In a significant development on Tuesday, the Nigerian House of Representatives rejected a proposed constitutional amendment bill seeking to entrench the principle of rotational presidency among the six geopolitical zones of the country. The controversial bill, sponsored by the Deputy Speaker of the House, Benjamin Okezie Kalu, was met with sharp divisions and heated debate before ultimately being thrown out by a voice vote.
The Proposal: Rotational Presidency Bill
The bill, formally titled:
“A Bill for an Act to Alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Cap. C23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 to Provide for the Principle of Rotation of the Offices of the President and the Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria among the Six Geopolitical Zones of the Country, Namely: North Central, North East, North West, South East, South South, and South West and for Related Matters (HB. 2291)”
was one of seven constitution amendment bills listed for second reading on the House Order Paper.
Also Read : From Surgeon to Serial Killer: How Dr. Abass Was Arrested and Now Faces Multiple Murder Charges
According to its sponsor, Hon. Benjamin Kalu, the essence of the bill was to foster national unity, fairness, and inclusivity, by ensuring that all geopolitical zones in Nigeria are given equal opportunities to lead the nation through the offices of the President and Vice President.
Support and Opposition: Arguments from the House
The bill sparked fierce debates among members of the House, splitting opinions along ideological and constitutional lines.
Arguments Against the Bill
Rep. Aliyu Madaki (NNPP, Kano) argued strongly against the bill, stating that the principle of federal character as already embedded in the Nigerian constitution adequately addresses issues of equity and inclusion. He emphasized that zoning should remain the prerogative of political parties, not the constitution.
“This bill is unnecessary. The constitution already provides for federal character, which is enough to guide political participation,” Madaki noted.
Rep. Sada Soli (APC, Katsina) took a more critical stance, describing the bill as potentially damaging to national unity. According to him, constitutionalizing rotational presidency could undermine merit and competence, leading to mediocrity in leadership.
“It could play up regional and ethnic interests over competency. It will encourage limited choice of people that can vie for office and it will encourage regional rivalry which negates the spirit of unity,” Soli warned.
Rep. Shina Oyedeji echoed similar sentiments, arguing that democracy thrives on open competition, not restrictions.
“Everybody should be given the chance to stand and contest an election in any given opportunity,” he said.
Also opposing the bill was Rep. Bello El-Rufai (APC, Kaduna), who feared that embedding rotational presidency in the constitution would only exacerbate ethnic tensions and deepen regional divides.
Arguments in Support
However, not all lawmakers stood against the bill. Rep. Ali Isah (PDP, Gombe) backed the proposal, stating that constitutionalizing rotation would guarantee a sense of belonging and justice for all six geopolitical zones.
“This is not about mediocrity, it’s about equity. Every zone deserves the opportunity to lead,” he argued.
In response to opponents, Deputy Speaker Benjamin Kalu defended his bill passionately, asserting that every part of Nigeria has competent leaders capable of handling the presidency.
“There are capable individuals in every zone. This is about inclusiveness and balance. It’s not about mediocrity,” he said.
Voice Vote and Outcome
Despite the arguments in favour of the bill, the general sentiment on the floor leaned heavily toward opposition. After the debate, the Deputy Speaker put the bill to a voice vote, and the resounding “nays” clearly overpowered the “ayes”.
Kalu, who presided over the session, had no choice but to rule in favor of the majority, effectively killing the bill at the second reading stage.
Implications of the Rejection
The rejection of the rotational presidency bill carries significant implications for the future of Nigeria’s democratic structure. It reaffirms the long-standing tradition of open democratic competition for the presidency, unrestrained by constitutional limitations on region or ethnicity.
However, the rejection also highlights persistent regional suspicions and agitations for power-sharing and equity. Some political observers argue that leaving rotational arrangements at the discretion of political parties has not guaranteed balance, especially with some zones feeling perpetually marginalized in presidential politics.
Public Reactions and Next Steps
In the immediate aftermath, reactions on social media and political forums were mixed. Supporters of the bill lamented what they called a missed opportunity to institutionalize equity and foster national cohesion.
Others praised the House for upholding the core tenets of democracy, insisting that competence should always supersede regional considerations in choosing Nigeria’s leadership.
Constitutional analysts believe the bill’s defeat might resurface in future amendments, particularly if public agitation for rotational power-sharing gains traction.
Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker Kalu has indicated he will continue to advocate for national unity through legislative channels, despite the bill’s failure.
What Every Reader Should Know
The National Assembly’s decision to reject the bill for rotational presidency adds another chapter to Nigeria’s evolving democratic story. While the House insists on preserving open democratic competition, voices from across the federation will continue to demand a system that reflects the country’s diversity, both in rhetoric and in power-sharing.
As Nigeria heads toward future elections, the debate on zoning, equity, and merit is likely to remain a recurring theme in both political and legislative discourse.
