Since 1999, persons seeking to become president, vice-president, governors, deputy governors, local government chairmen and their councilors are lawfully permitted to go for a second term. Many of such people hardly have little time for governance as they deploy a lot of their energy into horse trading and alliance- formation so as to realise their second term ambitions.

Some programmes and policies that ought to have been implemented in their first term are left in a bid not to ruffle the feathers of those who could torpedo their ambitions. Also, some programmes and policies that could not be said to be logically defensible are made to see the light of day simply because they may enable some members of the support groups of the second term seekers to earn some financial mileage.

This goes a long way in compromising the quality of governance. It is acknowledged that an earned second term could be utilised by a political office holder to consolidate his/her realistic achievements. But, the stark reality is that some political office holders were not adequately groomed for the complexities of governance.

New Telegraph makes bold to say that some second term-seekers do not have realistic manifestoes for implementation, as their dream is to merely occupy political offices for another four years for personal aggrandizement. Policy summersaults are often the norm during the second terms of some political office holders, as they are no longer seeking a renewal of term.

Welfare of the people is sometimes relegated to the lowest level, as salaries and allowances of workers owed and diverted to the funding of political activities. Additional entities are created thereby increasing the cost of governance. Chairmen and members of boards of some of the parastatals are usually political gladiators, who have been so appointed simply to appreciate them for their past electoral value while prompting them to sustain the momentum with regard to one or more future polls.

Some second term serving political office holders are not aspiring to make any mark but to cling to their elected positions as a form of escape from poverty and destitution. We must commend universities for coming to terms with the minuses associated with second term ambitions.

This realisation made the concept of a second term to be dumped for good with Vice Chancellors restricted to a single term of five years, regardless of his or her level of brilliance. This makes each university head strive towards optimum performance during his/her tenure.

The adoption of the single term has helped deal a devastating blow to endless misunderstandings and conflicts accompanying the vice-chancellorship battles in the temples of learning across the country. Improved peace in the university system prompted by the concept of one term for Vice Chancellors should aptly be extended to elective political positions.

All that is required now is extensive sensitization by the relevant organisations to help persuade the populace to ask for a single term for all political office holders. New Telegraph enjoins civil society organisations, professional bodies and trade unions to synergise to help bring pressure to bear on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) with a view to checking the heightened monetisation of the political process by the political parties.

The political parties should be compelled by INEC to drastically reduce their high nomination fees. This would help prompt some competent but financially less- privileged Nigerians to contest for elective positions, with the additional prodding that every political office-holder is restricted to only one single term.

The end of the concept of second term would help check a dangerous trend whereby some two- term governors emerge as godfathers, who after their tenures, still control their state’s treasuries, appropriate houses, lands and other assets belonging to their states while determining the occupants of elective and appointive positions in such component units.