PRESIDENT Goodluck Ebele Jonathan sounded hurt when he said Nigerians misunderstood his intentions on a longer term for the President, and possibly governors. He was clear enough and Nigerians understood him clearly too. It was even when he started a defence of the project that Nigerians knew it was seven years, not six as many of them had thought.

Two days to his inauguration last May, he stunned his audience at lecture with the lamentation about the brevity of his tenure. We would quote him copiously from that lecture, in case he has forgotten.

“The Constitution has said four years, though some believe four years are too short to make any change, which I also believe. I believe because, if you are a new person and you are elected as a governor today, it will take one to one and half years for you to really stabilise, and you also know that some members of your cabinet are not good and that is why in most cases, after one year or two Mr. President reshuffles the cabinet and by the time you want to go for another two and half years, it is another election and you are all busy about winning election,” he said.

“It is a constitutional problem. In terms of people we appoint as Ministers, if you count from Tafawa Balewa to Ajumogobia as Foreign Ministers, we have 24 Foreign Ministers, in 50 years that means an average of two years per Minister, then how would a country drive its foreign policy? It will take more than two years for you to understand the policy, vis-à-vis the national interest,” Jonathan said. Few were then surprised that one of his earliest moves was to test public opinion with the news that he was sending a bill to amend constitutional provisions on tenure.

Nigerians were not amused, though Jonathan anchored his argument on development and national interest. “I am not saying that a Minister should serve for 30 to 40 years, but if we must transform, if the Minister is performing beyond 60 per cent average, you will expect that such a Minister should be retained. In some developed countries, you have people staying in ministerial position for five to six years and when they represent their President, they are at home on any issues raised,” the President had said.

When Nigerians thought tenure had taken a back seat in the light of more pressing national issues like security, Jonathan took the plinth of Mr. Alain Juppe, French Foreign Minister’s visit to State House to re-introduce it. He blamed Nigerians for misunderstanding him. The French, perhaps, would not.

“My proposal for a single seven-year tenure is anchored on the need for an incumbent President to focus maximum attention on the execution of his development programmes, instead of expending vital energy on re-election issues, though this has been misunderstood to mean I want additional seven years”, the President said.

It is also possible the President is misunderstanding Nigerians. They have seen too many tenure amendment (extension) schemes and they remember the damage they did by making an incumbent President not “to focus maximum attention on the execution of his development programmes.”