Still on Buhari’s appointments

It is understandable that recent appointments of key aides and heads of government agencies by President Muhammadu Buhari generated furore among Nigerians, including even some of the president’s supporters. In the height of it, the president was accused of exhibiting a tendency towards provincialism and nepotism by concentrating a majority of the appointments to some few geopolitical zones or sections of the country to the near exclusion of the others.

Going by a chart that appeared on social media and published by many reputable media houses, President Buhari’s North-West geopolitical zone got the largest pie of these appointments with 43 percent, followed by the North-East with 20 percent, South-South 17 percent, South West 10 percent, North-Central 3 percent, and nothing at all for the South-East. Across North-South divide, the North got 75 percent of all the appointments while the South got only 25 percent.

This, to many observers, is a clear sign of the president’s provincial nature and his proclivity to trust only people from his part of the country. Some analysts also saw the appointments as a clear violation of the nation’s constitution which clearly states in Section 13 that “the composition of the government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also to command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a  few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or in any of its agencies”.

We join in urging the president to be more broadminded, fair, and consider national spread in his appointments. All Nigerians and not only those from the president’s side of the country have a stake in Nigeria, and even if he decides to go strictly by party lines, many non-Northerners do have as much stake in the party and contributed in no small measure to his success in the party primaries and in the polls as much as Northerners.

We believe that ‘ethnic balancing’ or ‘federal character’ in a diverse and sensitive country such as Nigeria is very important to maintaining peace and uniting the entire country around nationalistic goals and aspirations. It not only gives all groups a sort of emotional satisfaction and a sense of belonging, it also provides huge social capital for the government and lightens the task of creating national cohesion for growth and development. No president of a deeply divided country can realistically feign ignorance of this reality.

That said, we are at pains to point out that the places of origins of political appointees are irrelevant to the masses of Nigeria and in the delivery of good governance, growth and development. If it was, some regions that have fared much better than others in terms of political appointments would not have the lowest indices of development in the country. The ‘federal character’ or, more appropriately, ‘ethnic/religious balancing in appointments, frankly speaking, is just a means by the political elite to moderate political wrangling and share the spoils of politics amongst themselves. Despite the hue and cry, the masses do not benefit from these appointments.

In a sense, therefore, we also agree with those who insinuate that the cries of marginalisation against the president are coming mostly from politicians who feel out-schemed in the sharing of the ‘national cake’.

Nonetheless, President Buhari must take urgent steps to reassure the entire country that he is not a provincial president and that he can be trusted to unite the country, especially as he is on the verge of making further appointments. He won a national mandate and should be a symbol and custodian of national unity and not a sectional leader.