Single-term policy for president, govs possible, but… —Anthony Sani

Defection, planned coalition of opposition forces against incumbent President Bola Tinubu ahead of the next presidential race, quest by the North to come back to power in 2027, are among contentious issues tackled by a chieftain of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), Mr Anthony N. Z. Sani, in this interview conducted by KUNLE ODEREMI. Some excerpts:

AFTER 26 years of restoring civil rule, to what extent have Nigerian leaders walked the talk following military exit from power?                                        

The 26 years of uninterrupted democracy is a feat because we have chosen our leaders and have governed ourselves for 26 years. Though the politicians have not walked the talk to the satisfaction of most Nigerians, the mere fact that Nigerians have the freedom to choose their leaders from among themselves cannot be dismissed with sleight of hand against the leaders who are themselves Nigerians that derive their values and world view from the society. So, if the politicians have failed to deliver on the promise of democracy to the satisfaction of the citizens, Nigerians have themselves to blame, and not to blame only the leaders alone. The turnover rate of the National Assembly members is on the average 70 percent in every election cycle. We change the president and governors every eight years, yet we have not experienced any dramatic changes. This underscores the point that our leaders are not from the moon but are Nigerians who derive their values from the society.

What are the areas the political class has performed dismally, given the issues that necessitated the bitter struggle and agitation for civilian government after decades of military dictatorship?                                                                              

Nigerians should take education and health that improve human capital for granted by now. Unfortunately, we have a frightening number of out-of-school children who will pose challenges to security tomorrow. Other areas that we ought to take for granted include food security and peaceful coexistence. More depressing is the fact that we cannot grow what we need. As a result, poverty and ignorance have been allowed to breed insecurity that has now constituted a drag to socioeconomic development of the country. 

Talking about security, insurgents, terrorists, bandits, and so on, have sacked a lot of farmers from their farmlands, posing a big threat to food security. The authorities have the primary mandate of guaranteeing the safety of lives and properties as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution…              

 Security that comes with peaceful coexistence is about the first and most important responsibility of the government. This is because without security that enables order, justice, liberty and prosperity, no form of socioeconomic development can take place.

That is why most people have asked the government to ensure enough trained, equipped and well-motivated security personnel to secure the nation.

I hear the government plans to employ forest guards to that effect. I believe what the nation needs is enough trained and equipped security personnel, and not a number of agencies of security. In order to address the underlying causes of insecurity, the nation can use the savings from removal of subsidies to confront poverty and ignorance [so that] today’s out of school children won’t become insurgents and kidnappers tomorrow.           

There is usually pervasive tension and apprehension over the contest for the presidency during every election cycle. Some analysts blame the current two terms of four years for the president and governors. What’s your take on the acrimony and the attendant threats by the gladiators? Is a six-year single-term possible solution?

 Single term is quite possible but it is counterproductive precisely because it does not reward performance. That is to say, in single tenure, the good and the bad are treated the same. No incentive for hard work. The only valid complaint against the multiple tenures is abuse of incumbency to retain power by whatever means. This abuse of incumbency was demystified in 2015 when the opposition defeated the incumbent president. And if we still fear abuse of incumbency, we can mimic Chile and Uruguay which allow multiple tenure that are not consecutive. That is to say, no president is allowed to conduct an election in which he is a candidate. In the case of Nigeria we can allow the two terms which should not be consecutive.

The All Progressives Congress (APC) and the opposition politicians differ on the performance of the Tinubu administration after being in office for two years,  especially on the economic reforms embarked on by the government and the attendant fallouts. The presidency says the opposition politicians and critics should provide alternatives instead of mere criticisms. Given current realities, do you believe the opposition could have made a difference if they were in the saddle as they also include those that were once in power at various levels and times over the years?

 I share the position of the ruling party that a viable opposition should go beyond lamentations to include suggestions on how best the challenges could be overwhelmed.

You will recall the three major presidential candidates in 2023 promised to remove fuel subsidies if elected. When the results of the elections were out, each of the candidates had votes. Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar garnered about seven million votes; Bola Tinubu got about eight million votes and Peter Obi carted home about six million votes. So, one cannot be wrong to conclude that President Tinubu merely delivered his electoral mandate when he removed the subsidy on fuel and the naira. And if anybody has a better solution to offer, let them locate their patriotic courage and offer them to the government. I expect the opposition to engage the ruling party of APC on how best the saving from removal of subsidies could be put to use in socioeconomic development instead of ceaseless lamentations about the hardship, which anybody can do; enough of the jeremiads.

But, a party is believed to get the mandate of the electorate based on what it offers in its manifesto after marketing it during the campaign. Is it not out of place for a ruling party to be asking for an alternative to its own programme from the opposition that was humbled at the poll by the electorate?                                         

I have said it several times that while there is national consensus on challenges facing a nation, there is no corresponding consensus on method of solution. As a result, multiparty democracy allows each political party to represent a distinct method of solution by way of manifesto which the political parties use and canvass for electoral mandate needed for execution. In this circumstance, both the ruling party and the opposition promised to remove the subsidies as a solution. Now that the consequences of removal of subsidies have come with untold hardship, the oppositions have joined in crying foul. That may explain why the ruling party is saying if the opposition has a better alternative method of solution, they should locate the courage of their conviction and let the nation know. Mind you, nobody likes the removal of subsidies which has been brought about because it is not sustainable. Removal of subsidies seems to be a no-choice decision. The president has himself said that much. People are free to proffer solutions amid paucity of funds due to fall in both production and price of oil.                                       

 Some opposition politicians are on the verge of unveiling a coalition to challenge President Bola Tinubu in 2027 elections. What’s your view on the coalition and the promoters?        

