Like many other Nigerians, I am concerned about the political situation in our country.

Given the challenges that follow our elections, it’s evident that something is not right with our system.

I’ve given much thought to these problems. As a contribution to addressing these issues, I released some videos to address the problems.

First, I described a rotational governing model for Nigeria.

That model makes the case for rotating the presidency and political offices among the six geopolitical zones.

Then, in a three-part series, I described a proposal for restructuring Nigeria into a federation of six zones or regions with the governing philosophy built on top of the rotational model.

These presentations are available on my YouTube channel — http://www.youtube.com/@FirstIsLast. I will return to these later.

The remainder of this paper will have two broad outlines.

Two distinguished and highly respected Nigerians have recently contributed to the ongoing discussions on a suitable political system for Nigeria.

In a recent interview, the esteemed Afenefere leader Pa Adebanjo spoke to Arise TV, where he fervently advocated for a return to a parliamentary system of government.

More recently, on February 16, 2024, the Labor Party presidential candidate in the 2023 election and former governor of Anambra state, Mr. Peter Obi, echoed the call for a return to a parliamentary system in Nigeria during a lecture at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA.

As my contribution to this crucial debate, I will argue that the root of Nigeria’s problem is not the system of government per se but instead how Nigeria chooses to undermine the system, thereby practicing a version that the originators never intended.

This is a collective issue that we must all work together to address.

The parliamentary and presidential government systems are effectively implemented in advanced Western democracies, where political parties are built on solid ideologies.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in Nigeria. Our political parties are primarily ethnic-based, and due to space constraints, I will only provide a summary of my rotational governing model, which considers our diverse ethnicities.

Pa Adebanjo has passionately and convincingly argued that the military imposed Nigeria’s 1999 constitution (as amended).

He has called for a new constitution based on the federal system that our founding fathers inherited from the colonial masters.

In contributing to this debate, I will argue that a federation based on the current six geopolitical zones is more suitable than the three regions of 1960.

Furthermore, I will assert that regardless of the resulting system, the principles outlined in the rotational model should be adopted to ensure that no ethnic or minority group feels overlooked or marginalized.

Recent Calls for a Change to the Parliamentary System in Nigeria

Pa Adebanjo and Mr. Peter Obi made solid arguments in favor of a return to the parliamentary system.

Their arguments can be summarized as follows. In the parliamentary system: The prime minister (PM) will be a member of parliament, so the PM is first among equals.

Pa Adebanjo also noted that one of the reasons the current presidential system is unsuitable is that the president acts like a dictator in Nigeria; The parliament can move a vote of no confidence on the prime minister; The prime minister can directly respond to questions in parliament, not through spokespersons or surrogates.

Let me first address the issue Pa Adebanjo raised regarding the president acting like a dictator.

This is not because that’s the way the presidential system was designed. It’s an unfortunate way for Nigeria to practice the system.

The presidential system, which I suspect Nigeria copied from the United States, emphasizes the separation of power between the three branches of government – the Executive headed by the President, the Legislature headed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Judiciary headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The system encouraged solid checks and balances and a balance of power between these three arms of government.

The one insignificant difference in the structure in Nigeria is that the President of the Senate, instead of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, heads the Legislature.

A recent event in American history sheds a clear light on the separation of powers in the United States.

During the 116th Congress, there was a government shutdown because the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, could not reach a federal budget agreement with the President of the United States, Donald Trump, a Republican.

This was about when the president usually addressed a joint session of Congress in what is called the State of the Union Address.

However, due to the government shutdown, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, refused Donald Trump, the President of the United States, to deliver the State of the Union before Congress.

Speaker Pelosi exercised her headship of a branch of government, making it clear that the head of the executive branch, the president, had no control over the legislature, thus demonstrating the separation and balance of power.

The event in the 116th Congress in the United States demonstrated that the founding fathers didn’t intend to have a president act like a dictator.

So if the president acted like a dictator in Nigeria, as alleged by Pa Adebanjo, it isn’t because it was meant to be that way. Nigerians must determine why they have degraded the system they copied from the United States.

The balance of power, or lack of it, isn’t the only place Nigeria differs from the United States in the practice of a presidential system.

Anyone who understands America knows what it takes to become president. America has a thorough primary season where each party vets its presidential candidates.

There are debates and town hall question-and-answer sessions.

Candidates have numerous chances to explain their governing philosophy and persuade the public that they would be the best for the position.

It’s clear to everyone that Nigeria does not practice anything that resembles this thoroughness.

