If there is any issue, whose ghost will either rightly or wrongly, continue to haunt the administration of Buhari, even after the life span of the administration has lapsed, it is the matter of alleged lop-sidedness of the Buhari’s political appointments in favour of the North and his Hausa-Fulani progeny.
A criticism that started almost few weeks after Buhari’s assumption of office in 2015, has not only refused to wane, but has continued to grow in waves and tide.
As a close observer of the discourse of this matter of public and national concern, I have noticed that, amidst the welter of the criticisms against the government, hardly has anyone come up with independent contrary statistical evidence to deflate government’s position.
Not even the media organizations, civil society organizations and independent researchers who have the civic responsibilities of investigation and non-visceral reportage particularly to a people that is plural, critical and cynical of their leaders, have come up with any.
It has been opinions spiced with few even contestable examples. Hardly have critics been able to discern the concepts of regional, zonal, state and ethnic balances which form the kernel of the principle or federal character.
Let it be said that, the leitmotif of this essay is not to hold brief for this government, but rather to, as a scholar, bring to the fore the point that, whatever assertion and intervention we are making on matter of public concern, must rest on data and objective analysis, otherwise critics will run the risk of earning the sobriquets of propagandists, self- seekers and arm chair public affairs commentators.
Six months after his inauguration, the president constituted his 37-member cabinet including himself as the Minister of Petroleum, a similar responsibility former President Olusegun Obasanjo also assumed in his days in office, 1999-2003.
A breakdown of the ministerial list shows that 20(54.05%) were from the North and 17 (45.94%) from the South. On zonal basis, the picture shows: Northwest-8 (21%); Northeast-6(16.21%); North-Central-6(16.21%); South-south-6(16.21%); Southeast-5(13.51%) and Southwest-6(16.21%).
From the foregoing, there is no doubt that, the pendulum of the cabinet swings to the North. Two major reasons accounted for this. One.
Of the 36 states, 19 are located in the North while 17 are in the South. Structurally, the North has an inherent advantage over the South.
Two, this advantage was further consolidated with President Buhari himself, a northerner from Kastina State in the Northwest, holding unto the petroleum portfolio.
Furthermore, it is also inferential from this statistic that, of all the six geopolitical zones, the Northwest where President Buhari hails from tops the list. Again, this can be explained by the fact that, the zone has seven states which is higher than the figures for the rest zones.
While the Southeast has five states other zones have six states each. Thus, with seven states plus the president’s additional portfolio, the Northwest could not but top the ministerial list.
In any event, the president cannot be said to have transgressed the principle of federal character which in the main, suggests equity and not equalization.
Second, the president is also expected to observe the federal character principle in appointing ambassadors and High Commissioners.
In his first term, 93 of such appointments were made, 46 non- career officers and 47 career officers. Of the 46 non-career officers, 27 (58.69) were from the North ,18 (39.13%) were from the South and one (2.17%) from the FCT. Split on zonal basis, the distribution is as follows: Northwest-12 (26.08%); Northeast- seven (15.21%); North-Central- eight (17.39%); South-south – six (13.04%); Southeast- five (10.87%); Southwest- eight (15.21%) and FCT-one (2.17%). Of the 47 career officers, 26 (55.32%) appointees were from the North, 20 (42.55%) from the South and one (2.13%) from the FCT. Laid bare on zonal basis, the Northwest clinched nine (19.15%); Northeast-10 (21.28); North-Central- six (14.89); Southeast- six (12.77); South-south-7(14.9%); Southwest- seven (14.89) and FCT- one (2.17).
In this instance also, the North still had an edge over the South on account of the inherent structural imbalance of the federation in favour of the North, the concession of the FCT slots to people of Northern extraction and the fact that the constitution does not forbid the president from dispensing his patronage prerogative .
The Northwest’s lead and the Southeast southward look, are sustained by the structural imbalance which the number of states in both zones at seven and five states respectively.
Third, of all the appointments made by President Buhari, the appointment of the heads of the security agencies generated the greatest heat. In this regard, a total of 17 appointments were made.
Of this, 13 (76.47%) went to the North while the South got paltry five (23.53%) A further analysis shows that the Northwest secures five -(29.41%); Northeast-six (35.29%); North-Central- two (11.76%); South-south- two (11.76%); Southeast- zero and Southwest- two (11.76%No doubt, there is oblivious breach of the principle of federal character in this class of appointment.
Though the president had argued that, seniority was taken into consideration in appointing the service chiefs, however this ought not to have handcuffed him in striking a national balance in appointing the heads of other security agencies where seniority does not count.
Another area of appointment that has come in focus is the appointment of presidential aides- special assistants, special advisers, personals and so forth. Of the 101 of the appointees, official data revealed that 60 were from the South while 41 were from the North.
Similarly, the South had an edge over the North in the appointment of the heads of federal parastatals and agencies. Also, and apparently, the composition of the boards of the federal parastatals and agencies was accorded national spread as it is one way the ruling class often spreads and entrenches itself with a view to wining future elections.
As such, the administration and indeed no government can afford not to observe the principle of federal character in composing the boards. Little wonder then that the constitution of the boards did not generate public criticism.
By and large, the administration may not have breached the principle of federal character more than the governments before it. The truth of the matter is that, the structure of the country, the constitution, finance, and patronage will always influence the pattern of political appointments in the country.
And so also the level of a region’s support for the ruling party in terms of votes at election. This partly explains the fate of the Southeast under this dispensation.
All said, the president as a statesman should not however, closed his ears and eyes to areas that deserve to be genuinely addressed and redressed while regular and adequate information should be etched on public domain on critical appointments made by the presidency so as to dispel all insinuations and unnecessary uninformed pan which can undermine the legitimacy of the government.
- Dr. Ademola Adebisi writes from the Federal College of Agriculture, Akure, Ondo State.
