In the landscape of Nigerian politics, the notion of a six-year single term for presidents has resurfaced, after first heralded by former President Goodluck Jonathan as a panacea for the nation’s political woes. This proposal was revived by the current President Bola Ahmed Tinubu earlier this year. Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar is now championing the idea as he positions himself for the 2027 presidential race. However, this recurrent idea must be scrutinized closely, for it reeks of political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the Nigerian populace.
The core argument posited by proponents of a six-year single term is that it would allow leaders to focus on governance without the distractions of re-election campaigns. While this rationale appears appealing at first glance, it is fundamentally flawed and ultimately deceitful. Such a structure would primarily serve the interests of those in power, creating a facade of stability while entrenching their hold on governance. What Nigeria truly requires is not an alteration of term limits, but rather a commitment to effective and accountable governance.
Historically, Nigeria has seen periods of rapid progress, demonstrating that transformative change can occur in shorter time frames. Leaders like late General Murtala Ramat Muhammed and President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua exemplified how focused and principled leadership could catalyze significant national development in just a short time. Their tenures, though brief, left lasting legacies of reform and improvement in governance that continue to resonate today. Murtala Muhammed, for instance, initiated sweeping changes in the administrative structure of the country, tackled corruption and led by example during his “seven short months oof political electricity” in the country.
Yar’Adua’s commitment to the rule of law and his focus on addressing corruption set a standard for what leadership can achieve in a short span. These leaders proved that effective governance is not measured solely by the length of time in office, but by the commitment to progress, accountability, and the welfare of the people.
In stark contrast, the repeated calls for a six-year single term from various Nigerian leaders illustrate a worrying trend. Each iteration of this proposal has come from those who have consistently failed to address the pressing issues facing Nigerians. From Jonathan to Tinubu, and now Atiku, the pattern is clear: the push for a single six-year term is less about enhancing democratic efficiency and more about consolidating power and sidestepping accountability. It is a masquerade that distracts from the real need for transparency, integrity, and the prioritization of the people’s welfare.
The Nigerian populace has borne the brunt of ineffective governance for far too long. The socioeconomic challenges that plague the nation—rampant insecurity, economic instability, and widespread corruption—are not mere byproducts of political structure or tenure limits, but rather symptoms of leadership failures. The notion that altering term limits will resolve these issues is misguided at best. Nigerians are not clamoring for a superficial restructuring of tenure of office; they are yearning for a government that prioritizes their needs, ensuring an end to preventable insecurity, hardship and the provision of essential services.
Moreover, the idea of a six-year term presents a dangerous risk of entrenching power and diminishing checks and balances. With a single term, presidents may feel less compelled to act in the best interests of their people, knowing they are not accountable to the electorate for re-election. This could lead to an abuse of power which will further undermining democratic principles. The argument that a longer term would facilitate continuity in governance ignores the vital importance of accountability and the role of opposition in a healthy democracy.
As Alhaji Atiku Abubakar contemplates his aspirations for the presidency in 2027, he would be wise to reconsider his support for this proposal. Should he continue to advocate for a six-year single term, it will be perceived as a self-serving strategy designed to enhance his prospects at the expense of democratic values. Nigerians are astute enough to recognize that such a proposal is an attempt to create a political climate favorable to the elite while ignoring the voices of the people. They want leaders who prioritize their well-being over political expediency.
The current climate in Nigeria is ripe for change, especially with the burgeoning youth movement demanding accountability and transparency. The youth are increasingly impatient with the misgovernance that has plagued the country for the last decade under the APC and are poised to sweep away any politician who appears to prioritize personal or political interests over those of the nation. This movement represents a significant shift in the political landscape, one that will not tolerate empty promises or self-serving proposals. The demands of the youth for genuine change and effective governance should serve as a warning to all politicians: any attempt to sidestep the needs of the people will be met with appropriate response at the ballot.
The notion of a six-year term also raises questions about the accountability mechanisms in place. In a democracy, regular elections serve as a critical check on the power of elected officials. They ensure that leaders remain connected to the electorate and responsive to their needs. By proposing a single long term, politicians risk severing this vital link, leading to a further disconnect which already exists between the government and Nigerians. The desire for stability must not come at the cost of accountability.
Instead of seeking to cling or consolidate power through a six-year term, Nigerian leaders should be focusing on the reforms necessary to improve governance and restore public trust. This includes strengthening institutions, promoting ethical leadership, and ensuring that policies are designed to uplift the lives of the citizenry. Transparency and accountability should be at the forefront of any governance agenda, and leaders must be held accountable for their actions and decisions.
The voices of civil society and the electorate must be amplified in discussions about governance. It is imperative that Nigerians engage in meaningful dialogue about what they truly need from their leaders as it has been done elsewhere in Kenya, South Africa and Senegal. This includes prioritizing education, healthcare, infrastructure development, and security—issues that have been neglected for far too long. The focus should be on creating a society where citizens feel valued and where their needs are addressed through effective policies rather than cosmetic changes to the political system.
As we move closer to the 2027, the narrative surrounding governance in Nigeria must shift from superficial proposals to substantive discussions about accountability, integrity, and service. The challenges facing Nigeria are significant, but they are not insurmountable. With the right leadership that prioritizes the needs of the people and a commitment to genuine reform, the country can overcome its obstacles and realize its vast potential.
To conclude, the conversation surrounding a six-year single term for Nigerian presidents must be approached with skepticism. The proposal is a thinly veiled tactic employed by politicians to maintain power while avoiding accountability. Nigerians deserve a responsive government, not one that perpetuates a cycle of hardship under the guise of reform. As 2027 draws nearer, let us all amplify our demands for leaders who will champion true governance, prioritize the welfare of the people, and reject proposals that serve only to entrench the status quo
