Opinion
Rotational Presidency: Answer To Nigeria’s Leadership Question?
Agitations for rotational presidency are being speculated in some quarters as not a solution in any way to resolve Nigeria’s poor, and ineffective governance. More than ever before, many Nigerians are arguing the necessity or otherwise of rotating the position of President from one part of Nigeria to the other. These agitations have created divisions between our Northern Governors and their Southern counterparts. Whereas, Southern Governors are insisting that the next President in 2031 must come from the South-South in the overall interest of justice, fairness and equity, their Northern colleagues are kicking against it, saying that such a demand is not only unconstitutional but undemocratic. While I agree that there are some genuine reasons for the agitations, I do not believe that mere rotation of the Presidency can guarantee quality governance in the country. Without doubt, one of the major reasons for the calls for rotational presidency is the concentration of powers in the hands of the president. The President is like an emperor or monarch, who is in control of virtually everything. He is in-charge of allocation of resources and does not only have a hand in the appointment of those in executive positions, but also the heads of the judiciary. He even influences the election of heads of the legislature.
It is the belief of many agitators that in exercising these powers, the President practises nepotism. He appoints people to “principal, sensitive or juicy” offices without obeying the Principle of Federal Character as contained in Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution under Fundamental Objectives and Directives Policy. Section 14 (3) of the directive says, “The composition of the government of the Federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the Federal Character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no pre-dominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic groups in that government or in any of its agencies”. Have our presidents been complying with this provision? Unfortunately, there is not much the citizens can do to make the President do the right thing, largely because the constitution did not make it enforceable. Section 6 (6c) of the same constitution makes a provision to ensure that violation of this principle by the president cannot be questioned in court.
The section says, “The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provision of this section shall not, except as otherwise provided by this constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial is in confronting with the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy set out in Chapter II of the Constitution”. Perhaps, the most important reason for the calls for rotational presidency is the poverty of our political class. Most of our political leaders are generally selfish. They ignore the fact that the primary purpose of their presence in governance is to ensure the security and welfare of the people they govern, as clearly stated in Chapter II, Section 14 (2b) of the 1999 Constitution. They behave as if they are in politics not for the people but for themselves. This has resulted in a situation where those in power engage in privatisation of the state leading to primitive accumulation of wealth for themselves and their families, while the rest of the people wallow in material poverty. It is also the belief in some quarters that the president will locate projects in his own part of the country while ignoring other parts.
It is argued that most of our political leaders tend to favour their areas of origin in deciding where to locate major projects. In their attempts to satisfy their regional and ethnic divisiveness, they jettison economic considerations in determining the right place for project location. This has been evident in many cases. There are cries of marginalisation by people from parts of the country, whose indigenes have not been privileged to be at the helms of affairs under civil rule. From the perspective of this columnist, rotational presidency without considering the leaders cannot cure these ills and guarantee good leadership. The question that rightly comes to mind is: does rotational presidency really mean the solution to bad leadership in Nigeria? Rotational presidency has the tendency to stir up ethnic, religious and regional sentiments, thus promoting disunity and regional or sectional loyalty. Rotational presidency may not promote patriotism among citizens. It is likely to empower only the political class while the larger population remain marginalised. This can be seen from the trend of leadership we have had since our political independence 64 years ago.
Despite the fact that the North has produced most of the nation’s leaders since then, majority of its citizens remain the poorest and most marginalised in the country – one of the outcomes of this state of affairs is the high level of insecurity in this part of Nigeria today. Although, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo governed Nigeria for about 10 years (both as a military head of state and civilian president), the South-West, where he comes from, did not enjoy any special benefits from his long stay in the corridors of power. Infact, he fought against the then Lagos State governor and now President of Nigeria, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, by stopping local government allocation accruing from the federation account to the state since, according to him, Tinubu violated the constitution by creating Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) in the state. Goodluck Jonathan ruled for about six years, but he did not develop his region of origin, the South-South. This columnist believes that what Nigerians require is quality leadership, a leader who cares and loves to work for the people and not rotation of presidency as solution to the country’s bad governance as concluded by some scholars and bookmakers. It does not matter where the leader comes from. For many members of our generation, the best national leader the nation ever had was the late General Murtala Mohammed, who ruled for only 200 days. We were all proud to be called Nigerians during the short period of his administration.
Bethel Toby
Opinion
Should The Internet Go Bust
Opinion
Transgenderism: Reshaping Modern Society
Opinion
A Renewing Optimism For Naira
-
Sports19 hours agoPalace End Winless Run After Beating Brentford
-
Maritime18 hours agoMWUN Sues For Strict Safety Regulations In Port Operations
-
Politics19 hours ago
CSO Seeks Review Of Judgment Sacking Zamfara Rep For Joining APC
-
Oil & Energy18 hours agoNCDMB/Renaissance/PETAN Engage 100 Youths In Graduate Internship Programme
-
Rivers19 hours agoRumuji Crisis Claims One Life, Destroys King’s Palace
-
Sports19 hours agoArsenal Continue Impressive Start To Season
-
Maritime18 hours agoStakeholders Advocate Water Transport To Decongest Road Transportation
-
News19 hours agoIran vows to rebuild stronger nuclear sites
