Makinde’s Call for Single-Term Tenure Sparks National Debate: Reform or Political Irony?

In a move stirring both debate and derision across Nigeria’s political spectrum, Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde has proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit all elected political office holders to a single term in office.

The proposal, made during a recent national governance forum in Abuja, has sparked widespread reactions—some praising its boldness, others questioning its timing. Read here.

Governor Makinde, who is currently serving his final 2 years of his second term as governor of Oyo State, described the proposal as “a necessary step to curb the abuse of incumbency and ensure elected officials prioritize governance over re-election politics.”

“If public office holders know they have only one term, they’ll focus less on politics and more on delivering results,” Makinde said. “We must break the cycle of second-term desperation that often leads to underperformance, corruption, and political violence.”

Governor Makinde first assumed office in May 2019 after winning a tightly contested election under the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). Widely seen as a technocrat and reformist, his first term earned commendations for improvements in education, infrastructure, and workers’ welfare.

In March 2023, he was re-elected for a second term in office, defeating his rivals with an increased margin—a sign of continued public confidence. Now nearing the end of his constitutionally-allowed second term, his call for a single-term limit is seen by many as ironic.

Makinde insists that the idea is not born out of personal convenience but of deep reflection. In his words:

“Serving two terms gives you perspective. I’ve seen how the quest for a second term can derail even well-meaning leaders. We spend the first term trying to impress voters and the second repaying political debts. A single, non-renewable term of, say, six years, would remove this toxic cycle.”

He likened the proposed system to the Mexican presidential model, where the president serves one six-year term, arguing that such a system could help Nigeria move away from entrenched incumbency politics and electoral violence.

While some Nigerians, especially good governance advocates, have praised Makinde’s courage in initiating the conversation, many other commentators see it as a classic case of “closing the door after walking through it twice.”

“Why didn’t he make this proposal in his first term if he believed in it so much?”. “It’s easy to be philosophical when your political journey is almost over.”

On social media, reactions have been intense. A viral tweet read: “Makinde did 8 years and now says others should do 4 or 6 once. If this is not Nigerian hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.”

“If he truly believed in single-term limits, he could have voluntarily stepped aside after one term. “You cannot advocate for reform only when you’re no longer affected by it

Others questioned whether the proposal would have been sincere if he had lost re-election in 2023.

Some political commentators argue that the proposal may still hold merit, even if its timing appears opportunistic.

Makinde’s proposal would require a constitutional amendment — a process that demands a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and the approval of 24 state houses of assembly. Analysts agree this will be an uphill battle.

Still, the conversation has opened a new chapter in the dialogue on political reform. In a country where incumbents routinely use state resources to secure second terms, the proposal touches a nerve.

Governor Makinde’s single-term proposal has ignited an important debate: Should Nigeria reconsider how long its elected officials serve? While the governor insists he is acting in the national interest, critics argue that the timing betrays a lack of sincerity.

Whether the idea gains traction or not, one thing is certain: the conversation around tenure, accountability, and governance in Nigeria is far from over.

Currently, the Nigerian Constitution allows the President and state governors to serve two terms of four years each. Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which must pass with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the National Assembly and be ratified by at least 24 of the 36 state Houses of Assembly.

With the 2027 elections on the horizon and political tensions gradually heating up, analysts doubt that such a reform could gain the political traction needed for legislative passage.