By Oseloka H. Obaze
When Governor Charles Soludo of Anambra State recently took a dig at his political opponents, from Anambra South, who had pledged to serve a single four-year term, in lieu of an abridged term for the incumbent, he stirred a hornet’s nest. Some by conjecture and others by acute rationalization believed Soludo’s Igboukwu Doctrine was targeted at Peter Obi. As it were, by sheer coincidence, Obi had earlier on, made public his willingness to serve in the Nigerian presidency for one term, if elected in 2027. That unscripted arrangement would guarantee maintaining the unwritten zoning arrangement between the North and the South.
Only Gov. Soludo can say for sure, who his barb about such candidates and aspirants requiring “psychiatric evaluation” was meant for. The reactions elicited by Soludo’s remarks, have been trenchantly acerbic. His rebutters and traducers include defenders of Peter Obi, as well as the governorship candidates from Anambra South. In summary, they have categorized the governor’s contention as pretentious, pedestrian , nd induced by fear of potential loss of power.
Incidentally, the only guardrail and determinant of the one-off single term narrative , e it at the presidential or gubernatorial levels, is the constitutional validity of such a decision. In the case of the presidency, and in the broader Nigerian context, the sole determinant of that single story narrative that Soludo stoked, ought to be the Doctrine of Necessity, anchored on the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
Both at the national level and at the state level in Anambra, the pledge by aspirants and candidates to serve for one term is not unconstitutional. Not by any means. Second, it respects and seeks not to upend the extant zoning arrangements. Third, the offer arises primarily from the conclusions that the incumbents have not acquitted themselves creditably in office to merit a second term. For people peddling that notion, as it is with President Bola Tinubu, so it is with Gov. Charles Soludo.
This much is clear. The 1999 Constitution delimits every presidential or governorship tenure to four years, in the first instance. While the second term is statutorily allowed, it is not mandatory. Thus, to do one term only, or two consecutive terms, is the prerogative of the candidate. History, including Nigerian political history, is replete with leaders who served a single term by design or default and still accomplished much. Even some who left office via natural attrition had accomplished much in those short periods. It is all about personal leadership commitment, dedication , and focus.
Clearly, Peter Obi’s offer to do only one term is necessitated by political realities, well beyond his control. Such a pledge, in real terms, ought to be a mark of sincerity, statesmanship, integrity and respect for zoning and regional equity, not the contrary. Regrettably, in Nigerian politics , skepticism is habitual.
Those who argue that not much can be accomplished during one term or that any such pledge is a sign of desperation, utterly miss the impetus and thrust of the evolving debate. They default to the proverbial single story narrative. The ultimate selling point of that proposal is that a president committed or constrained to one term, will not be saddled with reelection responsibilities and will inevitably focus on his or her legacy projects and programmes, and other good governance deliverables and dividends.
It has become customary, given the complex nature of Nigerian politics to adopt in the national interest, the Doctrine of Necessity when seeking to solve thorny political pproblems That same principle should apply now, just as it did, in 1999, when Olusegun Obasanjo was chosen as the “safe hands” to lead Nigeria, but in essence, his choice was meant to assuage the southwest for the annulment of the 1993 presidential election and truncating MKO Abiola’s presidency. The same principles would apply in the succession battle for bed-ridden President Umaru Yar’Adua. Applying the Doctrine of Necessity as an interim measure for arresting Nigeria’s drift, restoring confidence in the presidency , and moving Nigeria forward has become imperative.
Also, applying the Doctrine of Necessity to give effect to a one-term arrangement will, in the present instance, address several festering sectoral concerns. First, it keeps the North-South zoning arrangement intact. Second, it offers common grounds for the political opposition to rally to a consensus and form a formidable bloc capable of unseating the incumbent president. Third, it guarantees the North (whether monolithic or not) the uncontested assumption of the presidency in 2031 for an eight-year term, just as was the case in 2015.
Fourth, it guarantees the South that their zoned eight-year tenure, 2023 to 2031, will be respected. Fifth, it reassures the progressive elements within the southwest, especially those in political opposition, that in seeking to unseat their kith and kin, they will not be accused of breaching the zoning arrangement due to ethnic considerations. Sixth, and perhaps the most salient, it compels, the southeast, to make a huge sacrifice to serve only one term; to vouch to do so and indeed, to do so as an affirmation that they can be trusted as integral players in Nigerian. This aspect will also bring to closure, residual discomfitures from the Nigerian-Biafran civil war. Such a guarantee is one the entire southeast zone has to make, regardless of whether the presidential candidate is Peter Obi or not.
Finally, if that arrangement works, and achieves its ultimate goal of defeating President Bola Tinubu, it will offer President Tinubu the unique opportunity to remediate and buttress his questionable bonafides as a democrat; and also as an incumbent, who ran credible elections, was defeated and willingly handed power to the opposition. He would join the league of sitting African heads of state that lost popular elections and did not use executive and extraordinary means to stay in power.
The one-off single term presidency debate in Nigeria is now beyond an academic discourse. It is what Nigeria requires to move forward. It will address several distressing and persisting concerns, some subliminal and others, transparently concrete. The core North in its enlightened self-interest should support the plan since their unfettered support for a Muslim-Muslim ticket in 2023 in a secular state like Nigeria has yielded less than the desirable dividends They must also put to rest the prevailing belief that the North cannot trust an Igbo man with the Nigerian presidency. To help the North make up its mind, they need to revisit the 1960, 1963, and 1979 North-East alliances that yielded tangible political results, especially as regards equity and political stability.
Bluntly, the stark reality is that despite the North’s long and overwhelming dominance of national leadership in Nigeria, their region remains the poorest, most undeveloped, and now, the most insecure. Their hitherto robust and thriving agricultural, mining, hides and skins, textiles, and manufacturing industries are all in ruins. Perhaps, it’s time for the North to think progressively outside the box. Finally, the North might use the four-year single term to address its persisting internal contradictions; specifically the internecine ethnic and religious conflicts and the rise of home grown non-state actors, who as bandits are putting the North asunder.
Some vested interests in the south will indubitably oppose the single term presidency for the Southeast under various pretexts. Expectedly, most of their supporting arguments will be counter-intuitive. But they will surely be made, covertly or overtly. Peter Obi made a valid point that “if service is the motive, turning the tide in four years is possible.” There’s not much to add to that non-axiomatic contention. All we need to bear in mind is that we need to save and turn around Nigeria.
The singular challenge confronting Nigeria’s political establishment at this juncture is mainly that of trust. Trust is Nigeria’s red herring. The trust deficit chasm in Nigeria is wide and expanding daily. In the several discussions I’ve been involved in on this issue; the recurring question still revolves around trust. Can Peter Obi be trusted? Can the North be trusted? Can the Igbo be trusted? Can INEC be trusted? Can the Coalition members be trusted? Can the judiciary be trusted? Can the Southwest be trusted? What is left for Nigerians to ask is: Can God or Allah be trusted?
If Nigerians can find the courage this time around to exhibit a modicum of trust in their compatriots, then we stand a chance of making headway. Then again, arriving at a consensus on issues even as basic as elemental trust within our body politics might require a Doctrine of Necessity. That is where we are and who we have become as a nation.
——
Obaze is MD/CEO, Selonnes Consult – a policy, governance and management consulting firm in Awka.
