Amin Buba Dibal
The 10th National Assembly has fixed December 2025 as the deadline for the 6th alteration to the Nigerian constitution.
According to the House of Representatives, the amendment is to, amongst other reasons, ensure credibility in the 2027 election cycle in Nigeria.
As rightly emphasized, Nigerians expect a strengthened electoral system from the constitutional review. In this regard, a key practice in our politics that needs constitutional backing is rotational presidency between the broad northern and southern regions of Nigeria.
The amalgamation of 1914 has created the foundation for the make-up of the present-day Nigeria state and with independence in 1960 sealed the destiny of many national ethnic groups in a single state called Nigeria.
However, the idea of a nationhood, though proclaimed has remained weak amongst Nigerian citizens over the years since independence as political elites have not done much to ensure a cohesive nation built round unifying national ideals, especially civilian administrations, but largely tilted towards regional, religious and tribal tendencies in leadership.
Thus, a situation of “negative peace”– a seeming calm situation but characterized by subtle and deep suspicion, mistrust, and abundant bad will – in our social coexistence then emerged and was further worsened by the 1966 Ironsi coup, Gowon counter-coup and the annulment of the June 12 electoral victory of MKO Abiola.
Unfortunately, as new governments are formed progressively, there seems to be more endangering of our diversity and the divide widening as we see for example a Muslim-Muslim for the presidency in 1992 was not much an issue and MKO won the election but a similar Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket became a very contentious and divisive issue 33 years after, during the 2023 elections when we were expected to me more evolved and socially cohesive as a nation but that was not the reality,
This being said, that does not mean that acknowledging political plurality, ethnic or regional identities in the process of building a patriotic nation of people are bad in their entirety, there can be a unified country with its diversity maintained and managed especially if its leadership play politics in good faith for the good of countrymen.
We find examples of plural societies that have remained broadly united as a nation such as the Swiss Federal Council, where its presidency rotates annually among the seven council members; and in Belgium where power and representation in national government are shared based on regional governments created and maintained along ethnicity and geography for the Dutch, French and Germans.
The societies alluded to here cannot be said to be the norm of power rotation has held back their development, national patriotism, because importantly, the power sharing arrangements are done in good faith.
The grievance around June 12, mistrust and suspicion amongst regions in Nigeria culminated to a more pronounced emergence of an elite consensus power rotation notion in the polity at the beginning of the 4th republic in 1999 between northern and southern Nigeria.
Following the grievance and agitation of the south-west region along pro-democracy elements across the country and the need to appease the regional and pro-democracy proponents over the June 12 election victory annulment won by MKO Abiola, General Obasanjo was supported to become President in 1999.
Largely led by the northern political elite, General Obasanjo was brought to power to respond to the regional suspicion and serve as a stabilizing strategy for the polity, which indeed served.
To argue for “just an ideal” and open contest for the presidency in Nigeria’s democracy, in other words jettison the presidential power rotation norm is to deny the place of our socio-political evolution as a nation and the reality of our social fragility as a nation which we cannot by a whim escape from.
There is no cast in stone model for democracy but norms in any given democracy in practice is predicated on historical and sociological contexts.
But basically, democracy should across board offer citizens of a state the platform to determine the choice of leaders they want based on established laws, norms and principles as far as participation is concerned.
The power rotation idea, “a gentle man’s agreement” between northern and southern Nigeria though noble in its ideal, its sustainability is however now threatened by the challenge of an ever-weakening ethical political culture unable to guarantee a gentleman’s agreement in our politics, desperation of politicians for power and unconstitutionality of the norm.
Thus, 25 years and counting in the fourth republic, the rotation of power is now assuming the status of a rather serious threat to the potential for a credible presidential election in Nigeria.
The threat path is found in arguments in our political space by those who support the current President, Bola Tinubu in the face of the opposition who allege he did not win the 2023 election, but the establishment including the Judiciary had to validate his election in what seems to be in sympathy for a balance of power between the north and south of Nigeria after Buhari served eight years. That southern person must be a Tinubu from the ruling party and not an Obi.
Furthermore, the threat path to credible presidential elections and our democracy is also found in arguments of a “most” two terms for the president to conclude the “slot” for southern Nigeria. However, these strong arguments in our politics have no constitutional basis.
