*The dummy in a proposed constitution amendment

Just as it was in  the early days of the contest for the presidential ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, concerning zoning, the talk about a proposed amendment to the 1999 Constitution, (even as amended) regarding tenure of office for the president and governors, is again being denied as a presidential initiative.  This story investigates the ambivalence in the Presidency on the matter and discovers that the reason for the tongue-in-cheek posture is a function of the insincerity of the agenda because Nigerian leaders are so used to failing themselves and the nation that even in the face of a glaring opportunity to excel and succeed, they fail to see it.

By Jide Ajani, Deputy Editor

Living in denial, again?  The     pantomime that is the politics behind the new gambit in town, the proposed amendment to the tenure of office of the president and governors, may be bringing the weakness out of President Goodluck Jonathan again.  Last Thursday, at the National Executive Committee, NEC, meeting of  the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP, it was a seemingly meek President who was at pains to explain to party leaders that he was not behind the proposal for a six-year single-term tenure of office.  He had to explain because an earlier attempt by his media adviser to douse the tension was grossly dysfunctional.

Beyond the categorical statements of denial by President Jonathan, Sunday Vanguard  investigated the issue as it is unfolding and came to some startling conclusions. First, it was discovered, as President Jonathan had said, that consultations were still going on and nothing was yet sacrosanct.

In fact, the disclosure about the bill was to be made either later in the year or some time early next year. However, President Jonathan is in danger, and a grave one at that, of losing the goodwill that swept him to office on account of how the politics of the proposed amendment is played, especially as he chose not to make full disclosures to his party leaders.

Sunday Vanguard was informed that during consultations by President Jonathan, two schools of thought emerged.

While there are those who believe and insist that a six-year single term of office would take care of some of the concerns of re-election, those in this school also appreciate the possibility of another form of crisis, one of succession.

Interestingly, in the second school of thought are the hawks in President Jonathan’s administration that are pushing that nothing should stop President Jonathan from enjoying a six-year single term tenure.  Their argument is plausible. And, it is their plausibility that creates the grave danger. Why and how?

Follow their argument:  President Jonathan’s remarks at the PDP NEC meeting, and the clarification of Dr. Reuben Abati on the matter are correct in content but not in context.

Hear President Jonathan:  “There is a brief comment I want to make on this so- called single tenure.  I wouldn’t have love to, but probably, it is becoming so topical in the papers.  Most of the papers carried it today (Wednesday) and when things happen, they do take it to a different direction.

‘’Since we are meeting here as the NEC of the party, it is probably proper to clarify some of these issues so that it will not be misunderstood.  The rumour came in, it is me that asked some few people, whether a single tenure will be a better option than a double tenure.  Before I take any decision, I used to ask people.  But, that is not the end of consultation.

It is a major chain.  So, before I can even send such a bill to the National Assembly, I will consult with the governors because, any constitutional amendment involves the states and if they are not on the same page with you, there is no way such an amendment can easily sail through.  So, I have not even discussed with the governors.

I have never.  Though as individuals, probably I have mentioned to one or two; probably along the discussion crossing that area.  Even the leadership of the party and the National Assembly, I might have mentioned to one or two persons, but not the formal group consultation.  I have not done that level of consultation.  When we got to know that people were holding meetings, we said no, no, no, clarify this.  Nobody should hold meeting about elongation of tenure, it has nothing to do with elongation of tenure.  The tenure of Goodluck Jonathan and Namadi Sambo will end on May 29, 2015.  That is the constitution.  So, it has nothing to do with that.

“But, the clarification that came out, rather compounded the whole story. And how did it even come about?  Some of you will remember that 2008/2009 when we came on board and at the end of the election, the feeling that the election was poorly done was so dramatised within and outside the country, people felt that elections were not properly conducted. I feel personally insulted whenever I travel abroad to hold meetings and people come to make issues as if it was a stolen mandate.

I used to tell people around me that no Nigerian President or Vice-President will get out and get insulted.  So, if I have the opportunity to oversee elections, elections must be credible so that people will accept us anywhere. Because of those challenges, the late President set up the Justice Uwais Committee on Electoral Reform.  He also asked all the parties to come together and form a team so that all the parties will submit a common position.  And, he asked me, then Vice-President, to chair the inter-party committee to come up with a common memorandum to the Justice Uwais Committee.

“Indeed, I started asking some people some questions and so, the information leaked to the press and they started to make issues out of it.  But, I assure the party that major constitutional amendment cannot go to the National Assembly except Mr. President consults with the leaders of the party and consults with the National Assembly and consults with the governors.

