In every functioning democracy, power comes with a timer. It starts ticking the day an oath is taken, and it stops the day the law says it must. That timer is not symbolic, it is the foundation of electoral legitimacy. Nigeria’s constitution understands this clearly. It draws firm lines around how long elected officials may remain in office, and those lines are not suggestions; they are safeguards designed to protect the people’s sovereignty.
|
|
For governors, the rule is straightforward: four years per term, two terms maximum. At the local government level, tenure is defined by state assembly laws, often three years, and it must align with constitutional principles. The key idea is simple, no one holds elective office indefinitely, and no one has the legal authority to extend their stay once the clock runs out. When tenure expires, power must return to the electorate, till fresh elections are conducted. That cycle is the heartbeat of democracy.
There is a clear legal reason why tenure elongation is not permitted. Under constitutional democracy, the length of time an elected official serves is part of the mandate given by voters. The people elect leaders for a defined period, not an open-ended stay. Extending tenure without a fresh election effectively changes the terms of that mandate without the consent of the electorate. It is, in essence, governance without renewed legitimacy. The constitution does not allow that because sovereignty belongs to the people, not to those temporarily occupying public office.
|
|
|
|---|
The judiciary has consistently defended this principle. One of the most important precedents remains Senator Rashidi Ladoja v INEC (SC.120/2007). After Ladoja was illegally impeached as governor of Oyo State and later reinstated, he argued that his tenure should be extended to make up for the months he was unlawfully removed. On the surface, the argument seemed fair. But the Supreme Court ruled firmly that no court has the power to extend a constitutionally fixed tenure, even in the face of injustice. The four-year term, the court held, begins on the day the oath is taken and ends exactly when the Constitution says it does so. The judiciary could restore him to office, but it could not manufacture additional time.
That ruling established a vital democratic truth: courts can correct wrongful removal, but they cannot rewrite constitutional timelines. Tenure is not elastic. Once it begins, it runs its full legal course.
The same logic applies at the grassroots. Local governments may be regulated by state law, but those laws cannot contradict constitutional norms. In Rivers State, Suit No. PHC/1320/CS/2024 reaffirmed this when the court struck down an attempt to extend the tenure of local government chairmen through legislative amendment. The court made it clear that a state assembly cannot simply grant elected officials extra time in office. To do so would amount to altering the people’s mandate without their participation. Tenure belongs to voters, not to politicians or lawmakers.
Tenure limits are therefore democratic guardrails. They ensure political offices remain positions of trust, rather than personal entitlements. They compel leaders to return to the people for a renewal of their authority. Without fixed tenures, elections would lose their meaning, accountability would weaken, and democracy could slowly give way to political permanence.
It is against this constitutional background that the current political tensions in the Osun Local government must be viewed.
APC local government chairmen elected in 2022, whose tenures many legal interpretations pointed out as ending in October 2025, returned to office after appellate court decisions earlier last year, approached the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/147/2025 seeking to have their tenures run until February 2028, arguing that their time should effectively restart from their reinstatement.
Rather than allowing a freshly democratic elected council official resume office at the completion of their “supposed tenure”, there have been allegations of reliance on what Nigerians commonly call “federal might” that is the influence that comes from alignment with power at the center to illegal invade the council.
When federal connections, institutional pressure, or security presence are used to reinforce positions that appear to conflict with constitution on tenure limits, democracy begins to tilt away from law and toward influence.
But Nigeria is not structured to be governed by proximity to federal power; it is structured to be governed by constitutional order and the will of the people.
Using federal weight to sustain local political control after tenure expiration does more than create political tension, it challenges the supremacy of the Constitution itself.
Grassroots governance should reflect the decision of local voters, not the shadow of central authority. Otherwise, the very spirit of federalism is undermined.
This is not merely a party dispute; it is a constitutional matter. Today, one side may benefit from bending the rules. Tomorrow, another may attempt the same. But once tenure limits become negotiable, democracy itself becomes fragile.
Nigeria’s courts have spoken clearly in cases that no sympathy, no strategy, and no political muscle can lawfully stretch it. Power, in a democracy, must always bow to the Constitution.
James Bamgbose writes from Igbajo, Boluwaduro Local Government, Osun State. He can be reached via [email protected].
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
