By Ikechukwu Amaechi
On Monday, August 7, the Senate confirmed 45 of President Bola Tinubu’s 48 ministerial nominees. Surprisingly, it deferred the confirmation of three nominees – former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir el-Rufai; a former senator from Taraba State, Sani Danladi; and a nominee from Delta State, Stella Okotete – because of undisclosed security concerns.
Tinubu transmitted the names of the 48 nominees in three separate correspondences to the Senate on July 28, August 3 and August 4, the last list containing the names of Mr. Festus Keyamo, former Minister of State for Labour and Employment from Delta State and Dr. Mariya Mahmoud, a replacement for Dr. Maryam Shetty, whose nomination was withdrawn.
Many Nigerians are perplexed at the development because nominees ought to have scaled the security hurdle before coming to the Senate. Does it mean that the Department of State Services (DSS) and other security agencies did not do due diligence?
I doubt! So, there must be something the powers-that-be are not telling Nigerians. But whatever that is, I will be pleasantly surprised if the three, particularly el-Rufai, is not cleared at the end of the day. If Tinubu wants him in his cabinet, then in his cabinet el-Rufai will be.
After all, the senators have been rewarded handsomely for letting the nominees, including Bello Muhammad from Sokoto State, who got admission into the university with only two credits, off the hook lightly as disclosed by the “Uncommon Senate President” on Monday.
“In order to enable all of us enjoy our holidays, a token has been sent to our various accounts by the clerk of the National Assembly,” Akpabio, grandmaster in the art of procuring loyalty on the altar of filthy lucre, enthused before the adjournment motion was moved to the embarrassment of his colleagues, who knew that he was on hot mic. Apparently, the excitable and high-strung Senate President was carried away.
When the video started trending on Wednesday, a colleague of mine and fellow Chevening scholar from Kaduna State sent me a text message: “This guy (Akpabio) is not fit to lead the Senate. I was shocked when I heard him live.”
My response was straightforward: “I am shocked that you were shocked that Akpabio said that.”
His spell as governor of Akwa Ibom State, under the moniker of “uncommon transformation,” was driven by the underlining philosophy of “what money cannot do, more money would do.” Akpabio is neither a man of ideas in the same mould as the late Dr. Chuba Okadigbo, nor is he one to embrace the core values of democracy – respect for due process and the rule of law. He is just the archetypical Nigerian politician who believes in the power of cash and its corruptive influence.
To be fair, what is happening under Akpabio’s watch has been the norm since 1999. The only difference is that given his pedigree, he will take the art of suborning federal lawmakers a notch higher than his predecessors. The money paid into their accounts to enjoy their holidays was a back rub from an appreciative presidency for a job well done.
As Senator Shehu Sani noted on Wednesday, “Crediting the legislators’ accounts is done under mute button, the Uncommon Senate President mistakenly pressed the alarm.”
Nevertheless, I am knocked for six that some Nigerians are yet to come to the realization that whatever we thought were the shortcomings of the Ahmad Lawan-led ninth Senate, the tenth Senate will be far worse. Akpabio will not only jump whenever Tinubu wishes, he will ask how high.
The bitter truth which many Nigerians who pretentiously claim to be hopeful refuse to admit is that any country that has a Bola Tinubu as President, Godswill Akpabio as chairman of the National Assembly and Senate President and Abdullahi Ganduje as chairman of the ruling party is done for.
But that is a matter for another day. Back to Tinubu’s 48-member cabinet. First, it is too bloated for a country on the edge of bankruptcy and in dire need of cutting down the cost of governance.
But the second and most important issue which Tinubu’s cabinet has raised is his contempt for the South-East. With the highly skewed nominations, the president simply intensified his war of attrition against a region whose only crime is that one of their own, Peter Obi, had the guts to run for the presidency of his country.
In assembling his 48-member cabinet, Tinubu willfully shortchanged the region and violated the Federal Character principle by refusing to give them a zonal representation as he did to others. This shabby, in-your-face treatment for a zone with equal stake like others in the Nigeria project is condemnable.
The 1999 Constitution stipulates that there must be one minister from each of the 36 states of the federation. Presidents have also used their discretion to add six more ministers, one from each of the six geo-political zones in what is now known as zonal representation to bring the number to 42.
Tinubu added 12 more ministers to the list, thus bringing the number to 48. But an analysis of the ministerial spread shows that the South-East is the only region without a zonal representation under Tinubu’s cynical watch.
Ordinarily, the South-East as the only zone with five states is grossly shortchanged in terms of political representation. In the Senate, they have only 15 senators while four other zones with six states each – South-West, South-South, North-East, North-Central – have 18 senators and North-West with seven states has 21 senators.
Not only that, by virtue of the inequity in the number of states, all the other five zones are already ahead of the South-East in the constitutionally mandatory allocation of ministers – North-West (7), North-East, North-Central, South-West, South-South with six ministers each while South-East has only five.
If fairness and equity were to be the lightening rod of governance in Nigeria, the South-East is the zone where the president should use his discretionary power to give extra slot(s).
But anyone who expects Tinubu to do that neither knows the man nor his politics. In his distribution of the extra ministerial slots, he gave additional three ministers each to North-West and South-West, making it a total of 10 and nine ministers respectively for the zones; North-East, North-Central and South-South got two extra ministers, a total of eight for each of the zones.
Thus, in the 48-member cabinet, South-East has an insignificant 10.4 per cent representation. This exclusionary absurdity is unconscionable.
The implication is that rather than rejecting, Tinubu is doubling down on Buhari’s politics of exclusion playbook as enunciated at the U.S. Institute of Peace in July 2015.
For those who may have forgotten, here is Buhari’s doctrine. Tasked by Dr. Pauline Baker, the President Emeritus of The Fund for Peace, on inclusive government, Buhari retorted: “I hope you have a copy of the election results. The constituents, for example, gave me 97% (of the vote) cannot in all honesty be treated on some issues with constituencies that gave me 5%.”
Never mind that the resources he is administering as president belongs to all Nigerians, both those who voted for him and those who didn’t.
Sadly, Tinubu is on the same trajectory. But isn’t that view harebrained, grossly mistaken and mischievous? Right now, Tinubu’s party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), holds sway in two of the five South-East states – Imo and Ebonyi. The three other dominant political parties – Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is in power in Enugu, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) dominates Anambra politics and Labour Party calls the shot in Abia. So, APC controls 40 percent of the states in the South-East.
Granted, Tinubu did not win any of the South-East states in the presidential election, but even in the South-South, without the electoral malfeasance of former Rivers governor, Nyesom Wike, which gave him the State, he did not win anywhere else in the region. Labour Party carried the day in Edo, Cross River and Delta states while PDP took Akwa Ibom and Bayelsa.
Even in the Southwest, PDP won in Osun State while Labour took Lagos. So, why is Tinubu singling out the South-East for reprisals?
As if that was not bad enough, the president ensured that the South-East got what is unarguably the worst quality of representation since the return of democracy in 1999. He clearly sidelined the region’s first eleven and went for people who will be beholden to interests that are adversarial to the region in a deliberate attempt to rub insult into the injury of under-representation.
In his inaugural speech on May 29, Tinubu vowed: “We shall reach out to all but never put down a single person for holding views contrary to our own. We are here to further mend and heal this nation, not tear and injure it.” He has acted contrary to this avowal by intensifying his war of attrition against the South-East and must be called out.
He owes the South-East, an integral part of the Nigerian state with no lesser stake than others, the duty of fair and equitable representation. It is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
