversially ran for a third term in 2020, citing constitutional revision.
These cases share similarities: weak opposition, constitutional pliability, and limited checks on executive power. Nigeria differs sharply, with stronger legislative independence, federal dispersal of power, and a politically engaged electorate that would resist such manoeuvres.
International Implications of Tenure Elongation
Nigeria’s standing in the international community is another deterrent. As Africa’s largest democracy, Nigeria plays a leadership role in ECOWAS, the African Union, and the United Nations. It contributes troops to peacekeeping missions, mediates regional crises, and anchors West African stability.
Were Nigeria to attempt tenure elongation, the consequences would be swift and severe:
ECOWAS Sanctions: The bloc has consistently punished unconstitutional power grabs in Mali, Guinea, and Niger.
AU Suspension: The African Union has a zero-tolerance stance on unconstitutional changes of government.
Western Isolation: Nigeria’s partnerships with the United States, UK, and EU — vital for trade, security, and investment — would be jeopardised.
These diplomatic realities alone make tenure elongation an unthinkable path for Tinubu, who has cultivated strong international relationships to support his reform agenda.
Tinubu’s Reform Agenda: Building Legacy, Not Dictatorship
Since assuming office in May 2023, President Tinubu has embarked on bold reforms that reflect a focus on legacy rather than personal entrenchment:
Economic Reforms: Removal of the decades-long fuel subsidy (previously costing $10 billion annually), unification of the exchange rate, and efforts to stabilise public finances.
Immigration Modernisation: Launch of digital passport production lines capable of 24-hour service, solving years of backlog complaints.
Food Security: Declared a state of emergency on food security, mobilising resources for agricultural support, fertiliser distribution, and mechanisation.
Health Sector: Announced plans to expand universal health coverage and invest in primary healthcare systems.
Education: Committed to boosting student loans and funding to universities, while promoting vocational training to address youth unemployment.
Industry and Infrastructure: Pushing reforms in power, manufacturing, and transportation to make Nigeria more competitive globally.
These actions, though politically costly, are consistent with a leader seeking to secure a long-term legacy. To dismantle democratic institutions through tenure elongation would destroy those gains — an irrational contradiction to his vision.
Nigeria vs. Cameroon: The Comparative Fact Sheet
Nigeria’s Constitutional Safeguards
Fixed Term Limits: Two four-year terms, changeable only by rigorous amendment.
Federal Separation of Powers: 36 states with independent legislatures and courts.
Democratic Culture: Peaceful transfers of power since 1999; public resistance to elongation.
International Role: ECOWAS anchor, AU member, global credibility at stake.
Cameroon’s Political Trajectory under Biya
Constitutional Manipulation: 2008 amendment removed term limits.
Centralised Power: Unitary system with limited checks.
External Dependency: France’s control over reserves reduced internal accountability.
Weak Civil Society: Opposition suppressed, protests curtailed.
Key Insight: Nigeria’s dispersed federalism, vibrant civic culture, and international commitments ensure that Biya-style entrenchment is politically and structurally impossible.
El-Rufai’s Political Motives
El-Rufai’s claim is less about constitutional reality and more about personal rivalry. After being denied a ministerial position in Tinubu’s administration, reports suggest he vowed to obstruct Tinubu’s 2027 re-election. His current rhetoric appears designed to blackmail voters by painting Tinubu as an aspiring dictator.
El-Rufai’s professional background as a technocrat and surveyor does not carry the same grassroots political depth as Tinubu’s career. Unlike Tinubu, who built his political base as a Lagos governor and national party leader, El-Rufai’s politics often relied on elite positioning. His remark about tenure elongation betrays either a misunderstanding of Nigeria’s democratic institutions or deliberate mischief aimed at stirring doubt.
The Dangers of False Narratives
Dangerous claims of tenure elongation are not harmless political banter. They risk undermining public confidence in democratic institutions, fuelling unrest, and creating unnecessary polarisation. The Department of State Services (DSS) and other security agencies have a responsibility to caution public figures against incendiary rhetoric that could destabilise the country.
While free speech is guaranteed, spreading deliberate misinformation that could incite unrest crosses the line into national security concerns. Nigerians should ignore such distractions and focus on holding leaders accountable through democratic means, not speculative rumours.
Conclusion: Legacy, Not Elongation
Nigeria is not Cameroon. Its constitutional safeguards, vibrant democracy, and international commitments ensure that tenure elongation is politically unworkable and diplomatically disastrous. President Tinubu’s track record shows a leader focused on reforming the economy, modernising institutions, and leaving a legacy of renewal.
El-Rufai’s remarks, therefore, should be seen for what they are: political theatre driven by personal grievance. Nigerians should not be misled. Tinubu’s presidency will be judged not by rumours of elongation but by the reforms and legacies he leaves behind.
Princess G. Adebajo-Fraser MFR.
The National Patriots.