“Because the way the information flowed, we said we will correct the impression. It has nothing to do with the four-year presidency that Nigerians have given to us.  We just wanted to clarify it and I think we need to mention that it was not my idea; it was the idea of the committee that I chaired which  the majority members of the committee believe is the best option. But, for the bill to go for constitutional amendment, consultations have to be done widely.  Though some of the statements are quite insulting because of the type of politics we pla. I tell PDP members not to join issue with people but just clarify so that people will understand.  I just need to mention this so that people will know the evolution of this so-called single tenure.”

The earlier clarification President Jonathan referred to in his remarks to PDP leaders was the statement by his Adviser on Media, Dr. Reuben Abati, viz: “This clarification has become necessary in the light of certain reports in the section of the media that the proposed bill is meant to elongate President Goodluck Jonathan’s tenure. Nothing can be more untrue.

The energy that has been devoted to speculations on the contents of the likely bill is akin to an attempt to force the abortion of a non-existent pregnancy. The details of the bill will be clear in terms of its provisions when it is forwarded to the National Assembly for consideration. The president makes it clear that his wish for a single tenure for the office of the president and that of the governors is not borne out of any personal interest.

“The proposed amendment will not have anything to do with him as a person; what he owes Nigeria is good governance and he is singularly committed to this. Besides, it is trite law that the envisaged amendment cannot have a retroactive effect. This means that whatever single term tenure is enacted into law by the National Assembly will take effect from 2015.”

But, because of the experience of Nigerians, and how their leaders have become serial liars, most were not ready to give President Jonathan a chance to explain.

Now, the plausibility of the argument of those who insist that President Jonathan should not be bothered about his enjoyment or not of the amendment follows like this:
The statement that President Jonathan would not want a retroactive enjoyment of the amendment is correct, very correct – in content alone and not in context.  In so far as President Jonathan’s four-year tenure for which he got the mandate of Nigerians do not become six years as being proposed, then he would not enjoy the benefit of the amendment.  Therefore, Mr. President is right to say he would not benefit or make it retroactive.

Also, having insisted that he would do just one term of office President Jonathan appears to be keeping faith on the surface of it.

The proposal, if carried through, would mean a single term of six years.
The phrasing of the letters of the amendment would mean that any Nigerian is qualified to seek to be elected either as a President or as a governor.  That is the proposal.

In effect, it would not bar President Jonathan from seeking the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.

However, and this is a long shot, except the Constitution is reduced to a legislative document of a banana republic, in which case President Jonathan’s name would be inserted, along with the names of persons in the categories of individuals whom Nigerians do not want to benefit from the six-year single term, then President Jonathan and such individuals would remain barred from contesting.

If President Jonathan contests, he would equally be seeking a single term of office which makes his position of doing just a single term true and intact.  This is the argument of the hawks that President Jonathan is also consulting.

How this would play out remains to be seen.

Unfortunately, Nigerians, having witnessed how ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo frustrated his deputy, Atiku Abubakar, from succeeding him, as well as the huge resources and time wasted on his attempt to seek a constitutional amendment for an extra tenure in 2006, any thought of an amendment of the tenure of office generates huge distrusts.

In fact, but for the seeming heroic roles of the Malam Adamu Ciroma-led Northern Political Leaders Forum, NPLF,  then Senate President, Ken Nnamani and Atiku and those opposed to Obasanjo’s ambition which he kept denying to the marines, Obasanjo would have had his tenure elongation which would not also have been retroactive because it would be a new constitution as amended.

It is going to be in the courts of Senate President David Mark, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, to do what is right for Nigeria and Nigerians.  The earlier amendment of last year avoided the landmines of tenure, state creation and revenue formula.

President Jonathan would be within his legitimate rights to seek to contest once the amendment is done.
However, would he allow that statesmanlike part of him prevail, avoid the dangers of seeking re-election and become a true hero?  Only Jonathan himself can answer the question.  But would he answer well?

There are doubts, at least for now. The reason is because of the history of deniability that has been established. When the issue of zoning first began last year, President Jonathan’s handlers, rather than confront the argument in its complete frame, chose to argue from the rear by denying that there was, first, any meeting where zoning was agreed upon in PDP, only to wake up later and bulldoze their way into the convention ground where Jonathan won the PDP ticket. If Jonathan impresses Nigerians well enough with true transformation in the next two years, they would on their own make the argument that he should continue and seek the six-year mandate.

However, and sadly so, his early first steps are so unsure that any talk of an amendment to a tenure of office is greeted by disdain and angst.  Jonathan can either write his name in gold or go the way of past Nigerian leaders who are so used to failing that even when they are on the path of glory, they fail to realise or even see it.

In which ways would a succession crisis be better than the re-election crisis Nigerians are used to? It would be one form of confusion replacing an earlier form of confusion so long as the people involved are Nigerian politicians.

For now, some hawks are priming President Jonathan for re-election on a single term – just a single term and they believe they are right to do so within the law.