 While I agree that a multiparty democracy without a viable opposition is a sham, I do not believe the coalition can provide a viable alternative platform. This is because of many predisposing obstacles. One of the obstacles is the fact that the coalition is not at party level but at individual level. Such a coalition at individual level has never won elections in Nigeria. This is because each individual has ambition that combines to work against the unity of purpose of such an alliance. What is more, the coalition lacks a rallying point reminiscent of President Muhammadu Buhari who could boast of 12 million votes to his credit.

What is more, the promoters are those who held sway in the past and whose pedigrees are well known by the people. That is to say, the elections would be about past performance of the individual candidates and not on hope alone. Unless the coalition works hard and overcomes the obstacles in favour of merger of political parties, their chance of winning the elections is very slim.

As I said in several reactions, a mere alliance of individual politicians with their separate ambitions without a unifying political party cannot win the presidential election in Nigeria, more so that the promoters are coming with known baggage.

There is an increasing demand by the North that the presidency should move from the South in 2027 after four years of the Tinubu administration. However, the agitation is being countered by the South that power should reside in the divide since the North has just completed eight years. Which of the arguments do you think is justified based on political expediency and other factors you deem imperative?

 I am not a fan of the politics of identity symbolised by rotation and zoning. This is because politics of identity is tacit admission of failure of leadership to regard governance as art of balancing competing demands among constituents and among socioeconomic sectors. As a result, communities have been made to believe power to distribute access to national resources by way of appointments, employment, projects and contract should be turn-by-turn. And because politics of identity has become the zeitgeist, I have no choice but to pander. Since President Bola Tinubu has only one tenure after which the presidency would go to the North unlike Peter Obi or any other southerner for that matter who will be entitled to two terms, simple political arithmetic will make the North to support President Bola Tinubu who has only one tenure after which the presidency will be turn of the North.

A preponderance of the northern power brokers, influencers, and the establishment in the North seems to favour the agitation that power should return to the North in 2027. Their claim is that the North has been receiving the short end of the stick after it served out two terms of eight years through Buhari, and assisted the APC to retain power at the centre. Is the North not united and speaking with one voice on the matter?                      

 I have said it many times that the North is united on political issues which most northerners share. But when it comes to partisan issues, the North hardly speaks with one voice. That explained the existence of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC), led by the Sardauna of Sokoto along with the Northern Elements Peoples Union (NEPU), led by Mallam Aminu Kano and United Middle Belt Congress (UMBC), led by J.S. Tarka in the North during the First Republic. During the second republic, there was the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) helmed by Alhaji Shehu Shagari, the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP), by Aminu Kano and the Great Nigeria Peoples Party (GNPP), led by Waziri Ibrahim, while Solomon Lar chose to be in Nigerian People’s Party (NPP), led by Zik, and Tarka chose to go with NPN.

In this Fourth Republic, Muhammad Buhari contested with Umar Yar’Adua and later, with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. You recall it was APC governors, mostly of northern states, who caused the emergence of Bola Tinubu in both primaries and in the general election, ostensibly in the spirit of rotation of the presidency between the North and the South. I do not see any wisdom in the change of mind by APC governors to cut short President Tinubu’s two terms to only one. I foresee the majority in the North helping to re-elect President Tinubu for second term after which the North will have its turn of eight years. Besides poor management of diversity and failure to see governance as an art of balancing competing demands among constituents, I do not blame Bola Tinubu’s removal of subsidies as a result of paucity of funds. There are always pains associated with surgical operations.

 Issues concerning the Constitution, the grundnorm of the country, persist almost at every life of each National Assembly since Nigeria returned to civil rule on May 29, 1999. From your own perspective, is the ongoing constitution amendment process on the right and steady course? What do you perceive as contentious areas in the Constitution and steps being taken on the whole process and why?              

 The problem of Nigeria is not the constitution but due to our attitudes and the way we do things, which include the lack of respect for core values for humanity. Consider American Constitution is about three to four pages. It is about 250 years old, yet with only about 30 amendments. Britain has no written constitution while Nigeria has a book called the constitution that is observed more in the breach.

I have said it severally that this country has been restructured many times, be it geopolitically, by form of government and economic models most of which have worked in other climes. Consider the cost of government of presidential system we copied from America but have failed to copy correctly. America uses the vice-president as Senate president in order to reduce cost and improve the mechanism of governance. Nigeria has a separate Senate president. Most of those who conduct elections in America are elected and not appointed. This reduces mistrust.

Our Supreme Court has 21 justices, while America, which is larger and richer, has nine justices, yet the delay in our Supreme Court is by far more than in America.

What this country requires is a change of attitudes and the way we do things. We need cultural renaissance for rewiring the politics, reengineering our sense of justice, for making mercy smarter and hope strategic.  

READ ALSO: Six-year single term for president, govs: Politicians disagree with legal luminaries