Time to rethink rotational presidency

At the outset of the present civilian democratic dispensation, something out of place with democratic practise occurred that was glossed over in the euphoria of expectations of a new democratic dawn by Nigerians after a long period of military rule. The military government of General Abubakar Abdulsalam in its efforts to transit the country into civilian rule sought to tactically exclude certain political figures from the northern part of the country from contesting the presidency of the country. The move was intended to give effect to the regime’s desire to ‘’compensate’’ the south western part of the country from the traumatic effect of the June 12 1993 election which Chief Moshood Kasimawo Abiola from that part of the country had by all accounts won the elections which was inexplicably annulled by the military government at the time headed by General Ibrahim Babangida.

It was the wisdom of majority of Nigerians that as part of the national reconciliation mood and efforts that was necessary to usher in a new dispensation in the country, a political personality from the south western part of the country should be elected as president of Nigeria in the new civilian democratic dispensation.

In implementing this desire by Nigerians, the Abdulsalaam military regime knew that this move was not in congruence with democratic tenets as well as the new constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which the regime was drafting at the time. In the entire constitution there was no section which provided for rotation of the presidential office or any other elective position for that matter.

Secondly the regime and Nigerians knew that in if it came to voting with the overwhelming voting numbers the northern part of the country could hope to present a candidate from the region and thus defeat anybody from the south. But in the spirit of the times, it was necessary to contrive a situation where the desire of Nigerians to move on from the political crises was fulfilled by allowing the presidency rotate to the south west.

And although it would have been contradictory and ultra vires to insert the rotation principle into the constitution as it conflicts with the very essential and more fundamental principle of freedom of exercising individual rights of choice and association, it nevertheless was considered as an exigency in order to move the nation forward. Indeed considering that those individuals aggrieved by the measure had gone to court and challenged it successfully, the military regime wisely pushed the principle of rotation to the political parties but not the constitution. And thus it was that in the elections to usher in the new civilian dispensation in 1999 two candidates from the south west featured in the elections to the exclusion of candidates from the other regions in the country.

Now that 26 years after, as we inch towards the next round of elections in 2027, the expediency of rotational presidency which featured in 1999 is still being hawked around, it has become necessary to examine whether the factor is still relevant to our political dispensation or not.

Just recently Doyin Okupe former presidential spokesman in the Godluck Jonathan administration remarked that the rotational presidency factor between the North and Southern parts of the country should not be jettisoned and that the south ‘’must be allowed to do its eight years in power’’. Talking in a similar vein, Laolu Akande for chief spokesman to former Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo was quoted as saying that ‘’ The rotation of power between the northern and southern parts of the country should not be truncated. The southern part of the country should be allowed to do its eight years in power in order to ensure national stability’’ (sic). Some other personalities have voiced similar views in support of the rotational presidency.

Just as well there are also many who have vehemently expressed a contrary view and their argument is anchored on the fact that it is unconstitutional to deny any eligible Nigerian the right to contest any elective office on the altar of rotation of elective offices which is strictly speaking a political party affair. If the issue of rotational presidency was compelling enough and germane to the well-being of Nigeria as a nation, it would have been considered and included as one of the several amendments in the constitution since 1999.

As it is now the issue of rotational presidency which was intended as an exigency back in 1999 and not considered weighty enough to be included in the constitution which is the ground norm of our laws is now being considered and elevated above our constitution in the matter of political transition and succession by political parties and vested individuals.

Having come this far in our democratic journey it is necessary to reiterate that the constitution does not recognise rotation of political offices as a factor of political succession, nor does it provide for an automatic 8 year term for holders of elective offices. The framers of the constitution know that such issues run contrary to the democratic principles of choice by voters on who to elect and for how long based on the performance of such elective office holders. It follows therefore that any contrivance under whatever guises that seeks to deny the Nigerian voter the right to choose who he deems fit in an election is undemocratic and cannot be sustainable.

Indeed rotational presidency apart from denying the Nigerian people the right to choose has tended to engender a tendency towards political exclusion and provincialism, dubious entitlement and lack of accountability, disregard for rule of law and recourse to political despotism, all factors which negate the tenets of democratic practice.

In this regard we witnessed how President Olusegun Obasanjo attempted to subvert the constitution in order to seek an unconstitutional third term in office which was only thwarted by the spirited efforts of Nigerians.
Perhaps at this juncture in our political history when the President Tinubu administration has foisted on the Nigerian people the most anti-people economic policies and is demonstrating disturbing anti-democratic tendencies, it is imperative to allow his fate to be determined by the Nigerian voters who elected him and to whom he owes his power. His re-election in 2027 should not be on the basis of an unconstitutional factor of rotation but rather on the basis of what the voters think of his performance in the 4 years he had been in office from 2023 to 2027. Nigerians should be able to vote for anybody from any part of the country who show the required traits in leadership and who is capable and willing to empathise and work for the benefit of all. The rights of Nigerians to make their democratic choices should not be circumscribed by the decisions of any political party for its own convenience.

We chose democracy in favour of military despotism and we must be willing to abide by its tenets. In the course of our political journey we had broken grounds; voting out an incumbent President Jonathan in 2015 after one term, denying Governor Ambode of Lagos a second term and many others in that respect. In America too, late President Jimmy Carter spent only one term in office between 1976 and 1980. The likes of Presidents Donald Trump who is now back to power, Herbert Hoover, John Adams, Lyndon Johnson too were all one-term presidents.

President Tinubu’s no show on Remembrance Day January 15.

It is a day set aside to remember the millions who have died over the years in the service of our fatherland Nigeria. In terms of significance it is only second to our Independence day October 1 and as such no Nigerian leader military or civilian had ever absented himself from presiding over the occasion as required.

On this year’s occasion however President Tinubu was in Dubai UAE at a conference which should have been attended by at best a Minister or a low-level official.

Gadu can be reached via [email protected] and 08035355706 (Texts only)