By Opeyemi Adelakun
The reported one-term agreement between the presidential candidate of the Nigerian Democratic Congress (NDC), Peter Obi, and his running mate, Senator Rabiu Kwankwaso, has drawn contrasting reactions across the North, with socio-political groups taking opposing positions while legal experts question its constitutional validity.
The debate followed Kwankwaso’s disclosure that Obi signed a written commitment to serve only one four-year term if elected president in 2027, allowing power to return to the North in line with the party’s internal power-sharing arrangement.
Speaking during a television interview earlier this week, the former Kano State governor expressed confidence that Obi would honour the agreement.
“Oh yes, I personally believe him. I don’t think, based on what I now know about him, that he will change his mind when the time comes. We are all gentlemen,” Kwankwaso said.
The disclosure, however, has exposed deep divisions among northern stakeholders over the political and constitutional implications of such an arrangement.
The Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) dismissed the reported pact, describing it as unconstitutional, politically misplaced and insufficient to earn the support of northern voters.
The forum argued that no individual had been authorised to negotiate presidential power rotation on behalf of any region, stressing that zoning remains an internal party affair rather than a constitutional provision.
Speaking with newsmen, the National Publicity Secretary of the ACF, Prof. Tukur Muhammad Baba, said there was no legal basis for such an agreement and questioned the logic of preventing a performing president from seeking re-election.
“I pointed out that this kind of arrangement, honestly, is unproductive and doesn’t make much sense. First of all, rotation of leadership from North to South is not a constitutional requirement; it’s an internal party affair and cannot be imposed on the nation by absolutely anybody,” he said.
According to him, even if Obi won the presidency and delivered good governance, there would be no justification for compelling him to relinquish office after one term.
“Suppose, for example, Peter Obi wins the election by chance and performs very well; would it be reasonable to say that after four years, it has to return to someone whose hands we don’t yet know?
“It just doesn’t make sense. Nigerian politicians should not be behaving as if all they want is to attain a position of leadership, and that’s all. This agreement is not about service. It is about personal ambitions.”
Baba also insisted that neither Obi nor Kwankwaso had the mandate to negotiate the country’s leadership arrangement.
“Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has sent Peter Obi or anybody to negotiate a decision on the presidency between the North and the South. They are talking for themselves.
“They should stop talking about doing it for southerners or, later on, for northerners. No, it’s for their personal ambition.
“In my opinion, and in our opinion, the fact that they could sign such an agreement is an even better reason for Peter Obi and Rabiu Kwankwaso to be rejected because, in my personal opinion, they don’t wish this country well,” he added.
He maintained that Nigeria required leaders committed to equity, national development and service rather than political arrangements built around succession plans.
In sharp contrast, the Middle Belt Forum (MBF) welcomed the reported one-term commitment, saying it aligned with the principle of power rotation and could strengthen the region’s quest to produce Nigeria’s next president.
The spokesman of the forum, Luka Binniyat, said the Middle Belt had no objection to Obi serving only one term, provided it created an opportunity for power to return to the region in 2031.
“By 2031, power should return to the North, to the Middle Belt. We all agreed in 2023 that power should be retained in the South up to 2031. Now, if Peter Obi signed that agreement, it is in order because the North will take over power.
“And when we say the North this time, we are talking about the Middle Belt; that power will return to the Middle Belt in 2031. And we have that agreement with all the major socio-cultural organisations of the South. So, if Peter Obi will be doing that, and it is true, it means that the Middle Belt is getting more assurance that power will return to it,” Binniyat said.
He argued that the Muslim North had occupied the presidency for a significant period since 1999 and that the Middle Belt should produce the next northern president when power returns to the region.
The controversy has also attracted legal scrutiny, with senior lawyers maintaining that any private agreement on a single presidential term cannot override the provisions of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Abdul Balogun said the Constitution only recognises a renewable four-year tenure and does not accommodate private political arrangements limiting a president to one term.
“What the 1999 Constitution recognises is a four-year, two-term presidency. The law of the country does not back any other agreement,” he said.
Another lawyer, Hillary Omoh, said the reported pact amounted to a personal undertaking rather than a legally enforceable contract.
“The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria gives everyone the right to aspire to the position of president.
“Also, the 1999 Constitution gives room for re-election; however, one can decide to do just one term and decide not to run for a second term in office,” she said.
Similarly, James Ekwe described the arrangement as a gentleman’s agreement, warning that political realities could make such commitments difficult to sustain.
“If anyone agrees to sign such an agreement, I doubt that it will be honoured because the luxury political office holders enjoy in this part of the world is so much.
“Even if the candidate was honest and determined at the point of signing such an agreement, the luxury he will enjoy after assuming office can make him rethink,” Ekwe said.
Leave a Reply