|
Third Term Analysis By John Iyobhebhe
The biggest political issue in Nigeria today is whether the constitution should be amended to, among other things, pave way for a consecutive third electoral bid by the President and the State Governors. The Nigerian National Assembly (Parliament) is currently debating the issue. To stand any chance of success the National Assembly must amend the all important tenure clause which currently bars the President and any state governor who has held office for two terms, under the 1999 constitution, from presenting himself for a third consecutive bid. If it fails at the NA, that would be the constitutional end of the so called Third term project.
It is important to note that the NA is considering a number of amendments, including important non- tenure related clauses, but Nigerians are solely and squarely focused on the issue of executive tenure as if it is the only amendment being considered by the National Assembly. The debate has split the country into two bitter camps: the pro amendment camp and the ‘anti third term lobby’. The divide has taken a sinister configuration, dividing the country along regional and religious lines. Whilst it is true to say that the Northern elites are opposed to amending the tenure clause because they believe the Presidency should revert to the North come 2007, it would be erroneous to say that the entire Moslem north is opposed to tenure amendment. Likewise, it would be wrong to suggest that the entire Christian South is in favour of the tenure amendment. And it is certainly not the case that everyone in the ruling PDP is in favour of tenure amendment. The issue cuts across regional, religious and political affiliations.
As with most things political in Nigeria, emotional, religious and regional sentiments becloud what is essentially a political debate- a conflict of ideas. A conflict between those who believe that it is morally wrong for the ruling party, the PDP, to use its majority in the National Assembly to amend the constitution to pave way for a third consecutive bid by the executive branch of government (President and Governors); and those who believe that removing the impediments to a third term bid by the President may not necessarily be a bad thing for democracy, stability and economic prosperity.
Those opposed to what is now known as the ‘Third Term Project’ are entitled to their views. Their freedom of speech and association should not be curtailed for opposing the project. The pro and anti camps must be allowed to sell their message to the Nigerian people and the National Assembly in the spirit of democracy, tolerance and free speech. In a highly charged debate as this, people are bound to use colourful language like pending disaster, death wish, invitation to coup, civil war inevitable, balkanization of Nigeria, religious war, failed state, etc, etc. It is to be expected in Nigeria. Provided such language does not translate into incitement, conspiracy and unconstitutional attempts against the democratically elected government of the federation or threats to national security interests, the government should turn a blind eye because the Third Term debate was bound to bring out old Nigeria. It was bound to lay bare our rawest emotions and political sentiments. The same old emotions that almost tore the country apart between 1966-1970; the same old emotions that has kept the country together ever since.
In the final analysis the National Assembly must approve the amendments. If they don’t, the project dies a premature death because the state houses of assembly will not have the opportunity to approve or disapprove. If it scales through the NA then the battle will shift to the SHA where the state governors and regional political leaders will assert their influence and power.
Theoretically, the ruling PDP has the numbers to push the amendments through the National and State Assemblies. But with opposition from powerful PDP northern elites and six northern states controlled by the opposition ANPP, success is in no way guaranteed. The current Vice President is opposed to tenure amendment for personal reasons. That is understandable. A former Military Dictator, who annulled the fairest election in Nigeria’s history and paved way for one of the bloodiest regimes in Nigeria’s political history, is also opposed to tenure amendment. He is entitled to his opinions, but it is amazing to see that yesterday’s dictator is now claiming to be today’s champion of democracy and national cohesion. Wonders never cease!
Whether the project succeeds or fails, no one can accuse President Obasanjo of unconstitutional behaviour or anything of the like. He has never said he wants a third term. In fact, he has always said he wants to return to farming come 2007. It is the PDP and his staunchest supporters that want more time for the job to the done, not OBJ. If the PDP can push the amendment through, it must then decide its rules for the 2007 primaries and who it wants as its flag bearer. If OBJ is invited by the PDP to fly the flag in the 2007 elections, it is then up to OBJ if wishes to rise to the occasion.
It is important to note that amending the constitution does not necessarily mean that OBJ will automatically get the PDP ticket. There will be a primary contest and interested members may vie for the ticket within the rules set by the PDP. Those opposed to the PDP rules of engagement are free to join forces with the opposition and fight the PDP during the Presidential elections due in 2007. In so far as the ANPP opposition is concerned, what is going on in the PDP should not be its concern. It is an opposition party and should be preparing itself for the 2007 elections. The same applies to other opposition parties. Constitutional amendment or not, the 2007 election will surely hold, barring a national emergency.
Even if, in the final analysis, the amendment is passed and OBJ emerges under the PDP rules-there is no guarantee of success at the polls. If the majority of Nigerians do not believe he needs more time, they will vote against him. He can be defeated. And if he is, he will bow out gracefully and thank the Nigerian people for the opportunity to serve. It is therefore untrue to state that the constitutional amendment is paving the way for a Life Presidency. The worst case scenario is 4 more years if OBJ is constitutionally permitted to re-contest, he does and wins. How is this tantamount to a Life Presidency? The possibility of a Life Presidency only occurs if the amendment is to take effect from 2007 (e.g., three consecutive terms of four years starting from 2007). As I understand it, that is not the proposed amendment before the National Assembly. As I understand it, it is three consecutive terms of four years starting from 1999. I stand to be corrected.
It is also misleading to the international community and the national electorate to state that the proposed constitutional amendment is equal to tenure elongation for the President. Tenure elongation means hanging on to power without an election. That is not what the constitutional amendment is all about. It only goes to demonstrate that the anti-amendment camp have no confidence in a system they have help put together ; or know that if OBJ is constitutionally permitted to stand and he does, the Nigerian people will vote for him again. If the opposition have confidence in the system and believe that OBJ is a disaster for Nigeria, surely they should be looking forward to him standing again and defeating him at the polls..
I was one of the original proponents of more time for the PRESIDENT to reengineer Nigeria. The fact of the matter is that we intended the constitutional amendment for the centre only. We never intended that all the state governors (the good, the bad and the ugly) would also be given the same privilege- I suppose it is the price for their support. I personally think it is not in the interest of the federating states to amend the Constitution for the benefit of second term state governors. Some of them have been a disaster, to be honest.
Even if the state governors are able to force their interest into the proposed amendment, all PDP two-term governors wishing to seek a 3rd consecutive bid must resubmit to the party primary. Some PDP two term governors have said they don’t want to contest for a 3rd term anyway. They are out. Some have performed badly. They are also out. More may be impeached before 2007. EFCC may knock some out before 2007. Some may resign the party over the 3rd term issue in sympathy with Atiku and IBB. In some states, the power rotation principle means that two- term governors would not be expected to re submit themselves for the party primaries. In other words, third term at the centre will not necessarily mean third term for all PDP two-term governors, even if the amendment gives them the same privilege as the centre.
WE want ‘stability under democracy’ at the centre for national cohesion, sustainable economic and fiscal policies, continuation of the war against corruption and for the general reengineering of Nigeria. We want stability to come via the ballot box. The constitutional amendment will ensure the first step towards stability in democracy. The armed forces continue to be loyal to the FG and will remain so during and after this debate. There is no substitute for democracy, no matter how imperfect.
Nigerians should debate the issue in the spirit of democracy and tolerance. In any political contest there must be a victor. Those who win must not see victory as an opportunity to obliterate opponents, but as an opportunity for nation building and healing wounds; those who lose must not attempt to bring down the house. Individual and regional interests cannot be greater than that of the nation. In a few weeks time the constitutional amendment issue will be determined one way or the other. Political players will realign, as is the tradition in Nigeria. And life will go on, as is the tradition in Nigeria.
John Iyobhebhe London.
|