In a political season saturated with recycled manifestos and choreographed declarations of “next-level governance,” Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde has chosen to stir the hornet’s nest.
Standing before a curious audience in Ibadan this past week, he called for a radical restructuring of Nigeria’s democratic blueprint: a single, six-year, non-renewable term for elected executive officers, from the President down to state governors.
It’s a bold pitch that touches raw nerves in Nigeria’s body politic. On paper, it sounds like a fix — eliminate the distractions of re-election fever, break the hold of incumbency, and force leaders to focus on governance, not politicking.
But in a country where term elongation has been historically linked to political greed and democratic erosion, many are asking: is this really a fix for Nigeria or just another fancy dream with dangerous undertones?
Let’s break it all down.
Background: Nigeria’s Current Political Term Limits
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution currently stipulates that presidents and governors may serve a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms.
This system was inherited from the United States model, widely regarded as a benchmark for democratic governance, and was designed to promote political stability, regular leadership renewal, and accountability.
The two-term limit aims to prevent the entrenchment of power by any one individual and to allow citizens to periodically review and judge their leaders through elections. Over the years, this framework has been both lauded for fostering democracy and criticized for encouraging short-termism in governance.
However, Nigeria’s political history has not always been smooth. Military rule interrupted democratic governance multiple times between 1966 and 1999, and even during civilian rule, political tenure issues have sparked tensions and legal battles.
Debates around term limits have resurfaced periodically, with some politicians pushing for longer terms or removal of term limits altogether, while others caution against potential abuses.
Governor Makinde’s Proposal Explained
Governor Seyi Makinde, in an address during the 2025 Eid-el-Kabir celebrations, outlined his vision for Nigeria’s political future — a single, non-renewable term of five or six years for all elected officials. His reasoning is simple but compelling: current political tenures are heavily disrupted by continuous electioneering, which wastes time, resources, and political will that could be devoted to governance.
Makinde cited his own experience, explaining that despite being elected in 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic consumed much of his first term, and the demands of running a re-election campaign took away further focus from governance.
He argues that a single six-year term would allow leaders to prioritize long-term development projects, implement policies without the constant distraction and influence of election campaigns, and reduce the enormous financial burden of repeated elections.
This proposal, he insists, is not about personal ambition but about structural reform to improve Nigeria’s governance quality.
THE HISTORY — NIGERIA’S TOXIC RELATIONSHIP WITH TERM LIMITS
The Third Term Saga of 2006: A National Trauma
No conversation about altering term limits in Nigeria can ignore the ghost of 2006.
President Olusegun Obasanjo’s infamous third-term agenda nearly tore the country apart. A proposed constitutional amendment to extend presidential term limits from two to three met fierce resistance. Civil society erupted, the National Assembly revolted, and even members of Obasanjo’s own party turned against him.
The proposal failed spectacularly. But it left deep scars. Many Nigerians have since viewed any attempt to alter term limits with suspicion, interpreting such moves as veiled attempts at power elongation.
Makinde’s pitch, although structured in the opposite direction — reducing, not extending tenure — is inevitably colored by this history.
THE CASE FOR A SINGLE SIX-YEAR TERM
Despite public skepticism, Makinde’s idea is not without merit. Here’s the strongest case in its favor:
1. Governance Over Politics
The lure of a second term often compromises decision-making. Leaders may delay painful but necessary reforms to protect their popularity. A one-term structure could embolden leaders to act decisively without worrying about their political capital.
2. Curtailing Incumbency Abuse
The power of incumbency in Nigeria is enormous , from access to state funds to media control and institutional loyalty. It has tilted many elections. A single term might reduce this abuse since there would be no need to deploy state power for re-election purposes.
3. Cost Savings and Electoral Stability
Running a national election in Nigeria costs billions. A six-year term could reduce the frequency of elections and their staggering costs, especially if paired with synchronized election calendars nationwide.
4. Encouraging Long-Term Thinking
Without the pressure to impress voters every four years, leaders may be more inclined to implement long-term developmental policies instead of populist quick fixes.
THE CONS — FANCY DREAM OR CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS?
Makinde’s idealism may be commendable, but critics argue it glosses over dangerous implications:
1. No Second Chances for Good Leaders
A one-term limit means even transformational leaders — think Babatunde Fashola in Lagos or Peter Obi in Anambra — wouldn’t get a chance to deepen reforms. Nigeria has had a few good performers; why cut their tenure short?
2. Reduced Democratic Accountability
Elections are not just about choice, they’re about judgment. A second term serves as a referendum on a leader’s first. If there’s no re-election, where’s the feedback loop? Where’s the pressure to perform?
3. Legal Landmines and Political Minefields
To implement Makinde’s vision, Nigeria’s constitution would need a drastic amendment, particularly Sections 135 and 137, which set presidential term limits. This requires two-thirds majority in both houses of the National Assembly and approval from at least 24 state assemblies.
Politically, it’s almost a non-starter.
GLOBAL COMPARISONS — HAS IT WORKED ELSEWHERE?
Mexico: The “Sexenio” Model
Mexico operates a single six-year term presidency — no re-election allowed. It was introduced to prevent dictatorship after the Mexican Revolution.
While it has curbed authoritarianism, it has also led to “lame-duck” presidents with little incentive to push bold reforms, especially toward the end of their tenure.
The United States: A Middle Ground
America’s two-term, four-year system has become the global democratic gold standard. It balances accountability with opportunity. It allows voters to reward performance, or kick out non-performers.
South Korea and The Philippines
Both nations have also experimented with one-term presidencies, with mixed results. In South Korea, the system has arguably promoted stability, but it has also fueled corruption — since presidents know they’ll never run again, some have abused their final years in office.
MOTIVATIONS AND TIMING
Governor Makinde is currently serving his second and final term. As such, some have questioned whether the proposal is policy-driven or politically motivated. Others interpret it as part of a broader effort to influence national reform conversations in the post-2023 political landscape.
Nonetheless, the governor has not indicated any personal stake in the proposed changes, maintaining that it is a structural solution to systemic governance issues.
Final Thoughts: Fix or Fancy Dream?
Governor Makinde’s six-year term push presents a bold attempt to fix Nigeria’s governance woes by tackling election fatigue and encouraging long-term planning. Yet, it also flirts with the risks of reduced democratic checks and potential power abuse.
Is it a realistic fix, or just a fancy dream? The answer depends on Nigeria’s ability to build robust institutions, ensure accountability, and engage citizens in this debate. One thing is clear — the conversation itself is a critical step in Nigeria’s democratic evolution.
Discussion about this post