Opinion
Another Look At The Ministerial Screening
By Mon-Charles Egbo
Nigeria is presently going through her worst of times. The country never had it this devastating. The citizens are not just wailing but are suffocating sequel to pains and frustrations.
Yet ironically, these have provoked an unusual sense of vigilance and activism among the citizenry. Most people have suddenly become interested in governance more than ever. And consequently, there is now a massive expression of impatience regarding the expectations for interventions that deliver direct relief and assurances. The people are lamenting that what they experience today was certainly not what they bargained for with their votes.
Hence, the recent screening and subsequent confirmation of the ministerial nominees by the Senate was one event that underscored these feelings of disenchantment and rekindled citizens’ interest in governance.
The exercise was roundly dismissed as a mere formality, full of frivolities. This perception was cumulatively sequel to the “bow-and-go” syndrome, eligibility and competency questions, lack of scrutiny and vigour as well as the absence of proofs of declaration of assets and liabilities. Others included low-level youth inclusion, gender disparity, exclusion of people living with disabilities and the over-bloated nature of the nominee’s list, the elevation of partisan patronage above technocracy and then imbalance along the geo-political divides. Then to dramatize those issues and the belief that indeed, the exercise was below public expectations, there were various protests, advocacies and petitions.
Therefore by way of illustrations, certain nominees were shielded from scrutiny having been asked to just take a “bow and go” with little or no presentations, thereby denying Nigerians the opportunity of ascertaining the capabilities or otherwise of the would-be ministers. Also, while some others who had unimpressive outings in the past and the ones with moral burdens were given a clean bill of health, nothing was done about the absence of the nominees’ proofs of assets and liabilities declaration as required by the laws.
Fundamentally, these perspectives sign-post patriotic consciousness and clamour for public officials with proven competencies and abilities who are validated by a responsible and responsive parliament, towards good governance and national development.
But as compelling as those conclusions are, they can still be subjected to objectivity tests primarily by interrogating the laws.
By section 147 of the 1999 constitution on the appointment of ministers, it is the prerogative of the president to nominate while the senate confirms upon screening. It further says that primarily, the nominee must be “qualified for election into the House of Representatives.” And such qualification according to section 65 sub-section 2 of the constitution; the nominee must be educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent and, is a member of a political party and be sponsored by that party.
Instructively, there are no definite rules or a template for performing this all-important function. It thus implies that the Senate enjoys all the latitude and flexibility to apply any mode, provided that the laws, especially on the basic qualifications, are recognized. So by inference, the legislators,
in establishing the characters and relative competencies of the nominees, are to restrict themselves to the earlier submitted details and then the interactive presentations on the floor. Also, they can screen and confirm based on antecedence.
Meanwhile, it is noteworthy that screening does not translate to probe. There are specialized agencies that undertake elaborate investigations ahead of the Senate. This is the tradition.
However, citizens have the right to raise objections to the appointments of public officials. But such rights are exercised to their full potential either through the legislature or the judiciary. Between the elected representatives and the courts of law, including even the security agencies, one is at liberty to express themselves. At least, the nominees are well-publicized before their appearances for screening, which affords ample time to raise whatever misgivings, through either petitions or legal judgements. And of course, as highlighted above, records spoke for some. Those whose past conducts challenged the institutional memory of the Senate and the ones whose nominations elicited security concerns were duly taken care of.
Furthermore, and except for ignorance or deliberate motives, there are parliamentary conventions that confer some kind of privileges to certain categories of persons. These include those who have previously passed through the legislature, either having served as a lawmaker or screened by the parliament. By the protocol, they do not necessarily require reassessment given that their background data are already on the legislative archive. As such, their recent details ought to have answered all the eligibility and capability questions. But unarguably, this peculiar courtesy does not completely immune the nominees from re-evaluation, when necessary. And again on another hand, it will be extremely difficult to establish the ingenuity or expertise of a prospective appointee in the absence of the intended portfolios.
