The proposed bill by the House of Representatives to impose a 60-year age limit for presidential and gubernatorial candidates in Nigeria has sparked widespread controversy and criticism from political parties and stakeholders.
The bill, which successfully passed its second reading on Thursday, seeks to amend the 1999 Constitution by setting new eligibility criteria for those aspiring to the highest offices in the country.
If passed into law, the bill will prevent individuals over the age of 60 from running for the positions of president and governor.
This move could potentially rule out prominent political figures such as President Bola Tinubu, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, and the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, from contesting in the 2027 elections.
PDP, CUPP, and SDP Condemn the Bill
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP), and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) have all voiced strong opposition to the proposed legislation, calling it a misplaced priority that diverts attention from more pressing national issues.
The PDP, through its Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, denounced the bill, describing it as an act of irresponsibility by the lawmakers.
Osadolor stated that Nigeria’s governance challenges stem not from the age of its leaders but from corruption, incompetence, and a lack of patriotic commitment to the country’s development.
“I believe, and I am more convinced with this action of theirs, that this set of Senators and House of Representatives members are the most unserious assembly we have ever had in the history of this country,” Osadolor remarked in an interview.
“The problem we have today is not of age or date of birth. The problem we have is that of incompetence and lack of capacity. The problem we have is that of corruption. Instead of focusing on real issues, they are majoring in the minor and minoring in the major.”
Osadolor cited examples of world leaders over the age of 60 who have successfully led their nations, including Indian and Singaporean political figures, to argue that competence should be the primary qualification for leadership, not age.
Similarly, the CUPP’s National Publicity Secretary, Mark Adebayo, strongly rejected the notion that leadership effectiveness is tied to age.
He emphasized that Nigeria’s governance problems lie in corruption, poor leadership, and a lack of patriotism rather than the numerical age of its leaders.
“Even if these individuals were in their thirties, they would still behave the same way—or even worse,” Adebayo stated. “It’s not about age; it’s about who they are—evil, opportunistic, corrupt, and incompetent.”
He also referenced international examples, pointing to former U.S. President Joe Biden, who is in his late seventies, and Singapore’s founding leader, Lee Kuan Yew, who led the country to remarkable development even beyond the age of 60.
On its part, the SDP acknowledged that age plays a role in governance but stressed that leadership is more about experience, values, and competence.
The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Rufus Aiyenigba, proposed an alternative approach to assessing candidates’ fitness for leadership.
“Governance is a function of age in some sense. We have had very young people in leadership positions, from the military era to today. Some performed well, others did not. Age alone does not determine leadership success,” Aiyenigba argued.
To ensure that only competent individuals contest for leadership positions, Aiyenigba suggested making live presidential debates mandatory so that the public can evaluate candidates’ intellectual and emotional fitness for governance.
The Provisions of the Bill
The bill, titled ‘A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 to review the requirements that qualify a person to be elected as President and Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Governors and Deputy Governor of a State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and for Related Matters,’ was sponsored by Ikenga Ugochinyere, representing Ideato North/Ideato South Federal Constituency of Imo State.
Among its key provisions, the bill states that a candidate must have at least a university degree and should not be more than 60 years old at the time of contesting for the presidency or a governorship position.
It proposes amendments to Sections 131 and 177 of the Nigerian Constitution to reflect these new eligibility criteria.
Public Reaction and Legislative Prospects
The proposed legislation has ignited debates across the country, with many Nigerians questioning its necessity and impact.
Critics argue that setting an upper age limit contradicts democratic principles and deprives the electorate of the right to choose their preferred candidates based on competence rather than age restrictions.
As the bill progresses through legislative scrutiny, political analysts suggest that it may face significant opposition, especially from lawmakers and political figures who would be directly affected by the proposed restrictions.
The likelihood of the bill passing into law remains uncertain, as it would require approval by two-thirds of the National Assembly and ratification by at least 24 state legislatures before it can be signed into law by the President.
The debate over the proposed 60-year age limit for presidential and governorship candidates highlights broader concerns about Nigeria’s leadership selection process.
While some argue that younger leaders may bring fresh perspectives and energy, others maintain that experience and competence should be the primary determinants of leadership.
With strong opposition from major political parties and civil society, the bill’s future remains uncertain.
What is clear, however, is that the conversation around leadership qualifications in Nigeria is far from over.
