From all indications, the Seventh National Assembly which officially took off on Monday, June 6, already has some goals set for it. And one of these goals would be to ensure that a constitutional amendment takes place before the expiration of its four-year lifespan.
The 1999 Constitution, which the country currently operates, has already witnessed three amendments in the last 15 months.
Hope that an amendment would take place for certainty has already been firmly established by the two most senior principal officers in the legislative arm of government at different fora.
President of the Senate and the Chairman of the National Assembly, Senator David Mark, at a grand reception in his honour by his kinsmen in Otukpo, Benue State, declared his commitment to ensuring that another round of constitutional amendment takes place which should provide an opportunity for the creation of more states in the country.
The previous amendments carried out in 2010 dwelt mainly on electoral reform and electoral related subjects. But the Senate president used the occasion of his home coming, a week after his historic re-election as the Senate President for another four years, to assure his kinsmen that their dream of an Apa State could still be realized. He stated that the creation of additional states would be in the interest of Nigerians, as it would spread development to every nook and cranny of the country.

His words: "I am committed to it and I believe that creation of additional states will be in the interest of our people because development will be nearer to them."

Less than two weeks after Senator Mark gave the hint of the determination of the Senate to amend the Constitution, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, also hinted of a plan to amend the constitution when he said the House will soon propose an amendment to the Nigerian Constitution to make provisions that will guarantee the autonomy of the Houses of Assembly across the country. The Speaker stated this while receiving members of the 5th session of the Delta State House of Assembly who paid him a courtesy visit in the Green chamber.
Interestingly, Senator Mark’s optimism which was reinforced by Tambuwal’s declaration has, at once, opened a window of opportunity for both state creation and "other urgent issues of national interest" to be brought to the amendment table.
And among the other issues of national interest that have been identified are the clamour for true and fiscal federalism, the tenure of elected executive office holders, indigenes and settlers dichotomy and others not immediately relevant to this analysis.
In the last three weeks, following the euphoria elicited by the declaration of the senate president, the political circuit has been abuzz with talks about tinkering with the tenure of executive office holders, specifically, the president, the vice president and the governors of the 36 states of the federation with their deputies.
The talk in town has been that the presidency plans to engineer an amendment of the relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution that deals with the tenure of these political office holders in the country.
According to Sections 135 (2) and 180 (2) of the 1999 Constitution, the president, his vice and the governors and their deputies are to enjoy a tenure of four years that could be renewed, making it a total of eight years for any individual to hold such an executive office.

Since 1979 when Nigeria adopted the presidential system of government in the Second Republic, the tenure of these officers has been pegged at four years which is renewable.
The presidency, it has been alleged is proposing a single term to replace the two terms of four years each as has been the practice. Just now, between five and seven years of a single term is being touted as the preferred choice of the presidency.
According to available information, Aso Rock is uncomfortable with the sheer viciousness and the must-win attitude of some incumbents seeking a second tenure. This attitude has been identified as the major factor which fuels electoral violence and tension across the country during campaign and election periods.

The argument has been that elections would be less tense and would come with minimal violence where the incumbent’s job is to simply ensure that he grooms a successor if he does not want his own party to suffer defeat at the polls.
In recent times, failure to return to an office to do a second term has been interpreted and seen as terribly odd and a thing of shame. And with the enormous power at their command and being in a position to dispense patronage in a country that is so badly riddled with poverty makes every other person a man with a price that could be bought and as governors or the president, they can always get people to do their biddings by paying the right amount. Beside, in a country where praise singing and sycophancy have been elevated to an art, even the incumbents are largely held hostage by courtiers, hangers- on and sundry elements who capitalize on electoral campaigns to get as much money from the person involved as they can. And because they don’t want to rock the boat, those concerned simply tag on, almost helplessly.
It has, therefore, been argued that for a saner electoral climate and higher probability of free and fair elections, these powerful executive posts should be made a single term.

