By AFE BABALOLA

As Nigeria continues to navigate the complex terrain of democratic governance, the clamor for political reforms has grown louder, more insistent, and impossible to ignore. At the heart of these demands is a proposal that there is need to scrap the current two-term, eight-year system for Presidents and Governors and substitute it for a single, non-renewable six-year term.

This reform is not a mere technicality—it represents a national reawakening, a powerful recalibration of our political culture and institutional mindset. The current system, borrowed from foreign democratic models, has failed to deliver the kind of transformative leadership Nigeria desperately needs. Instead, it has entrenched mediocrity, incentivized corruption, and created a toxic political environment where elections can be likened to preparation for war, and governance is secondary. A single six-year term for political office holders can change this narrative. It offers an opportunity for focused leadership, reduces the cutthroat nature of elections, and discourages the abuse of incumbency. It is a timely proposal that speaks to Nigeria’s peculiar challenges and offers a credible path forward.

The Two-Term System

In theory, the two-term model—used by many democracies—should provide continuity, accountability, and time to implement bold reforms. But in practice, Nigeria has seen the opposite. The first term is often consumed by political survival strategies—entrenching allies, appeasing power brokers, and stockpiling funds for re-election. It is hardly a time of governance; it is a time of political paranoia. The second term, which should be a time for consolidating progress and leaving a lasting legacy, frequently turns into a period of disengagement. With no electoral consequences, officeholders become less accountable, and public expectations diminish. Many leaders waste their second term with impunity, often enriching themselves and their cronies while the nation stagnates.

This “second-term syndrome” has played out across the federation. From state governors to presidents, the story is the same: inertia, impunity, and abandonment of the public trust. A single six-year term would put an end to this cycle. It compels leaders to focus on governance from day one and to see their time in office as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make meaningful change.

The High Cost of Elections—In Blood and Billions

Elections in Nigeria have become dangerous and prohibitively expensive. Billions of naira are poured into campaigns. Political parties, candidates and “godfathers” invest vast sums to buy votes, mobilize thugs, compromise electoral officials and influence outcomes. The desperation is driven by one key factor: incumbents’ fear of losing power or the hunger to retain it for another term. This desperation has turned our electoral process into a national crisis. Violence, intimidation, vote rigging and judicial manipulation have become normalized. In every election cycle, lives are lost, communities are destabilized and the will of the people is subverted.

By adopting a single six-year term, the stakes are lowered. With no second-term ambitions, incumbents will have little reason to abuse the system. Elections will be less combative, more civil, and less prone to violence. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and security agencies will face less pressure and can focus on delivering credible polls. Additionally, Nigeria would save billions of naira—funds that could be redirected to pressing social needs like healthcare, education and infrastructure.

Leadership with a Sense of Urgency

A six-year single term creates a natural deadline. Knowing they have a finite, non-renewable tenure, leaders are likely to govern with urgency. They will prioritize results over rhetoric, action over ambition, legacy over longevity. This sense of urgency can bring out the best in our leaders. It encourages them to be bold, to take decisions that are difficult but necessary, and to implement reforms that may not yield short-term applause but serve the long-term interest of the country. They are less likely to waste time on sycophantic rituals or elaborate self-celebration because they know the clock is ticking. Moreover, the six-year structure allows enough time to plan, execute and consolidate policy frameworks. Unlike the current four-year term, which is often barely enough to settle into office, a six-year term provides the stability needed for strategic governance while ensuring leaders do not overstay their welcome.

Curtailing the Menace of Political Godfathers

One of the gravest cancers afflicting Nigeria’s democratic system is godfatherism. Political godfathers, often unelected and unaccountable, wield immense power behind the scenes. They sponsor candidates, fund campaigns and in return, expect loyalty and access to state resources. The current two-term system makes it easier for these shadowy figures to extend their influence. Candidates, in a bid to secure a second term, often compromise their autonomy and governance style. They make deals that prioritize private interests over public good.

A six-year single term disrupts this arrangement. With only one term to serve, a leader can afford to ignore manipulative political patrons and focus on service delivery. This reduces the grip of moneybags on Nigerian politics and opens the door for more independent-minded, reform-oriented individuals to emerge. Merit, vision and credibility—not loyalty to power brokers—can become the new criteria for leadership selection.

Inclusive Governance and Fairer Power Rotation

Nigeria is a complex federation made up of over 250 ethnic groups, multiple religious identities, and geo-political zones with competing aspirations. One of the ways to manage this diversity is by ensuring that political power rotates fairly among the various zones. However, under the current system, when one region produces a governor or president for two consecutive terms, other regions are locked out of executive power for up to eight years. This breeds resentment, marginalization and distrust. A six-year single term accelerates rotation and enhances inclusivity. Every region stands a better chance of producing a leader within a shorter timeframe. This not only deepens our federal character principle but also fosters unity and national cohesion. It sends a clear message that every group has a seat at the table and a stake in the national project.

More Time for Policy Execution, Less for Campaigning

A major weakness of the current model is the obsession with re-election. Leaders spend their first term campaigning for the second and the second term protecting their legacies or trying to install successors. Governance takes a backseat while party politics becomes the main event. A single six-year term removes this distraction. It promotes full-term governance and encourages leaders to plan from the start. Policies and projects can be executed without fear of electoral backlash. This stability can strengthen institutions, improve public trust and attract long-term investments. For instance, in sectors like education, healthcare, infrastructure and power, policies often require years of steady implementation. A leader with a clear, undisturbed six-year window can push reforms with confidence and continuity.

Learning from Other Countries

The idea of a single term is not novel. Mexico has implemented a single six-year term for its president since 1917. The result has been a reduction in executive overreach and less political instability around elections. Other Latin American countries, such as Colombia and Paraguay, have also implemented similar systems. Back in Africa, conversations around tenure reform are gaining ground. In Liberia, there have been recent proposals to reduce presidential tenure to five or six years. In Senegal and Ghana, term limits are being scrutinized as part of broader democratic reforms.

In Nigeria, this conversation is not new. Former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011 proposed a six-year single term for Presidents and Governors. His rationale was simple: to reduce the distractions of campaigning and allow leaders to focus solely on governance. Although the proposal was rejected at the time, the logic behind it remains powerful—and even more urgent today.

A Cultural Reset: From Power to Service

Ultimately, what Nigeria needs is a cultural shift. A move away from seeing political office as a personal throne to viewing it as a national responsibility. The six-year single term is a powerful symbol of that change. It tells future leaders: “You have one chance, one opportunity—make it count.” It will no longer be about clinging to power or plotting re-election. It will be about vision, impact, and legacy. The change in tenure will create a new class of politicians—those who enter office to serve, not to loot; those who are driven by a sense of mission, not ambition. This will have a ripple effect on the entire governance ecosystem—ministries, agencies, local governments and the civil service. When leadership becomes time-bound and purpose-driven, it inspires efficiency, discipline and accountability at every level.

Adopting a single six-year term for political office holders—particularly Presidents and Governors—is a bold but necessary step. It reduces political toxicity, frees leaders from electoral blackmail, promotes inclusive governance and allows for real progress. We must stop recycling dysfunction and start reimagining democracy. A new Nigeria is possible—but it starts with a new kind of leadership, born not from the hunger for power, but from the hunger to

serve. (Vanguard)

Chief Afe Babalola is a seasoned legal practitioner and educationist