Before delving into the merits or otherwise of the parliamentary system, one must understand some key concepts in that system as practiced in the United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom, every Wednesday at noon, when the House of Commons is sitting, the prime minister takes questions from the Members of Parliament (MPs).

This event is called Prime Minister’s Question (PMQ) Time.

Over time, Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) became a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom so much that the Institute for Government, a British independent think tank, has described PMQs as “the most distinctive and internationally famous feature of British politics.”

Anyone who has followed politics in the United Kingdom is usually filled with awe at the sight of the prime minister taking questions in real-time in the House of Commons, packed with MPs.

However, it’s important not to lose sight of PMQs as constitutional conventions. Generally, a constitutional convention is an informal and uncodified tradition that a state’s institutions follow.

One of the strong arguments made by Mr. Peter Obi at Harvard is that in a parliamentary system, the prime minister can no longer depend on sending out spokespersons or surrogates but must instead talk directly to the people by answering questions in the parliament.

But given that the PMQs are simply an informal and uncodified convention, and seeing how we have changed the American presidential system, what stops the prime minister in Nigeria from sending a spokesperson or surrogate to the parliament?

But aside from our ability or otherwise to follow conventions, there’s a more fundamental problem with a parliamentary system of government in Nigeria.

Political parties in developed Western economies are based on ideologies such as the Conservative and Liberal ideologies.

But that’s not the case in Nigeria. Our political parties are ethnic-based.

Aside from some minor changes, our political parties are still based on the three political parties we had at Independence.

These were, in no particular order: The Action Group (AG) led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo (the Yoruba party), the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (the Igbo party) and the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) led by Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduana of Sokoto (the Hausa/Fulani party.)

After the 1959 elections that heralded our independence, none of the three parties won enough seats to form a government.

As in a parliamentary system, parties had to go into alliance.

The result was that the NCNC went into a coalition with the NPC, which had the most seats, enabling the alliance to form a government. This forced the AG into opposition.

Unlike in the United Kingdom, where it would have been said that the conservative or liberal party went into opposition, in Nigeria, it became that the Igbo and the Hausa aligned to force the Yoruba ethnic group into opposition, thereby marginalizing them.

This scenario is unlikely where political parties are not ethnic-based.

In such cases, there’s a higher chance of siblings belonging to different political parties, minimizing the likelihood of accusations of ethnic marginalization.

A Return to the Federalism of 1960

Pa Adebanjo has, on numerous occasions, advocated for a return to the status quo at independence. He eloquently argues that Nigeria can’t continue to operate on a constitution imposed by the military. He believes that the best thing that can happen to Nigeria is to return to the last system the people or their representatives agreed on. That would be a return to the federation of three regions in 1960.

While I agree that Nigeria needs a new constitution based on federating components, I don’t think Nigeria can return to the three regions of 1960/1963. The creation of states gave the minorities in the regions their independence. Returning to the three regions with power centered in Kaduna, Ibadan, and Enugu would cause minorities to lose power, hence a non-starter. Consider the following: Is it conceivable that the Rivers and Efik people would want to return to a union with an Igbo majority? That’s the Eastern Region of 1960; What about the Plateau and Benue people with all the challenges with Fulani herdsmen? Would they gladly return to a union with a Fulani majority? Similarly, the Delta people in the old Western Region.

If we agree on a federation, instead of the three regions of the ‘60s, I propose a federation of six zones or regions based on the current six geopolitical zones: North Central, North East, North West, South East, South-South, and South West.

A Rotational Governing Model for Nigeria

I have proposed a rotational governing model for Nigeria. Due to a lack of space, I will summarize it, but I would encourage the reader to view the details posted on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/@FirstIsLast.

One of the challenges with the current 1999 constitution is that it leaves a lot of power to the president with the hope that the president will do the right thing. But sometimes what is considered suitable by one may not be right for another, especially in an ethnic-based society like ours. The rotational model will attempt to address some of these issues and, if accepted and implemented, will ensure that every Nigerian feels wanted and accepted in the country.

Here are some of the critical features of the rotational model.

· The rotational model is based on our six ethnic geopolitical zones — North Central, North East, North West, South East, South-South, and South West.

· The presidency will be for a single 6-year term and rotates through the six zones.

· We refer to the single 6-year term as an election cycle.

· The President and Vice come from the same zone, so if the President cannot complete the term, the Vice President from the same zone takes over.

· All presidential appointments are distributed into six Appointment Buckets, A, B, …, F. The appointments in an Appointment Bucket (AB) are fixed and can’t be moved from one AB to another. New appointments are added to ABs. But once an appointment is placed in an AB, it stays there.

