Daniel Otera
Nineteen years after the constitutional furore that gripped the nation, former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s categorical rejection of third-term ambitions has sparked renewed scrutiny. His September 20, 2025, speech in Abuja, which boldly dismissed the allegations, has once again brought the issue to the forefront of public discourse. This resurgence, far from being a mere reflection of nostalgia, highlights the lasting strains on institutional trust and public vigilance that have shaped the trajectory of Nigeria’s Fourth Republic ever since the dramatic collapse of the 2006 third-term bid.
The event that catalyzed this renewed debate unfolded at the 2025 Democracy Dialogue, organised by the Goodluck Jonathan Foundation. Obasanjo, now 88, stood before an audience of policymakers and youth leaders, dismissing the allegations with unyielding conviction. “I’m not a fool. If I wanted a third term, I know how to go about it,” he declared, drawing parallels to his audacious 2005 Paris Club debt relief negotiations, which wiped N18 trillion off Nigeria’s external obligations. “There is no Nigerian, dead or alive, that would say I called him and told him I wanted a third term,” he added, framing any leader who deems themselves indispensable as committing “a sin against God.” According to BusinessDay, this invocation of divine accountability resonated with calls for rotational youth leadership, but it swiftly pivoted to accusations of historical revisionism.
Critics wasted no time in marshaling evidence from the archives. Dr. Usman Bugaje, a former House of Representatives member during Obasanjo’s tenure and now a prominent civil society figure, appeared on Arise Television’s Morning Show on September 22, labelling the denial a “revision of history that cannot stand.” “I can confirm to you that Obasanjo looked for a third term. He did everything he could within his power to get a third term, but he failed to do so,” Bugaje asserted, recounting how lawmakers faced “threats by his own agents” and financial inducements. He referenced Senator Victor Lar, the Northern caucus leader, who allegedly went into hiding amid the pressure. Bugaje’s rebuttal reaffirmed the persistent narrative of political manipulation during the tenure.
In 2006, the Nigerian government, under President Olusegun Obasanjo, proposed an amendment to the 1999 Constitution to extend presidential tenure beyond the two terms stipulated by Section 135(2). The amendment, introduced on February 22, 2006, aimed to allow the president to seek a third term in office. This proposal generated intense controversy and opposition, both from political leaders and civil society organizations.
The proposed amendment sparked public outcry, particularly from civil society groups, who feared that it would consolidate power in the hands of one individual, leading to a “one-man rule.” Thousands of protesters flooded the streets of Abuja, led by groups such as the Campaign for Democracy, voicing their opposition to the constitutional review. Polls conducted by NOI Polls in April 2006 revealed that 72% of Nigerians across 12 states opposed the amendment, with concerns over the erosion of democratic principles. In contrast, only 18% of respondents, mainly from the South-West, supported the proposal.
Allegations of bribery and corruption also surfaced in connection with the amendment push. Human Rights Watch reported credible claims that some members of the National Assembly had received financial incentives to support the third-term proposal. These allegations, combined with concerns about the integrity of the process, further fueled public mistrust.
On May 17, 2006, the Nigerian Senate overwhelmingly rejected the third-term amendment, with 83 votes against and only 16 in favor, surpassing the required two-thirds majority. This decision was considered a significant milestone for Nigeria’s democracy, as it prevented a potential extension of presidential power.
However, the shadow of the third-term bid continued to linger in Nigeria’s political landscape. According to the Bertelsmann Stiftung Transformation Index (BTI) 2006, Nigeria experienced modest democratic gains in the years leading up to the attempt, but the third-term controversy highlighted the persistent challenges of governance and the erosion of legislative independence. The scandal was seen as a setback for the country’s democratic development, undermining public trust in the political process.
The period surrounding the controversial political push for a third term under President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2006 was also marked by significant economic turbulence. Economic indicators during this time reflected the strain on Nigeria’s stability, both politically and economically.
