As Nigeria reviews its constitution, a growing number of legal experts, civil society advocates, traditional leaders, and political analysts are championing the introduction of a single, non-renewable six-year tenure for the offices of the president and state governors. The proposal, they argue, would reduce the financial burden of re-election campaigns, enhance focus on governance, and minimize the misuse of state resources for political gain.
However, not all stakeholders are convinced. Some believe the real challenge lies not in the duration of political office, but in the absence of strong democratic institutions, electoral reforms, and mechanisms for public accountability.
Proponents: A Six-Year Term Encourages Focused Leadership
Saint Moses Eromosele, attorney and director of the Oneghe Sele Foundation, described a single six-year term as a more practical governance model for Nigeria.
“Frequent elections disrupt governance. In a country still grappling with development challenges, four-year cycles fuel political instability, encourage misuse of public funds for re-election campaigns, and distract leaders from their duties.”
Eromosele emphasized that a six-year term would prevent power abuse by incumbents and promote legacy building. “With one term, leaders would focus on delivery, not on survival,” he said.
Coalition of Northern Groups: Reform Needed to Curb Reelection Desperation
Comrade Jamilu Aliyu Charanchi, National Coordinator of the Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG), noted that the current two-term structure has become a liability.
“Incumbents manipulate state institutions and public funds for second-term bids. A single six-year term would reduce desperation, restore integrity to the electoral process, and help leaders concentrate on public service from the start.”
However, he added that such reform must be accompanied by stronger institutions, fiscal discipline, and enhanced transparency.
Benue Tribal Leaders: Stability and Development at Stake
Traditional leaders under the Mzough U Tiv (MUT), Ochetoha K’Idoma (OKI), and Om Nyi’Igede (ONI) platforms believe that a single term would stabilize the political system.
Chief Iorbee Ihagh, President-General of MUT Worldwide, argued:
“After two years, governance gives way to political scheming for re-election. We need a constitutional amendment to curb wasteful campaign spending and ensure leaders focus fully on governance.”
Civil Society and Media Voices: Cost and Accountability
Dickson Sule, a civil society advocate, maintained that a single term would lower election costs and enhance INEC’s efficiency.
Media analyst Isaac Abaa added that elections “drain public funds and strain institutions,” while a one-term limit would allow leaders to govern without distraction.
Academia: Time for True Reform
John Farinola, an academic, observed that:
“Leaders spend the first term consolidating power and planning for re-election. A six-year term would give them time to implement long-term policies while minimizing the role of money in politics.”
Eric Omare, Former IYC President: Six Years Is Enough
Omare supported the six-year limit as adequate for a leader to make meaningful impact. However, he acknowledged that power struggles for succession could still pose challenges.
Political Equity and Governance Focus — Blessing Adima
Blessing Adima, a political activist, said a six-year term would promote national unity and fairness in leadership rotation.
“In a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria, a single term promotes inclusion. Leaders would stop obsessing over re-election and instead concentrate on governance.”
Mixed Reactions: Concerns Over Accountability and Governance
While some view a six-year term as a pathway to reform, others are skeptical of its effectiveness.
Henry Ogunbiyi, lawyer and rights activist, said the real solution lies in:
“Building strong democratic institutions, enforcing election laws, and prosecuting electoral offenders. Term changes without these won’t fix the problem.”
Dotun Hassan, President of Yoruba Council Worldwide, agreed that public funds are wasted on re-election but emphasized that governance must be prioritized regardless of term length.
Skeptics Warn of Complacency and Corruption
Alhaji Muhammad Salihu Danlami, Speaker of the Arewa Youth Assembly, warned:
“Without re-election pressure, leaders may become less accountable. Many might not even pretend to work, which could worsen corruption.”
Anthony Sani, former Secretary-General of the Arewa Consultative Forum, argued that:
“Single terms lack performance incentives. Leaders should earn re-election through good governance, not be handed an unchallenged six-year mandate.”
Citing International Examples, Critics Urge Caution
Abagun Kole Omololu, Afenifere’s National Organising Secretary, cited Mexico and the Philippines as examples where single-term presidencies failed to prevent corruption or enhance governance.
“Nigeria’s crisis lies in weak accountability, not in tenure length. Until we reform our institutions, any change in term structure is superficial.”
Voices from the South: Restructuring and Reforms More Urgent
Joseph Ambakederimo, convener of the South-South Reawakening Group, opposed the proposal:
“The system isn’t the problem—the people operating it are. Changing the number of years won’t produce angels in government.”
Alagoa Morris, former CLO secretary, called for severe punishments for electoral offenses and better civic education over tenure tinkering.
Dissent from Clergy and Political Figures
Archbishop Biereonwu Livinus Onuagha dismissed the six-year term idea:
“Our leaders are too selfish. Without dealing with greed and injustice, no reform will work. Nigeria needs total restructuring.”
Hon. Steve Otaloro, APC spokesperson in Ondo, defended the current four-year renewable term:
“It promotes accountability, allows citizens to give feedback regularly, and keeps the political process vibrant.”
Conclusion: A Divided Debate on Nigeria’s Political Future
While many Nigerians believe a single six-year term could reduce electoral violence, campaign spending, and political distractions, others fear it may remove critical checks on leadership performance and worsen unaccountability.
The path forward, stakeholders agree, must combine tenure reforms with deeper institutional and constitutional changes to truly transform Nigeria’s political landscape.