· Note that those we refer to as White House staff (in America) or Aso Rock staff (in Nigeria) are not part of the presidential appointments referred to here. These people, for example, the Chief of Staff, National Security Adviser, Presidential Spokesperson, White House or Aso Rock Photographer, etc., work for the president. They don’t belong to the ABs. The president hires and fires them at will. They do not go through Senate screening.

· An AB is assigned to a zone every election cycle, and the ABs are rotated at the end of each cycle.

· By definition, an AB contains all appointments the president is constitutionally required to make from the zone the AB is assigned to.

· Thus, a geopolitical zone is assigned a new AB after every presidential election.

· Since the ABs rotate through the zones, every zone has the chance to satisfy every appointment.

Suppose AB(A) is the appointment in Bucket A, AB(B) is the appointment in Bucket B, etc. Let’s assume that the Buckets contain the following appointments:

· AB(A): Head of the Army, Minister of Transport, Minister of Environment.

· AB(B): Head of the Air Force, Minister of Works, Minister of Energy.

· AB(C): Head of the Navy, Attorney General, Minister of FCT.

· AB(D): Head of DSS, Foreign Minister, Minister of Petroleum.

· AB(E): Inspector General of Police, Minister of Finance, Minister of Health.

· AB(F): Head of Customs, Minister of Defense, Minister of Housing.

The above shows that if AB(A) is assigned to a zone after an election, the president must appoint the Head of the Army, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Environment from that zone since these portfolios are in AB(A). Similarly, the president must appoint the Head of the Air Force, the Minister of Works, and the Minister of Energy from the zone to which AB(B) was assigned. The other ABs can be similarly interpreted.

The following shows a sample of zone ordering and the year the president must be elected from that zone. Note that the ordering is purely random and strictly for illustrative purposes only.

· North Central Zone (NC): 2027

· South East Zone (SE): 2033

· North East Zone (NE): 2039

· South West Zone (SW): 2045

· North West Zone (NW): 2051

· South South Zone (SS): 2057

Assuming that the rotational model goes into effect in 2027, the listing above suggests that the president will come from the NC zone that year and from the SE zone in 2033. Other rows can be similarly read.

What does it mean to say that a president comes from a zone? Let me start by stating what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that indigenes of the zone will elect the president. For illustrative purposes, assume Nigeria has three political parties – the All Progressive Congress (APC), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the Labor Party (LP). The model supports any number of political parties; three were chosen for illustrative purposes only. Suppose there’s going to be an election in 2027; the model says that in 2027, during their respective conventions:

· The APC presidential candidate and their vice-presidential candidate must be indigenes of the NC zone.

· The PDP presidential candidate and their vice-presidential candidate must be indigenes of the NC zone.

· The LP presidential candidate and their vice-presidential must be indigenes of the NC zone.

Thus, after the election and any potential court cases, the winner must be an indigene of the NC zone since all the contestants were from that zone.

It’s important to understand that in Nigeria today, zoning is practiced in one form or another nationwide.

The rotational model wants to formalize and codify it.

Part of the problems the PDP had during the 2023 election cycle was the accusation that Atiku Abubakar disrupted the zoning convention agreed to by the party.

Moreover, many states also zone the gubernatorial slot to a part of the state during every election cycle.

When the rotational model was initially developed, a simple computer algorithm generated the Bucket assignments for every Zone in every election year.

Remember that the first six election years are 2027, 2033, 2039, 2045, 2051 and 2057. Consider these entries for 2027 as an example.

2027: NC=AB(A); SE=AB(B); NE=AB(C); SW=AB(D); NW=AB(E); SS=AB(F)

The entries mean that in 2027:

· Appointment Bucket A is assigned to the NC Zone

· Appointment Bucket B is assigned to the SE Zone

· Appointment Bucket C is assigned to the NE Zone

· Appointment Bucket D is assigned to the SW Zone

· Appointment Bucket E is assigned to the NW Zone

· Appointment Bucket F is assigned to the SS Zone

Here are the assignments for the first six election cycles.

