By Amah Alphonsus Amaonye, Director General, African Writers Centre, AWC
The debate over nepotism, favouritism and ethnic balancing in Nigerian governance did not begin with the present administration. It has been a recurring feature of Nigeria’s political history, reflecting the country’s deep ethnic diversity and the constitutional requirement for fairness in federal appointments.
The administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari was one period in which allegations of regional and preferential appointments became particularly prominent. Critics argued that some strategically important positions were concentrated among people from the President’s region and within his circle of trust. Concerns about regional imbalance in federal appointments were documented during the Buhari years, while the presidency and its supporters disputed some of the allegations.
But there is another dimension to this debate that Nigerians must not lose sight of.
What ultimately matters to the ordinary citizen is not simply who occupies an office, but what that officeholder delivers.
IF THEY PERFORM, SHOULD WE STILL COMPLAIN?
At the African Writers Centre, our position has consistently been that representation and competence should not be treated as mutually exclusive principles.
Nigeria’s Constitution provides for the federal character principle, intended to ensure that the composition of government reflects the country’s diversity and prevents domination by people from a few states or sections of the federation.
That principle matters.
Appointments to government positions come with salaries, allowances, influence, opportunities and access to public resources. Consequently, persistent exclusion of a particular region from government positions can have economic and social consequences beyond symbolism.
But representation should never become an excuse for appointing people who lack the competence, character or capacity required for the positions they occupy.
Conversely, the fact that a President appoints people from his own region, state, political network or circle of trust does not by itself tell the whole story about the quality of governance.
The real test is performance.
If those appointed deliver good roads, reliable electricity, effective healthcare, quality education, improved security, efficient public institutions and economic opportunities, citizens across the country ultimately benefit from those outcomes.
SUFFERING HAS NO ETHNICITY
This is where Nigeria’s governance conversation needs to become more practical.
Inflation does not ask whether a Nigerian is Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Tiv, Kanuri or Ibibio.
A bad road does not distinguish between North and South.
Electricity failure does not know anybody’s tribe.
Insecurity does not ask for a person’s state of origin before striking.
Unemployment, poverty, hunger and poor public services are similarly indifferent to ethnicity.
When governance fails, everybody pays the price.
And when governance works, everybody can benefit.
That is why the most important question surrounding any government appointment should ultimately be:
Can this person do the job?
FEDERAL CHARACTER STILL MATTERS
This argument, however, should not be misunderstood as an argument against equitable representation.
Nigeria is a federation of more than 250 ethnic groups and hundreds of languages. The Federal Character Commission exists precisely because the framers of the constitutional order recognised the danger of domination and exclusion.
Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides that the composition of the government or any of its agencies should reflect the federal character of Nigeria and promote national unity while commanding national loyalty.
The Federal Character Commission remains responsible for promoting and enforcing equitable distribution of positions and socio-economic benefits among Nigeria’s federating units.
Therefore, fair representation is not merely a political courtesy; it is a constitutional principle.
But federal character should ideally work alongside competence.
Nigeria should not be forced into a choice between “give us our people” and “give us the best people.”
The national interest demands both.
THE REAL DANGER: WHEN LOYALTY REPLACES COMPETENCE
The bigger problem arises when ethnic, political or personal loyalty becomes more important than competence.
That is when government institutions begin to suffer.
A person may come from the President’s hometown and still be an outstanding administrator.
Another person may come from a different geopolitical zone and still be completely unsuitable for a sensitive national assignment.
The determining factors should include competence, experience, character, integrity, accountability and measurable performance.
Trust is also relevant in political appointments. But trust should not become a licence for impunity or insulation from scrutiny.
Recent accounts about the Buhari presidency have, for example, raised questions about the influence of close associates and informal networks around the former President. Those accounts remain matters of interpretation and testimony, but they illustrate the institutional danger that arises when informal relationships become more powerful than established procedures.
LET PERFORMANCE BECOME THE SCORECARD
Nigeria therefore needs to move beyond the simplistic argument that an appointment is automatically good because the appointee is “our person,” or automatically bad because the appointee comes from another ethnic group.
The better question is:
What has the person achieved?
Has the agency become more efficient?
Has corruption reduced?
Have citizens received better services?
Have roads improved?
Has electricity supply become more reliable?
Have hospitals improved?
Has the economy created more opportunities?
Have prices stabilised?
Has insecurity reduced?
Are public resources being used responsibly?
These are the questions that matter to the Nigerian citizen standing in the street, paying taxes, looking for work, sending children to school or struggling to feed a family.
NIGERIANS SHOULD DEMAND BOTH REPRESENTATION AND RESULTS
There is no reason Nigeria cannot have both.
A President can ensure that the country’s diversity is reflected in appointments while insisting that every appointee meets a high professional and ethical standard.
Indeed, that should be the objective.
The argument should not be:
“If you appoint my tribesman, I will support you.”
Neither should it be:
“If you appoint somebody from your tribe, the appointment is automatically wrong.”
The more mature national position is:
“Whoever you appoint, make sure the person is competent, possesses character and delivers.”
Because ultimately, Nigerians do not eat federal character.
They do not drive federal character on their roads.
They do not switch on federal character when electricity goes off.
They do not take federal character to the hospital.
They experience governance.
And governance is ultimately judged by results.
Nigeria certainly needs fairness in the distribution of public opportunities. But alongside that fairness must come competence, integrity, accountability and performance.
The Nigerian citizen should therefore demand something bigger than ethnic representation alone:
Give us people who can govern. Give us people who can deliver. Give us institutions that work.
Because whether the person sitting in the office comes from Sokoto, Kano, Lagos, Enugu, Rivers, Anambra, Bayelsa or any other part of Nigeria, good governance belongs to everybody—and bad governance punishes everybody.
#GoodGovernance #FederalCharacter #Nigeria #Leadership #Accountability
