**The Rotational Presidency Conundrum: A Recipe for Disaster?** In the world of Nigerian politics, the debate over rotational presidency has gained momentum. Recently, a group of high-profile politicians, including Femi Gbajabiamila, the Chief of Staff to the President, and Deputy Senate President Barau Jibrin, advocated for the enshrinement of rotational presidency between North and South in the 1999 Constitution. This move has sparked heated discussions among Nigerians, but have the proponents of this idea considered the potential consequences? The concept of rotational presidency is not new to Nigeria. The National Party of Nigeria (NPN) introduced zoning of party and state offices in 1978, which has since become a deeply ingrained tradition in Nigerian politics. While zoning has its advantages, enshrining it in the Constitution could lead to a plethora of problems. For instance, defining who is a Northerner and who is a Southerner is a complex task, considering the country's diverse geography and historical dynamics. The Niger and Benue rivers, often cited as the dividing line, do not accurately reflect the complexities of Nigerian identity. Furthermore, a person's ancestry, place of birth, language, accent, education, and even indigineship certificate can all contribute to their identity, making it difficult to categorize someone as strictly North or South. The implications of rotational presidency are far-reaching. The emergence of secessionist movements, such as the Middle Belt and Biafra, demonstrate the deep-seated tensions that exist within the country. The Middle Belt movement, which seeks to create a separate entity, has drawn up maps that incorporate large portions of the North Central and North East regions. This has the potential to destabilize the country further and exacerbate existing tensions. In conclusion, while the idea of rotational presidency may seem like a panacea for Nigeria's political woes, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences of enshrining it in the Constitution. The complexities of Nigerian identity and the existing tensions between different regions suggest that this approach could lead to more problems than solutions. As Nigerians, we must engage in a nuanced and informed discussion about the future of our country, one that takes into account the diversity and complexity of our experiences.