The argument for enshrining rotational presidency between northern and southern Nigeria in the nation’s constitution are as follows:
Firstly, in our effort to manage power rotation, we have a dilemma of managing a political norm and constitutionalism, the former being constitutionally contradictory but assuming to override constitutional provisions in relevance around for example the constitution guaranteeing open platform for all to contest the presidency.
A key dilemma is should a norm or political opinion of 8 years regional presidency against constitutional provision have the power to prescribe that power be retained in a particular region for two terms when for example the population do not like a president in power after serving one term however amidst the reality of the need for a justified power rotation and balance based on our political norm of rotation?
Thus, along this dilemma, a trajectory to the entitlement of two terms presidency for each region-led presidency, whether the president is governing well or not would then probably have to be realized through rigging the presidential election.
Furthermore, how would we then enforce compliance when a sitting president chooses not to be “gentle” at a particular time and opt to support a candidate from his same region, for example, widely alleged in the build-up to the 2023 primaries of the ruling APC? Had it succeeded, what would have been of our polity in terms of managing our diversity and political stability?
If at all we want a legitimate, transparent system for power rotation and want it in good faith for the stabilization of our polity and managing our diversity in a manner that does not undermine our electoral system, we then need a constitutional backing for the power rotation and be given a framework in policy and law.
Secondly, the sympathy for a regional balance for presidential authority is largely demanded by citizens in both broad regions and inherently demonstrated in our power sharing method – president and vice coming from either of the two different regions by successive military and civilian administrations alike overtime.
We cannot deny that it has become part and parcel of our polity, not against a good and utopian wish for a united country but to ensure fairness and inclusion in our politics.
Along this path, during the 2003 election, Alliance for Democracy, a largely South-West-based political party, did not field a presidential candidate because of an Obasanjo presidency who hails from the region.
As we look forward to the 2007 election, many political party leaders of the main opposition PDP in southern Nigeria, the G-5 Governors, and others from the north are sympathetic to a southern presidency, thus declaring their support for the current president against their party’s interest at least until 2031.
Our socio-cultural groups and regional elders’ forum, like the Northern Elders Forum, Afenifere, and Ohanaeze, have severally demonstrated a tendency to uphold the power rotation idea in our politics. Why not then give it a constitutional backing?
Thirdly, the experiences of the build-up to the 2015 election in the then ruling PDP to allow Jonathan a second term despite grievances from the northern region, the 2023 presidential primary elections in the ruling APC party when Tinubu had to fought his way through for the APC ticket against alleged plans to support another northern candidate by the cabal around the Buhari presidency, the squabbles for zoning of the presidential ticket in the 2023 PDP presidential primaries have firmly established our inability to manage any gentleman’s agreement.
If it were an agreement, it needed not be fought by anyone for adherence to its implementation and be at the mercy of being jettisoned.
Fourthly, the multiplicity of political parties makes it challenging to just leave the north and south power rotation understanding to be in the purview of “gentlemen’s agreement” in the two key political parties, APC and PDP.
Despite its obvious relevance in inclusion and stability of our polity, other political parties may not subscribe to it if not enshrined in the constitution.
So how should a constitutional presidential power rotation model be like for Nigeria? How should we respond to failure of good governance in the first term of a president? The answer is, let there be an open platform for robust dialogue over this for Nigerians to discuss and reach an agreement for a framework.
However, a perspective along this postulation are as follows: First, rotation of power does not mean only the ruling party most present a candidate, but all political parties would be obliged by the constitution to present their presidential candidate from a region at each given time Second, if Nigerians are not satisfied with first term of a president, they can opt for another credible candidate in the same region and build alliance across regions to win the presidency.
On the issue of eight years for each region in the case that there is a new person in the second term, the presidential provision should go further to state that even in such cases, the eight-year tenure for the region remains sacrosanct, then the second term should serve only one term. We have seen leaders who have achieved a lot in four years, as some wasted same.
A one-term presidency is even good and could drive a sense of urgency in governance for leaders to try and deliver within the shortest period of time.
Third, in a situation where a president dies in office, as was Yar’ Yar’Adua, a fresh presidential election is conducted for the remaining period for the same region.
In conclusion, as the National Assembly continue with the constitution review, Nigerians earnestly look forward to an outcome of a constitutional review that would guarantee a credible election at all levels in 2027 and the choices of the people respected at all levels.