Beside, there is also the argument that the electoral system stands to gain as it would automatically translate into staggered elections in the country. While the legislative and assembly elections take place this year, the executive, that is, the presidential and gubernatorial elections could come a year or two after. The immediate advantage of this would be that the electoral umpire will be able to concentrate on one election at a time. Secondly, all eyes would be focused on it with the aim of pointing out the shortcomings. That way, the electoral process would become finer as the days go by.

[b]Presidential signal
Signs that the tenures of governors and the president could be tinkered with emerged a few days before President Goodluck Jonathan was sworn in as President and Commander - in - Chief on May 29.
At the "2011 Presidential Inauguration Lecture", in Abuja with the theme, "A Transformation Agenda for Accelerating National Development," Jonathan, in his remarks noted that a four-year tenure was too short for a president and governors to make significant impact.
Jonathan had remarked: "I will not talk about the tenure of the government. The constitution has said four years, though some believe that the tenure is too short to make any change which I also believe. I believe because if you are a new person and you are elected as a governor today, it will take one to one and half years for you to really stabilize. And you also know that some members of your cabinet are not good and that is why in most cases, after one year or two, Mr. President reshuffles the cabinet and by the time you want to go for another two and half years, it is another election and you are all busy about winning election. That is a constitutional problem", he declared.
Analysts say it was a subtle way of saying the four-year constitutional prescription is no longer a reliable prescription and that the presidency might have given the go ahead signal to get the necessary machinery in motion to amend the provision.
From Jonathan’s analysis, for a governor or a president to make meaningful impact, he would need about a year to "settle down." And if he has another five or six years to work, then he would very most likely do something reasonable. On the contrary, with one year gone out of four, the governor or president has just about two years to work as he must face re-election challenges which would be a veritable source of distraction and, therefore, may not be able to do much even if he has the best of intentions.[/b]

The pros and cons
Expectedly, Jonathan’s subtle suggestion on tenure has drawn both supporters and antagonists more or less in equal proportion even though the suggestion would not be the first of its kind. In the past, calls for this vital aspect of the constitution to be tinkered with have been made. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo had, during his second term in office, added his support to the proposal. But many believe that the call by Obasanjo lacked national interest as it was aimed at extending his tenure which later played out in the third term agenda.
Those who support President Jonathan’s argument that a single term of four years is too small for elected office holders to make appreciable impact point to the Russian example where an individual can only hold the office for a single five-year term and could run for it again provided it is not consecutive and it has helped in stabilizing their democracy which was rooted in brutal dictatorship.

Again, those in favour of the proposal have also said that political office holders barely do anything in office in the later part of their administration because at that point, the only important task for them is usually geared towards securing another mandate to their offices or another one. They also posited that huge amount of state resources are devoted for election by politicians seeking second term in office.
A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the South West, who pleaded anonymity, said it would reduce corruption and tension in the polity. "For me, I support the idea. I think it will be better because it will ensure that the elected officials will not need to worry about planning for re-election in four years. It will allow them to focus on doing the wishes of those who elected them into office".
They also contended that it was glaring during the last April election that the machinery of government in many states and even at the centre was grounded at a time because of the politics of second term.
In many states of the federation, organs of government were almost paralyzed as a result of the infighting within the ruling parties as governors, senators and members of the House of Representatives were active participants. These are part of what proponents of the single term agenda are saying would be eliminated if it is eventually carried through.
Festus Okoye, legal practitioner and National Coordinator of the Independent Election Monitoring Group(IEMG), however, feels that the two terms of a four- year tenure should be maintained.

In his reaction to the issue, Okoye submitted that: "The hallmark of democracy and democratic elections is the opportunity and promise of choice at designated and agreed intervals. The promise of choice and the hope and opportunity of exercising democratic franchise and affirming or rejecting a mandate are the hallmarks of democratic elections. It is on this basis that most democratic regimes through the constitution pegs the terminal date of most regimes at four years and requires that thereafter that mandate must be renewed or extinguished.
"It is this process of mandate renewal and the fear of rejection that makes leaders accountable because they have to renew their mandates at intervals and or be voted out at such intervals.
It is also important to realize that a one off seven-year mandate has inbuilt dictatorship in it. This means that the occupant is not looking forward to or towards any tenure renewal and can act with impunity and do things that are antithetical to democratic ideals.

