The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP), and the Social Democratic Party (SDP) have fiercely criticized the House of Representatives’ move to impose an age cap of 60 years for presidential and gubernatorial candidates in Nigeria.
The controversial bill, which passed its second reading on Thursday, seeks to amend the constitution and disqualify individuals above 60 from contesting for the offices of President and Governor.
If passed into law, this legislation would automatically bar political heavyweights like President Bola Tinubu, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, and 2023 Labour Party presidential candidate Peter Obi from running in the 2027 election.
The PDP denounced the bill as a misplaced priority, accusing lawmakers of focusing on trivial matters while the nation grapples with corruption, insecurity, and economic downturns. PDP Deputy National Youth Leader, Timothy Osadolor, slammed the lawmakers as “the most irresponsible in Nigeria’s history.”
He stated that the problem Nigeria faces is not about age but about incompetence, corruption, and a lack of capacity. He pointed to countries like India and Singapore, where many leaders over 60 are driving remarkable progress. Osadolor described the bill as an embarrassment and called for it to be discarded.
CUPP’s National Publicity Secretary, Mark Adebayo, echoed similar sentiments, insisting that leadership quality is determined by competence, patriotism, and character, not age.
He argued that even if these leaders were in their thirties, they would still behave the same way—or even worse. According to Adebayo, the real issue is corruption and a lack of vision.
He referenced the likes of U.S. President Joe Biden and Singapore’s founding leader Lee Kuan Yew, stressing that experience and strategic leadership trump age concerns.
The SDP, while acknowledging that youth participation in governance is important, maintained that leadership requires a blend of experience, values, and competence.
SDP National Publicity Secretary, Rufus Aiyenigba, emphasized that governance is not an entry-level job and that the country needs leaders who have been tested and prepared. He proposed making live presidential debates mandatory to evaluate candidates’ intellectual and emotional competence.
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.
The proposed amendments to the 1999 Constitution seek to introduce a mandatory university degree qualification and an upper age limit of 60 years for presidential and gubernatorial aspirants.
However, critics argue that such restrictions could eliminate experienced leaders from the political arena while doing little to address the country’s governance failures.
As debates over the bill rage on, political analysts warn that the move could fuel discontent among senior politicians and create unnecessary political tensions.
Some argue that instead of age restrictions, the focus should be on policies that promote transparency, accountability, and good governance. The bill’s fate now rests on further legislative scrutiny and potential presidential assent.
However, with opposition parties and key stakeholders vehemently opposing it, the likelihood of its passage remains uncertain. For now, the question remains: Is Nigeria’s problem truly about age, or is it about the character and integrity of its leaders?