Then above all, because the buck stops on the desk of the president, who takes all the glory and blames, the discretion is entirely his, as to the quality of hands to enlist in his bid to actualize his agenda. He was entrusted with the popular mandate based on what he represents and the things he promised to deliver. Besides, there are mechanisms to regulate productivity or tackle incompetence and ineligibility in governance, such as key performance indices, KPIs, and the force of public opinion. The potency of these instruments has variously been demonstrated wherein some public officials were either sacked or made to resign when found wanting, while those that eventually served out their terms were denied subsequent opportunities.
Similarly, and on the claim of corruption, it is absolutely unfair to conclude that someone is of questionable disposition without concrete proof. The rule has always been that whoever is convicted faces the law. Nigeria’s history is replete with instances where variously, a serving lawmaker was sent to jail, serving ministers and heads of agencies notably, a serving secretary to the government of the federation, as well as some prominent judicial officers were relieved of their positions when proven corrupt. Also by the same token, a finance minister and presidential aides were made to quit offices principally by the immense power of public opinion. So it is uncharitable to just condemn an individual merely on parochial sentiments.
Still, on the issue of code of conduct, section 149 of the constitution says, that declaration of assets and liabilities is not done prior to appointment but after the nominee has been confirmed and has “subscribed the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office as minister.” As such, anything to the contrary is unconstitutional and diversionary.
So, conceding that Mr President in the exercise of his sole priviledge, has put forward those he trusts could deliver, the critical questions then should be: do they individually have the will, courage, and capacity to provide solutions?, are they Nigerians and passionate about national development?, are the states of the federation represented as required by the law, especially for the first time, the FCT? and lastly, does the senate have the constitutional powers to stop the president from appointing anyone of his choice?
All these uphold the urgent need to tinker with the laws, particularly towards strengthening the legislature and other strategic institutions. The constitution is plagued by a substantial measure of weakness and in its wake, retards democratic governance and development.
But in the interim, the senate in a deliberate bid not to slow down governance, and guided by national interest, has discharged its responsibility. And thankfully also, the people have established the basic moral and performance benchmarks for the prospective ministers. So the ball is now in President Bola Tinubu’s court. As he dispatches them to their respective duty posts, governance has taken off in earnest and also, the assessment and evaluation by the vigilant masses have begun.
But moving forward, everyone should pay attention, with open minds, to the national assembly. The Senate cannot just for political expediency, feign ignorance of the shallowness of the constitution and begin to question the sense of judgement of the president in assembling those he believes can catalyze his obligations. The president of the senate, Godswill Akpabio, was popularly elected by his colleagues on the strength of his avowed commitment to collaboration against confrontation with the presidency, in the lasting interest of the citizenry, without of course, compromising the interdependence of the arms of government. His ideology is anchored on the truism that it is in the commitment of the arms of government to a shared vision or common policy direction while pursuing their different but complementary functions, that the welfare and security of the citizens are guaranteed. And to his credit in this regard so far, he has demonstrated steadfastness.
Even beyond that, past experiences have shown that whether or not the Senate withholds confirmation, the president who is the appointing authority must work with whoever he chooses, as long there are no significant breaches. The cases of the immediate past EFCC and Customs headships are pointers.
Once again and empirically, the Senate’s confirmation does not mean the end of the process. The ministers are now open to a critical round of ‘screening’ wherein the president’s fire-and-hire powers are wielded against those who fall short of the right traits to hold offices.
But it all depends on how much the people sustain this renewed sense of vigilance and interest in governance, particularly by closing ranks with the legislature, given its peculiar constitutional circumstances. Active participation through a regular exchange of information with the elected representatives backed by constructive criticisms is crucial now if we truly wish for a happy, just and prosperous Nigeria.
Egbo is a parliamentary affairs analyst
By Abiodun KOMOLAFE
On October 1, 1999, I wrote an article titled ‘The Ethical Imperative of Governance’ in one of Nigeria’s leading national newspapers.
In the said article, I advocated for a deep sense of objective right and wrong in society, one that transcended Nigeria’s multicultural identity, as this shared moral foundation was essential for achieving our national objectives. Fast-forward to 2025, nearly three decades later, and the question remains: has anything changed? If so, what exactly has changed, and how do we measure the extent of this transformation?
