Follow Us on Google
The zonal distribution of the 48 ministerial nominees of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, out of which 45 have been confirmed by the Senate, while three are still pending, indicates clearly that the marginalization of the South-East geopolitical zone, which was raised to a principle of state policy by President Muhammadu Buhari’s regime, is not even abating in the Tinubu’s era. Even if you consider the state by state distribution of the ministerial hopefuls, the South-East zone is highly disadvantaged on account of it being the only zone among the six geopolitical zones that has only five states while one zone, the North-West, has seven states and the rest have six states each. No federal government official has explained why the South-East should be the only zone with five states and fewer number of local government areas at less than 100 while Kano state alone has about 44 local government areas? No Nigerian leader, living or dead, has explained the continued marginalization of the South-East since the inception of this democratic dispensation in 1999. Nobody has convincingly explained why the South-East zone is being marginalized and treated as an outsider in a country dubbed one Nigeria and probably with one fabled destiny, which some politicians say and believe is indivisible even in the face of inherent divisions, dichotomies, differences, and internal contradictions. Although the British colonial masters started the marginalization of some groups against the other when they arbitrarily created unbalanced Southern and Northern protectorates and compounded it further with subdivisions based on geographical cardinal points of North, South, East and West with an unequal representation in government, the subsequent military regimes that championed restructuring Nigeria with state and local governments creation have exacerbated the marginalization of some groups. This is more glaring in the number of states and local governments and political awarded to the South-East zone when juxtaposed with those of the other geopolitical zones.
The issuing structural imbalance is at the heart of the various agitations, restiveness and insecurity in the South-East and other zones. Prominent people from the South-East zone and other zones in Nigeria have drawn attention to this politically motivated structural imbalance in the Nigerian federation and called for the restructuring or reconfiguration of the federation to ensure equity and justice to all. Denying the zone additional state and local governments contributes to why the zone is boiling today.
It is in the face of this glaring officially sanctioned marginalization of the South-East zone that the Labour Party (LP) Senator representing Anambra North senatorial district in the National Assembly, Dr. Tony Nwoye, and 14 other senators from the South-East moved a motion in the Senate over the marginalization of the zone in ministerial slots, which they said contravenes the Federal Character principles. It does not reflect the requirement for the composition of federal cabinet as enshrined in Section 14 (3) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended). According to them, nominating only five ministers, David Umahi (Ebonyi), Uju Ohanenye (Anambra) Nkiru Onyejeocha (Abia) Uche Nnaji (Enugu) and Doris Uzoka (Imo) from the zone, when other zones are having more representations contravenes Section 5 (a) (b) and Section 4 (1) of the Federal Character Commission Act, Laws of the Federation, 2004. Consequently, the lawmakers have urged President Tinubu to urgently appoint not less than two additional ministers from the zone to ensure balanced geopolitical representation in the new administration among the six geopolitical zones. Interestingly, the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has promised to meet the President on the issue. Hopefully, Tinubu will address the obvious disparity and marginalization of the South-East zone in the ministerial appointments and others. The table of confirmed ministerial nominees is as follows: North-West (9), North-Central (8), South-West (9), North-East (7) South-South (7), and South-East (5). However, three nominees, Nasir El-Rufai (North-West), Sani Danladi (North-East) and Stella Okotete (South-South), are yet to be confirmed.
Therefore, it is advisable that Tinubu should not toe the vicious path of Buhari in entrenching the lopsided policy in appointments which the former leader enunciated with aplomb in the face of mounting criticisms. That Buhari did it does not in any way make it right. Buhari erroneously hinged his argument on twisted logic that you don’t reward those who gave you five percent of votes more than those who have you 97 percent of votes. Before Buhari, federal political appointments were never based on how each geopolitical zone voted. Using that illogicality to base appointments and siting of projects negates the principles of federal character and federalism and equality of states in political representation. It is expected the president of Nigeria should treat the entire country as his constituency.
He should not favour any zone more than the rest as Buhari did. Apart from the creation states under the regime of gen. Yakubu Gowon, which gave six states each to the North and the South, Subsequent state creation exercises have given the North more slots than the South. The same follows the creation of local governments, which was done arbitrarily. And in the South, the South-East is the worst hit by the social injustice. Apart from poor leadership, the other trouble with Nigeria is the structural injustice. Until the structural injustice is addressed, Nigeria will still be grappling with its foundational problems. The search for peace in the face of glaring injustice will be highly elusive. It is akin to wallowing in delusion of grandeur. And no nation can make appreciable progress when one of its parts is officially relegated and marginalized for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Our political leaders must bear in mind that injustice to one part of the country is injustice to other parts as well. They need to be reminded also that what affects one part of the country, directly or indirectly affects the other parts. Nigeria’s development plan should be holistic and nationalistic for it to work. Sectionalized appointments and development will further divide and alienate the people the more. Nigeria’s socio-economic problems can be traced to years of political marginalization and alienation of some groups.
That is why the polity is awash with all kinds of agitations which the federal government has tried to evade and gloss over hoping that the problems arising therefrom will resolve themselves. Nigerian leaders need to concern themselves with our domestic problems more than the coup in Niger, ECOWAS and AU. Let our foreign policy be centered on Nigerian interest and not on Africa. It is after settling our internal problems and resolving our foundational contradictions that we can move to the sub-region and the continent well prepared for the tasks ahead. We cannot solve ECOWAS or AU problems when we are unable to solve ours. Our political charity should indeed begin at home. We must remove the log in our eyes before attempting that of others. A man whose house is on fire does not chase rats. He should first put-off the fire before looking for rats.
Although coup is an aberration in a democratic setting, the recent coup in Niger is a wake-up call on African leaders to ensure good governance in their respective countries. Coups occur where there is bad governance, corruption, social inequality, marginalization and injustice. Democracy in Africa is not working because the continent has many inept, corrupt, selfish and autocratic leaders. Except the leaders in Africa repent now and change their evil ways, democracy in the region is imperiled and doomed.
