STOP CRITICIZING TINUBU’S APPOINTMENTS: IF YOU WERE SILENT UNDER PAST ADMINISTRATIONS, YOUR OUTRAGE NOW IS POLITICAL PROPAGANDA
By Daniel Okonkwo
Let no one criticize President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s appointments without first reflecting on the historical pattern of appointments under previous administrations. Criticism must be rooted in consistency and fairness. If one did not object to the appointment practices of former President Muhammadu Buhari, then fairness demands either objectivity or silence regarding the current administration.
President Tinubu has faced criticism over perceived regional imbalances in federal appointments, particularly alleged favoritism toward the South-West—his home region. Critics, including the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, argue that his administration has marginalized other regions, notably the North, South-East, and South-South. The NEF claims such patterns threaten national unity in a country as diverse as Nigeria. Similarly, the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) has expressed concern about the underrepresentation of the Niger Delta region in federal appointments.
But one must ask—where were these critics during the previous administration?
Reports indicate that of 22 key security and related agency appointments under Tinubu, the South-East and South-South received only two, while the North-West and South-West secured the majority. Critics argue that Tinubu’s appointments are a continuation of the lopsided practices of past administrations. Others emphasize the need to depart from such patterns to strengthen national cohesion. The Federal Character Principle, enshrined in Nigeria’s Constitution, seeks to prevent domination by any group and ensure equitable representation across all regions.
As Abraham Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” Marginalization, even for a Class 8 civics student, means pushing people to the periphery of society, denying them equal opportunity and access. It is systemic inequality that perpetuates disadvantage.
At his inauguration, former President Buhari famously declared that he belonged to everybody and nobody. Yet many Nigerians argue that his administration did not uphold this promise. A closer inspection of his appointments reveals a concerning pattern that heavily favored Northern Nigeria, significantly under-representing other regions—especially the South-East, Southwest, and South-South.
Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation. The groundbreaker of our Constitution recognized this complexity and enshrined the Federal Character Commission Act to promote proportional representation in all arms of government.
Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution states:
> "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 any of its agencies."
Despite this provision, Buhari's appointments were widely viewed as regionally biased. For instance:
In June 2020, Southern leaders filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja over allegations of marginalization.
A 2017 BusinessDay report revealed that 81 out of Buhari’s 100 appointments were from the North.
The Presidency later published its list, claiming that 82 of 157 appointments were from the South, yet disparities remained—especially in critical sectors like security, energy, and the judiciary.
Between 2015 and 2020, six out of eight major security heads came from the North.
By April 2021, 75% of heads of security and paramilitary agencies were Northerners.
A report by The ICIR showed that 24 of 40 top management positions in NNPC were held by Northerners, with the South-East completely excluded from the internal board—despite housing oil-producing states like Imo and Abia.
These patterns sparked widespread concern. The late activist Yinka Odumakin warned that such imbalances fuel separatist agitations. CAN President Samson Ayokunle 2018 criticize the appointments as undermining national unity? Former President Olusegun Obasanjo and retired Colonel Abubakar Umar both cautioned against such dangerous favoritism.
In contrast, President Tinubu’s appointments thus far show more regional inclusivity. He has attempted to reflect religious and ethnic diversity while also rewarding loyalty and competence—consistent with the Constitution’s provisions that allow presidential discretion in choosing close aides and key officials.
Therefore, those who were silent during the Buhari administration’s disregard for equity should not now feign outrage. National unity cannot be achieved through selective criticism. We must aspire to a Nigeria where justice, fairness, and inclusiveness define leadership—regardless of who occupies the seat of power.
President Tinubu deserves the chance to chart his course, as long as he upholds the principles of the Constitution and the Federal Character Act. Let us not derail these efforts based on political convenience or ethnic sentiments. The path to a united Nigeria lies in objectivity and a collective commitment to justice for all regions.
History, data, and constitutional principles—not emotion—must guide our national discourse. If we are to build a truly united Nigeria, marginalization must be condemned wherever it occurs—not only when it’s politically expedient.
Let’s stop the hypocrisy and move forward with purpose.
 |
| STOP CRITICIZING TINUBU’S APPOINTMENTS: IF YOU WERE SILENT UNDER PAST ADMINISTRATIONS, YOUR OUTRAGE NOW IS POLITICAL PROPAGANDA |
Comments