By ALO 360 Editorial Board
The proposal by Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele to replace Nigeria’s current two-term, four-year presidential system with a single six-year term has reopened a debate that has surfaced repeatedly in the country’s democratic journey. The argument is simple: reduce the distractions of re-election politics, cut the enormous cost of elections, and allow presidents and governors to focus on governance rather than perpetual campaigning.
On the surface, the proposal appears like a solution, but it requires further interrogation.
Nigeria’s elections are becoming increasingly expensive. The 2015 general election cost about ₦109 billion. By 2019, the figure had risen to ₦189 billion. The 2023 elections gulped approximately ₦355 billion, while the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has proposed a staggering ₦873.78 billion for the 2027 elections. If approved, the cost of conducting a general election would have increased by more than 700 percent within twelve years.
These figures only represent the official costs captured in public records. They do not account for the hidden costs of elections: campaign spending, vote-buying, security deployments, political patronage, litigation, media campaigns, and the diversion of state resources for electoral purposes. The true cost of Nigeria’s election cycle is undoubtedly far higher than what appears in budget documents.
It is therefore understandable why many believe a single six-year term could reduce political tension and save public funds. Under the current arrangement, many elected officials begin preparing for re-election almost immediately after assuming office. Governance often takes a back seat while political calculations take centre stage. Cabinet appointments, project locations, policy decisions and even security deployments are frequently influenced by electoral considerations.
Yet, while the proposal has merit, it risks treating a symptom while ignoring the disease.
Nigeria’s greatest challenge has never been the number of years a president spends in office. Our challenge is the weakness of institutions and the absence of a political culture rooted in accountability. If the institutions that should hold leaders accountable remain weak, a six-year term may simply give bad leaders two extra years to do more damage.
The country has experimented with different systems before. We operated a parliamentary system in the First Republic. We later adopted an American-style presidential system. Military governments came and went with varying constitutional arrangements. Yet corruption, impunity, elite capture, weak institutions and poor governance have persisted across these systems. The evidence suggests that the problem is deeper than constitutional engineering.
Indeed, some of the world’s most successful countries do not even operate the same democratic structures. Saudi Arabia remains a monarchy. The United Arab Emirates is not a liberal democracy. Yet these countries have achieved remarkable development because their leaders built institutions around clear national goals and enforced standards that transcend personalities. Governance succeeds where institutions are strong, not merely where constitutions are rewritten.
Nigeria’s political culture also deserves scrutiny. In many advanced democracies, successful entrepreneurs often become less wealthy after entering public office because public service demands sacrifice and exposes them to scrutiny. In Nigeria, politics has become one of the fastest routes to wealth accumulation. Public office is increasingly viewed as an investment opportunity rather than a platform for service.
This reality explains why constitutional reforms alone rarely produce the desired outcomes. A six-year single term cannot eliminate corruption. It cannot strengthen the judiciary. It cannot guarantee electoral integrity. It cannot force politicians to put national interest above personal ambition.
More importantly, it cannot substitute for an active and vigilant electorate.
Until the Nigerian voter becomes the ultimate determinant of political power, accountability will remain weak regardless of the tenure arrangement. A democracy thrives when leaders fear the people more than they fear political godfathers. If elections are not transparent and credible, changing the duration of tenure merely changes the timetable of the same problem.
This is why the conversation should extend beyond tenure reform. Nigeria urgently needs stronger institutions, an independent electoral system, a more effective judiciary, transparent public finance management, and a political culture that rewards competence rather than patronage. Above all, the country needs a behavioural shift among both leaders and citizens.
The debate over a six-year single term is therefore welcome. Democracies must continuously interrogate themselves and explore new ideas. However, Nigeria must be careful not to mistake structural adjustments for transformational reforms. We have tried many political arrangements over the decades. At some point, the focus must shift from endlessly redesigning the system to making the system work.
A six-year single term may reduce election costs and curb perpetual campaigning. It may even create more room for policy implementation. But without strong institutions, accountable leadership and an engaged citizenry, it will merely produce six uninterrupted years of the same governance failures Nigerians already know too well.
The question, therefore, is not whether a president should serve four years twice or six years once. The real question is whether Nigeria is prepared to build institutions strong enough to make every year in office count.