In fairness to posterity, to ask how we got to wherever we are is to ask whether or not Nigeria should have been created in the first place. The amalgamation of the protectorates and territories, after all, was not put to a referendum, and there is no record of the people giving their consent to this amalgamation. It was largely driven by the British government’s cost-cutting measures, undertaken amidst the turmoil of a Europe on the brink of World War I.
The 1911 report of the Committee headed by Lord Haldane, akin to Nigeria’s Oronsaye Report, paved the way for cost rationalization, ultimately leading to the amalgamation. However, a critical question remains: did this amalgamation truly create a country, or merely a geographical expression? This conundrum is reminiscent of Giuseppe Garibaldi’s unification of 27 principalities, states and provinces into Italy. As Garibaldi excellently remarked, “We have created a geographical expression; now we must create the Italians.”
General Yakubu ‘Jack’ Gowon is arguably the only Nigerian leader who has come close to addressing the question of national unity. One of his notable achievements was the creation of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) in 1974.
While the NYSC has unified the Nigerian elite to some extent, its impact has been limited, more so as it has largely been serving interests that are not particularly productive. More importantly, it has failed to unite the Nigerian people. This failure is symptomatic of a broader issue – a country built on rent-seeking and a scramble for resources, which inevitably leads to the current state of disarray.
When Nigeria was governed by production-based constitutions, such as the 1963 Constitution, the country experienced flashpoints, but also enjoyed better focus on development and greater national cohesion. A similar trajectory can be observed in India, which has maintained stability despite experiencing flashpoints since its independence in 1947. India has avoided coups and has become the world’s 5th largest economy. Projections also suggest that India will become the world’s largest economy by 2050.
India’s experience offers a valuable lesson. By adhering to a constitutional framework similar to Nigeria’s 1960 and 1963 Constitutions, the country has successfully lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Meanwhile, Nigeria grapples with communal clashes, violence and land-grabbing. Nigerians are roasting Nigerians, thus rendering the country neither peaceful nor cohesive. This lack of cohesion underscores that sustainable development cannot be achieved through isolated ‘projects’. Instead, it will remain a case of ‘all motion without development.’
The National Assembly’s inability to promptly reform the internal security mechanism, adopting a community and state policing approach akin to countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil, and the USA, is striking. This inaction betrays a lack of interest in fostering national cohesion. Unfortunately, there is little indication that this will change soon. Apart from when the Super Eagles are playing, there is very little evidence of national cohesion. Dear fatherland continues to look like a ‘geographical expression’ rather than a state based on national identity, cohesion and a focused programme for national reconstruction.
In response to Nigeria’s struggles with national identity and underperformance, the establishment should revisit and upgrade the 1963 Republican Constitution, backing it with a referendum as a measure of self-preservation. At this critical juncture, the country must work towards a Nigerian equivalent of Italy’s 1971 ‘Historic Compromise.’
The Italian ‘Compromesso Storico’ breathed new life into Italy’s struggling state, addressing its disoriented public finances and stabilizing its sagging currency. This historic compromise reduced regional tensions and laid the groundwork for a unified effort against the Sicilian Mafia, ultimately paving the way for its downfall.
The conventional wisdom suggests that Lombardy, Italy’s most prosperous region, which, like our Niger Delta, is the goose that lays the golden eggs, would certainly have pulled out of Italy. This prompts a crucial question for Nigeria’s political establishment: can intellectual honesty and moral circumspection guide a comprehensive overhaul of the country’s perennial underdevelopment and lack of national cohesion?
Nigeria transitioned from military rule to democracy, but the journey was far from glorious. With this reality in mind, we must recognize that India’s independence in 1947 marked the beginning of a period where the country’s military structure prevented at least a dozen potential military coups. This contrasts with Nigeria’s experience under military rule, as well as Brazil’s, which was marked by brutality and viciousness.
However, it’s essential to consider the outcomes of military rule, as seen in South Korea’s remarkable transformation since 1958. The question remains: can military rule be beneficial if it leads to a forced advance, as in South Korea’s case?
To be concluded.
KOMOLAFE wrote from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk)
By Adamu Muhd Usman
“I do not ask for mercy,
I do not ask for pardon,
I demand justice.”
— Ali Bhutto of Palestine
Regardless of tribe, religion, region, culture, norms, status, class, or political affiliation, no one is a second-class citizen as long as they are Nigerian.