· 2027: NC=AB(A); SE=AB(B); NE=AB(C); SW=AB(D); NW=AB(E); SS=AB(F)

· 2033: NC=AB(F); SE=AB(A); NE=AB(B); SW=AB(C); NW=AB(D); SS=AB(E)

· 2039: NC=AB(E); SE=AB(F); NE=AB(A); SW=AB(B); NW=AB(C); SS=AB(D)

· 2045: NC=AB(D); SE=AB(E); NE=AB(F); SW=AB(A); NW=AB(B); SS=AB(C)

· 2051: NC=AB(C); SE=AB(D); NE=AB(E); SW=AB(F); NW=AB(A); SS=AB(B)

· 2057: NC=AB(B); SE=AB(C); NE=AB(D); SW=AB(E); NW=AB(F); SS=AB(A)

So, any election year assignment can be interpreted as done for 2027. For example, in 2051, the NC Zone gets Bucket C, the SE receives Bucket D, the NE gets Bucket E, the SW gets Bucket F, the NW gets Bucket A, and the SS gets Bucket B.

For simplicity, let’s assume that the zone that gets AB(A) also produces the president and their vice. For example, in 2057, when the SS zone gets AB(A), the president and vice will also come from the SS zone.

By scrutinizing the listings, we can see that every Zone gets a chance to produce the president and vice president.

We can also see that every Appointment Bucket (A, B, C, …F) is assigned to every Zone; thus, every Zone can satisfy every appointment in the country.

So, in summary, the listing captures the essence of the rotational model. Today, everyone wants to be president because, as Pa Adebanjo observed, the president acts like a military dictator.

The rotational model codifies presidential behavior in the Constitution.

Nigerians can’t continue to hope that the president will be benevolent and do the right thing. Instead, the rotational model provides proper guardrails to ensure that every ethnic or minority group is a complete and respected member of the Nigerian experiment.

Three other factors not covered formally in the rotational model are addressed briefly. In their current state, those factors contribute to the country’s instability.

· The Judiciary: The current appointment system to the Supreme Court vests too much power in the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN).

In Nigeria, the Supreme Court is comprised of the Chief Justice and not more than twenty-one Justices. The CJN selects Justices that hear a case. This method is unfair.

Since all cases are not the same in substance and importance, the choice of the Justices to listen to a case may already have skewed justice.

A more just solution is for the Supreme Court to be made up of Justices appointed as follows: two Justices from each geopolitical zone and one Justice from the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) — even though we know that the FCT is part of a zone.

Nigeria will thus have thirteen Justices who hear all cases.

· The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC): The President participates in an election and can’t set up an “Independent” umpire.

A possible solution is an INEC co-chaired by representatives of the major political parties.

The Federal Capital Territory: This was modeled after Washington, D.C., in the United States.

Instead of the President appointing an administrator of the FCT, Nigeria should follow the United States model and allow residents to elect a mayor.

Conclusion

In this paper, we discussed the recent calls by some respected Nigerians for a return to the parliamentary system of government.

We analyzed the reasons for their decision and highlighted what we considered weak points in their argument.

We argued that the political systems in developed economies are unsuited for Nigeria, whose parties are ethnic-based.

They must be modified before they can be applied to Nigeria.

Our rotational model was developed with ethnic differences in mind. It proactively ensures that every geopolitical zone and, hence, every ethnic group participates actively in governance.

Moreover, the novel concept of Appointment Buckets doesn’t allow the president or prime minister to become a dictator, as Pa Adebanjo alleged, and pack all key government cabinet positions in a section of the country.

The argument that with the rotational model and zoned Appointment Bucket, the best candidate for a position may not always emerge is relatively weak.

Even with the current system, there is no test for “The Best.”

It’s important to understand that every zone in the country can produce an indigene qualified for any position in the country – locally or from the diaspora.

In conclusion, given the belief that the rotational model should be fundamental to our governing philosophy in the future, we argue that the presidential system is more appropriate for an ethnic-based society like Nigeria.

It’s straightforward to zone the presidency to an ethnic group and rotate it among the ethnic groups.

In a parliamentary system, the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament becomes the prime minister.

There is no straightforward manner to rotate the post among the ethnic groups.

Additionally, given the general sentiment that Nigeria needs a strong leader, the parliamentary system doesn’t allow Nigerians to elect one directly.

Another problem we foresee with the parliamentary system is the likelihood that the most dominant ethnic group will have the best chance of consistently producing the prime minister.

Even when such an ethnic group might be forced into an alliance before it can form a government, we might end up in a situation that currently exists where two dominant ethnic groups permanently seek power and, in the process, deliberately or unknowingly marginalize minority groups.

For most of its political life, Nigeria has always found itself in a situation where some groups have always felt marginalized.

That hasn’t worked well for the country. Therefore, we should try a presidential system with a rotational governing model as its foundation.