One notable economic development was a sharp increase in inflation. According to Central Bank of Nigeria data, inflation rose by 15%, from 9.2% in 2005 to 10.6% in 2006. This inflationary surge was indicative of broader economic instability, as investor confidence waned amidst the political uncertainty. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), which had previously surged to $5.3 billion in 2005 under Obasanjo’s reforms, contracted by 12% in 2006. This decline in FDI underscored the negative economic impacts of the political controversy, as the perception of instability deterred foreign investments.
The protests that erupted in response to the third-term push exacerbated these economic strains. In Lagos alone, transport disruptions caused by protests resulted in an estimated loss of N2.5 billion in productivity over a single week, according to estimates from the Nigerian Economic Summit Group. Such protests, along with the broader political unrest, not only affected day-to-day operations but also had long-term economic consequences for the country.
These economic metrics highlight the far-reaching consequences of political instability. The push for indefinite presidential tenure was viewed by many as a threat to democratic principles, and the collective cost of opposing such a move was felt across various sectors of Nigerian society. Ultimately, the situation underscored the vital importance of safeguarding term limits to prevent an authoritarian drift in Nigeria’s governance.
In the ongoing discourse surrounding former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s alleged third-term ambition, the former leader has consistently denied any intention to extend his tenure. During the Democracy Dialogue hosted by the Goodluck Jonathan Foundation in Accra, Ghana, he stated:
“I’m not a fool. If I wanted a third term, I know how to go about it. And there is no Nigerian dead or alive that would say I called him and told him I wanted a third term.”
He also emphasized the difficulty of securing debt relief for Nigeria, suggesting that had he truly desired a third term, it would have been an easier achievement compared to the obstacles he faced in negotiating Nigeria’s debt relief.
Despite Obasanjo’s emphatic denials, several political figures and former lawmakers insist that efforts were indeed made to extend his tenure. Dr. Usman Bugaje, a former member of the National Assembly, appeared on Arise Television’s Morning Show, countering Obasanjo’s denial by asserting:
“Obasanjo looked for a third term. He did everything he could within his power to get a third term, but he failed to do so.”
Dr. Bugaje further recalled instances where lawmakers were allegedly coerced or incentivized to support the third-term agenda, with one particularly notable instance involving Senator Victor Lar, who reportedly went into hiding due to the intense pressure from the government.
The debate surrounding Obasanjo’s third-term ambition remains a significant issue in Nigerian politics, drawing attention from both the media and the public. Some outlets report on the allegations of the former president’s third-term efforts, while others publish his categorical denials. This ongoing public debate highlights the complexities of Nigerian political history, with differing opinions and narratives surrounding the controversial period. The discussion continues to reflect the challenges faced by Nigerian leaders and lawmakers in navigating both internal and external political pressures.
In 2006, Nigeria’s Senate firmly rejected President Olusegun Obasanjo’s attempt to extend his tenure by amending the constitution. This move was seen as an attempt to undermine democratic principles and maintain power indefinitely. Nigeria’s rejection of the third-term bid was a significant turning point, preserving its democratic structure at a time when several other African nations were heading toward authoritarianism through similar constitutional amendments.
A 2017 study published in the Journal of Modern African Studies tracked 54 African countries since 1990, revealing that 33% of incumbents who attempted to extend their terms succeeded. The study found that these successful attempts were often correlated with a 22% increase in corruption perceptions, as reflected in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). This data underscores the dangers of extended rule, which often leads to a decline in democratic practices and an increase in corruption.
In contrast to the experiences of many other African nations, Nigeria’s rejection of the third-term bid positively impacted its democratic standing. According to Freedom House, Nigeria has maintained a “Partly Free” status in 2023, with a score of 43 out of 100, reflecting ongoing challenges but also democratic resilience.
The broader African context highlights the risks associated with the evasion of term limits. A 2023 report from the Africa Center for Strategic Studies revealed that sub-Saharan Africa saw nine coup attempts in 2022, a sharp increase from the four attempts recorded in 2010. This trend indicates the volatility that often follows the erosion of democratic structures and the rule of law.
Nigeria’s firm stance against the third-term bid has thus played a crucial role in its democratic consolidation.