Farotimi Backs Obi’s One-Term Plan, Says Obasanjo, Buhari’s 16 Years ‘Ruined’ Nigeria

Rethinking Presidential Term Limits: Lessons from Nigeria and Beyond

As Nigeria approaches another pivotal election cycle, the debate over presidential term limits has resurfaced with renewed urgency. Human rights lawyer Dele Farotimi recently endorsed Peter Obi’s proposal for a single-term presidency, arguing that Nigeria’s past leaders squandered their time in office without delivering meaningful progress. This article explores the global landscape of term limits, their impact on governance, and the pros and cons of different systems.

Nigeria’s Experience: A Case for Reform

Farotimi’s critique is blunt: “Obasanjo had eight years; what did he do with it? Buhari had eight years; what did he do with it? He ruined Nigeria. Tinubu has had two years, and he is taking us back 50 years.” His argument is clear, longevity in office does not guarantee impact.

Peter Obi, a former presidential candidate, has proposed a single five-year term, inspired by South Korea’s model. His rationale? Leaders should enter office knowing they have one shot to deliver results, without the distraction of re-election campaigns.

Global Models of Term Limits

Countries with Two-Term Limits

• United States: Two four-year terms, enforced by the 22nd Amendment.
• Nigeria: Two four-year terms, enshrined in the 1999 Constitution.
• Brazil & Argentina: Two consecutive terms allowed; re-election possible after a break.
• South Africa & Kenya: Two five-year terms total.

Countries with Single-Term Limits

• Philippines: One six-year term, no re-election.
• Mexico: Similar model, aimed at curbing authoritarianism.
• South Korea: One five-year term, the model Obi advocates.

Benefits of Term Limits

For Two-Term Systems

• Accountability: Leaders must earn a second term through performance.
• Continuity: Allows time for long-term reforms.
• Democratic Choice: Citizens can re-elect trusted leaders.

For Single-Term Systems

• Governance Focus: No re-election distractions.
• Limits Power Consolidation: Reduces risk of authoritarian drift.
• Encourages Bold Reforms: Leaders may act decisively without political fear.

Challenges of Each System

Two-Term Systems

• Re-election Distractions: Campaigning can overshadow governance.
• Power Manipulation: Incumbents may attempt to extend their stay.
• Lame-Duck Syndrome: Final-term leaders may lose influence.

Single-Term Systems

• No Voter Recourse: Citizens can’t reward or punish performance via re-election.
• Short Time Horizon: Complex reforms may be rushed or abandoned.
• Loss of Continuity: Frequent leadership changes can disrupt progress.

Best Practices for Implementing Term Limits

• Constitutional Clarity: Define term limits precisely.
• Judicial Independence: Courts must enforce limits without bias.
• Electoral Integrity: Independent commissions should uphold candidacy rules.
• Civic Education: Citizens must understand and defend term limits.
• Succession Planning: Political parties should groom future leaders.

Enforcement: Successes and Failures

Successful Cases

• Liberia: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf stepped down after two terms.
• Benin & Mauritania: Peaceful transitions and strong adherence to limits.

Failed Cases

• Uganda: Museveni removed term limits and remains in power since 1986.
• Russia: Putin reset term limits via constitutional changes.
• Guinea: Alpha Condé’s third-term bid led to a coup.

Last Line of Action

Term limits are not just legal mechanisms, they’re democratic safeguards. Whether a country adopts a single-term or two-term presidency, success depends on institutional strength, civic vigilance, and leadership intent. As Nigeria debates its future, the question isn’t just how long a president should serve, but what they do with the time they’re given.