In a heated plenary session on Tuesday, the House of Representatives rejected a constitutional amendment bill seeking to rotate the office of the President and Vice President among Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones.
The bill, which sparked intense debate among lawmakers, was voted down alongside six other proposed constitutional alteration bills.
Despite the rejection, the House resolved to revisit each of the bills individually on Wednesday to consider them on their own merits.
The bill on rotational presidency drew the most attention, with several lawmakers expressing serious reservations about its implications.
Deputy Minority Leader, Aliyu Madaki, led the opposition, asserting that the Federal Character Commission already addresses concerns of equitable representation and that embedding rotational leadership into the Constitution would be unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
Madaki argued that political parties are already structured to promote balanced representation, saying, “There’s no need to constitutionally enforce what political dynamics are already handling. Rotation should not be a legal obligation.”
Supporting this stance, Sada Soli (APC, Katsina) said the proposal, though seemingly well-intentioned, could undermine meritocracy. He warned, “If we go this route, we risk turning leadership selection into a regional tug-of-war, fueling ethnic and political division.”
Shina Oyedeji (PDP, Oyo) echoed similar sentiments, warning that zoning would only trigger more agitation among tribes and states. “If the presidency is zoned to the Southwest, who decides whether it goes to Oyo, Ogun, or another state? We’re opening a Pandora’s box,” he argued.
Bello Mohammed El-Rufai raised practical concerns, referencing the constitutional dilemma that followed the death of former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua. “What happens if a President dies mid-term? Will the Vice President from a different zone step in, or will we face another constitutional crisis?” he queried.
Olumide Osoba (APC, Ogun) added that compelling political parties to field candidates based on zoning would infringe on their independence and democratic principles.
However, not all voices were against the bill. Minority Whip, Ali Isa, supported the idea, stating that all geopolitical zones deserve a fair opportunity to lead. He also advocated extending the rotational principle to governorship seats at the state level.
“Every part of this country has capable individuals who can lead,” Isa said. “Let’s start by allowing the North East to produce the President in 2027 to promote fairness.”
Clement Jimbo (APC, Akwa Ibom) highlighted the systemic marginalization of minority groups and supported a temporary zoning arrangement to balance historical injustices, after which the principle could be phased out.
Despite the varying opinions, the bill failed to pass the second reading after a voice vote. Many lawmakers felt that while the spirit behind the bill was understandable, its potential consequences outweighed its intentions.
Among the other rejected bills was a controversial proposal to remove the registration and regulation of political parties from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and transfer those powers to a proposed Office of the Registrar General of Political Parties.
With the House set to revisit the bills individually, the debate on zoning and representation is far from over. For now, however, the House has sent a clear message: rotational presidency will not be written into the Nigerian Constitution—at least not yet.