"Such is not good for a developing society like Nigeria. It is not good for development and it is not good for accountability and transparency in governance.
"Moreover, a four-year period is enough for any president or governor to carry out projects and engage in enduring policies. What is required is that people and their parties must prepare and not grope in the dark and spend six months in office before appointing their ministers and commissioners.
"It is, therefore, dangerous for Nigeria to adopt a single seven-year tenure for the president and the governors as they will never be accountable to anybody. Open societies are accountable and dictatorships are problematic", Okoye opined.
Comrade Yerima Shetima, National President of the Arewa Youth Consultative Forum (AYCF), also knocked the proposal in his reaction. Speaking to The Nation on the phone on Thursday morning, Shetima said his fear for a single term that will make it impossible for the electorate to decide the fate of the governor of the president is that every new person who comes into government will always strive to destroy the legacy of the past ruler in a bid to make himself more popular.
"Four years may not be enough, but the truth is that our democracy is not mature enough. If we have a single term, I can assure you that everybody who comes into government will not think of continuity but find ways and means to quickly erase the legacy of his predecessor and replace it with his own programme".
Dr Abubakar Momoh, Political Science lecturer, Lagos State University (LASU), said that neither one-term or two-term tenure is Nigeria’s problem. He identified corruption as the problem that will make it impossible for holders of the office to perform.
"The problem lies in the issue of succession. Even if we adopt one single term of ten years, it does not solve the problem of corruption? Does that translate into efficiency, regular power supply?

"I think what the political parties should address first is the case of internal democracy which will allow for an acceptable candidate. The people should be able to choose those they want. In fact, the idea of one single term of six years without adequately addressing the mechanism that thrusts forward these candidates is a subversion of democracy", he declared.
Cleric turned politician, Reverend Chris Okotie of the Fresh Party described it as "a misplacement of priority by the PDP government to think of the idea at the moment. It shows the ineptitude of the current administration to governance. The best thing to do at this point that Nigeria is seeking direction is for the PDP to reflect deeply and see how it addresses the basic needs of the people than the longevity of administration", he stated.
A member of the House of Representatives on the platform of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Hon. Hamzat Ganiyu, feels that the current arrangement is good enough. "The current arrangement of four years of two terms is better. I do not support the idea of one single term of six years. And if they go ahead to achieve that, those who should benefit from it are those to be elected later and not the current ones", Hamzat said.

http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/index.php/politics/13272-mulling-over-single-term-tenure.html

[b]I will not talk about the tenure of the government. The constitution has said four years, though some believe that the tenure is too short to make any change which I also believe. I believe because if you are a new person and you are elected as a governor today, it will take one to one and half years for you to really stabilize. And you also know that some members of your cabinet are not good and that is why in most cases, after one year or two, Mr. President reshuffles the cabinet and by the time you want to go for another two and half years, it is another election and you are all busy about winning election. That is a constitutional problem", he declared.
Analysts say it was a subtle way of saying the four-year constitutional prescription is no longer a reliable prescription and that the presidency might have given the go ahead signal to get the necessary machinery in motion to amend the provision.
From Jonathan’s analysis, for a governor or a president to make meaningful impact, he would need about a year to "settle down." And if he has another five or six years to work, then he would very most likely do something reasonable. On the contrary, with one year gone out of four, the governor or president has just about two years to work as he must face re-election challenges which would be a veritable source of distraction and, therefore, may not be able to do much even if he has the best of intentions.[/b]

as you all can see our president is not serious, it took 4 yrs for jonathan to transform lagos

it took 3 yrs for idangbon and buhari to transform nigeria

why can't our president just use his 8 yrs in 2 terms to transform nigeria

why must he use ONE yr to settle down before he starts working when he has been the president a year before after yaradua's death

is our president serious at all

Phate07:



^^Now, that's one long article. How many words? 11000?

@topic
A single term of 5years is okay. 5 years is long enough for any serious minded leader to consolidate his achievements.

read the highlighed parts i know people could not read everything

Now why even 5 yrs, why can't he just use 4 yrs since he had already had 1 yr wasted yr to start with