By SaharaNews247
A proposal for a single six-year tenure for Nigeria’s President and State Governors recently stirred nationwide discussions, highlighting concerns about the cost of elections, governance distractions, and democratic accountability.
What is the current status of this proposal, and what could it mean for the future of governance in Nigeria? Here is a clear, fact-based breakdown.
Why The Proposal Emerged
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution currently allows Presidents and Governors to serve four-year terms, renewable once. However, repeated concerns about election-related violence, high campaign spending, and the distractions of re-election campaigns have led many to consider a non-renewable, single-term structure.
In June 2024, a group of 35 lawmakers in the House of Representatives proposed a constitutional amendment to introduce a single six-year tenure for the President and Governors. The proposal also included holding all elections on the same day and implementing zonal rotation of power to foster inclusivity and national unity.
Prominent legal figures such as Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Afe Babalola (SAN) expressed support, arguing that leaders would focus more on governance if re-election pressures were removed.
What Happened To The Proposal?
In November 2024, the House of Representatives debated the bill during its second reading. Despite initial interest, the proposal was rejected due to concerns about its practicality and potential impact on accountability.
Key reasons for the rejection included fears that leaders might become less accountable if they did not need to seek re-election, potential complexities with implementing rotational leadership, and the belief that electoral and governance reforms, rather than tenure changes, are more critical for Nigeria’s democracy.
As of July 2025, there has been no reintroduction of the bill, and the single six-year tenure proposal is not under active consideration in the National Assembly.
Why Some Nigerians Support A Single Six-Year Tenure
Supporters of the proposal believe it would promote focused leadership, allowing leaders to pursue long-term plans without the distractions of re-election campaigns. They argue that a single tenure could reduce the enormous costs associated with frequent elections and minimize the violence that often accompanies re-election contests.
Others see the potential for greater political inclusion, as zonal rotation could give all regions a fair opportunity to produce leaders, fostering unity in a diverse nation.
Why Others Oppose The Proposal
Opponents of the proposal caution that removing the possibility of re-election could reduce accountability, as leaders might feel less compelled to deliver on their promises. Critics also note that Nigeria’s governance challenges are rooted in systemic issues like corruption and weak institutions, which a change in tenure alone cannot address.
There are also concerns that enforcing zonal rotation could create conflicts over which region should produce the next leader, potentially leading to additional political tension.
The Cost Of Elections in Nigeria
Elections in Nigeria are among the most expensive in Africa. For instance, the 2023 general elections cost the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over ₦300 billion (approximately $650 million), excluding security and judicial costs for resolving disputes. Elections often disrupt economic activities due to insecurity and movement restrictions.
Advocates of the six-year tenure proposal believe reducing the frequency of elections would lower these financial and social costs, allowing more funds to be directed toward development projects.
Lessons From Other Countries
Countries like Mexico and Argentina operate a single six-year tenure for their presidents without re-election, aiming to prevent power consolidation and promote governance focus. However, these examples also show that tenure structure alone does not guarantee good governance without strong institutions, transparent elections, and active citizen engagement.
What It Takes To Change The Constitution
To implement a single six-year tenure in Nigeria, the following steps would be necessary:
1. Reintroduction of the bill in the National Assembly.
2. Approval by two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
3. Approval by two-thirds of Nigeria’s State Houses of Assembly.
4. Presidential assent to complete the process.
This rigorous process requires broad political and regional consensus, which remains a significant hurdle.
What This Means for Nigeria’s Democracy
The proposal for a single six-year tenure is part of the broader conversation on improving governance and democracy in Nigeria. While the recent attempt has been rejected, it underscores the need for continuous discussions on reducing election costs, enhancing leadership focus, and addressing electoral violence.
For now, Nigeria will continue with its four-year renewable term system for Presidents and Governors. However, citizens and policymakers must continue to seek reforms that strengthen institutions, improve electoral transparency, and ensure that governance truly serves the people.
Join The Conversation
Do you believe adopting a single six-year tenure would improve governance in Nigeria, or should the focus remain on strengthening electoral systems and accountability under the current structure?
Share your views in the comments below and stay connected with SaharaNews247 for factual, engaging, and timely updates on governance, politics, and issues that impact your daily life.
