I can’t believe the Senate/Rep
The idea of single tenure was first mooted by President Jonathan in 2011 in one of his media chats. The agenda was later expanded by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Dr. Reuben Abati who labouredto explain that the clamour for a single tenure was borne out of patriotic zeal as well as the fact that the two terms provided for in the 1999 Constitution has not guaranteed stability in the polity and institutionalization of the country’s democracy. Abati further noted that besides inter and intra party squabbles which affect the growth of political parties in the country, acrimony which usually follows the issue of election and re-election at the federal and state levels overheats the polity. After listening to Abati I recall posting an article where I described the entire submission as lame and lazy. Time has not changed my viewon this.
I also know that both the House of Representatives and the Senate conducted public hearings on the constitution review and that the issue of tenure was debated and thrashed out. Nigerians were unequivocal in throwing away the idea because no one wantsanything to do with tenure because of if you can tinker with it for less now , you can aswell tinker with it for more in future.
I can’t believe that the Senate is proposing this same piece oflegislation with the obvious intention of targeting the incumbent president and other first time governors. Even where we think the president and the governors are not performing well on the job we gave to them , the only option available to us in democracy is to vote them out with our ballot. That power to vote out bad leaders is an inalienable right which cannot be removed from us , otherwise democracy will lose its meaning and taste.
Someone had said to me that the six-year single term proposal was introduced by the Senate President to make way for his rumoured presidential ambition so that he will emerge as the last man standing. Whether or not the Senate President has presidential ambition which of course he is entitled to, I think the proposal is wrong headed ,self serving and capable of killing the spirit of performance as there is nothing obviously wrong with the present arrangement of two terms of four years each ifproperly used as is done in civilized countries.
The Senate seems to be detached from reality and unaware that democracy was built on the same principle as capitalism, which promotes healthy competition, reward for hard work and best performance. In the management of human affairs,motivation is an instrument. Ina single tenure, the only incentive would be the pillage of the state treasury as opposed to two-term tenure. Remove reward and incentive and democracy will be dead.
The Senate Committee headed by Ekweremadu claimed that its proposal was the result of painstaking analysis of the proposals, comments from stakeholders and strategic partners, reports of experts, feedbacks from the national and zonal public hearings and the various bills referred to it. This is not believable. I rather think the report submitted by Ekweremadu was sexed up to achieve a first class legislative fraud and is not coming from the people. Given the opposition that greeted the proposal from the House of Reps and various interest groups and stake holders, it is obvious that the Ekweremadu’s report is in complete variance with the various submissions made by Nigerians .
The Senate is also wrong on itsassumption that its proposed amendment will not require presidential accent to become law. To contemplate making any law that will not require the accent of the president willamount to the National Assembly usurping the powers of the Executive arm. This will create parallel presidency embodied in the Senate President. Our constitution does not have any room for a parallel presidency .
Tenure debate is a major constitutional change that would require a referendum, because it would mean tampering with the presidential system of government opted for by Nigerians.
The argument for a single-termof six years has always been that it could make governors and the president focus more on performance and less politicking, since no matter what, there will be no second term for them. This is a very weak argument with no supporting proof that a politician will ever stop politicking and that the same governor will not be engrossedwith the issue of who succeedshim. Distraction posed by second term possibilities are more peculiar to individuals than to be a general issue . A governor may decide to be perambulating the roads like Alao Akala or Ikedi Ohakim and get kicked out or settle down to purposeful leadership like Fashola and Mimiko did. While the former were booted out by people power in Oyo and Imo, the later earned deserved second term despite obstacles mounted by vicious oppositions against them.
One strong point against the Senate is the fact that single-term tenure of six years could also lead to complacency on the part of the public office holder, as there is no second term to motivate him to performance. This is a well-explained theory and law in the economics of diminishing returns. From the status quo, It punishes good performers by denying them extra two years and rewards bad performers by giving themtwo extra years. How do we rather vote , reward bad leaders or punish bad leaders?
Also, despite the proposal by the Senate that current governors and the president who are eligible for a second term would be disqualified from running in 2015 should the single-term tenure make it into the new constitution, there is no assurance that would happen, as these politicians were not even consulted and there support ofnot challenging the new law before the court secured. From what I know of our politicians they will fight tooth and nail tomake sure they find loopholes in the law to make way for them to run for another term.
If they do end up running and winning, they might very likely push for another constitutionalchange to the term limits, extending their stay in office. This will be tantamount to a waste of the time legislators should have spent passing other ‘relevant’ bills into law. You begin to make way for sit tight leaders the moment on the whiff of orgasm you decide to temper with tenure. This is how sit-tight leaders like Paul Biya and Robert Mugabe and many others are created.
Hopefully, the National Assembly will place the interests of the nation ahead of theirs in arriving at a final decision. And if this sinister agenda was actually introduced by the Senate leadership to create anarchy soas to make room for themselves as the last man standing , the Senators should be courageous enough to return the offending portion of the amendment back to sender
No comments:
Post a Comment