The media and public discussions have been dominated by the recent events in Uromi, Edo State, where innocent Nigerians were attacked, killed, and burned. This act is uncalled for—it is purely barbaric, unjust, and inhumane. Such actions demand justice.
Anyone supporting this wicked act must stop trying to justify this inhumanity. No amount of rhetoric, logic, or empty words can erase the pain of those innocent lives lost in Uromi.
The truth is, those who were killed in Uromi were not bandits. They were poor citizens from the North, the same region being targeted by the bandits and kidnappers that Southerners also fear.
The deceased (hunters) had no business with kidnappers or bandits who terrorize Northerners daily. There is ample evidence, both historical and media-based, proving the difference between local hunters and the criminals responsible for kidnappings and killings across Nigeria’s highways, camps, farms, and forests.
It is important to understand that not all Northerners are Hausa or Fulani or even Muslim. Likewise, not all Fulani are cattle herders. Although the Fulani traditionally live in the bush due to their livestock, they are not hunters. Hunting is a core aspect of Hausa culture—many Hausa hunters travel beyond their home territories in search of game.
A typical Hausa man does not rear cattle but raises dogs and fabricates locally made guns for hunting, a practice inherited from his ancestors. On the other hand, the Fulani are not typically farmers. However, throughout history, the Hausa and Fulani have coexisted, exchanging cultural values and traditions.
The insecurity plaguing the South due to kidnappers and bandits is far worse—perhaps 200 times more severe—in the North. This is a crisis the government has failed to address for too long.
It is crucial to note that the daily killings in the North by Boko Haram, bandits, and kidnappers are not being carried out by the Fulani who have lived peacefully among us for centuries. While some individuals among the Fulani and Hausa may have joined banditry, this does not mean the entire ethnic group is responsible.
Banditry and kidnapping, which initially started in the South, have now become criminal enterprises involving people from all backgrounds, regardless of tribe, religion, or region. It is Boko Haram and some bandit groups that deliberately create chaos and instill fear in peaceful communities.
Due to these criminal activities, many Southerners, including those in Edo State, now assume that every Northerner is a bandit or criminal simply because of their language or appearance. Similarly, in the 1980s, Northerners believed that every Bendel man, Benin (present day Edo and Delta states) was an armed robber due to the notorious exploits of Lawrence Anini.
The truth is, bandits spare no one—they attack their neighbors, business partners, in-laws, and even relatives. Whether North or South, we all suffer from insecurity, inflation, and the loss of innocent lives.
Nigeria belongs to all of us. No tribe, clan, ethnicity, or region is superior to another. Justice must be served for the senseless killings in Uromi. Remember, whatever you cannot tolerate, bear, or wish for yourself, do not inflict upon others—whether they are from the Northwest, Northeast, North Central, Southwest, Southeast, or South-South.
Another issue being raised is the comparison between the case of Deborah in Sokoto and the recent Uromi killings. To be honest, these two incidents are entirely different. How can you compare the death of one person to the brutal murder of multiple innocent souls? Deborah knowingly provoked the situation that led to her fate. No one dares to insult Islam without consequences—even in the Western world, people are cautious and respectful of religious sentiments. I urge you to leave Islam and Muslims alone with their beliefs.
My fellow Nigerians, both at home and in the diaspora, should stop supporting jungle justice. I implore you to join in condemning this act. Innocent people were attacked, killed, and burned alive for no reason other than being Hausa or Northerners.
Almost all well-meaning Nigerians have condemned this act. We demand justice for these helpless, innocent victims. The false accusations branding them as kidnappers are deeply disturbing and tragic. Such incidents highlight the need for greater awareness, education, reorientation, and the promotion of tolerance and understanding. Fair hearing and thorough investigations must be carried out, and no individual or group should take the law into their own hands—after all, the police and the courts exist for justice.
Authorities must thoroughly investigate the Uromi incident to bring the perpetrators to justice and implement proper measures to prevent future occurrences. Compensation for the victims’ families is not enough—justice must be served.
The call by Kano State Governor H.E. Kabir Yusuf (Abba Gida-Gida) for the public parading of the culprits is a valid one. It would help verify whether those arrested are indeed the perpetrators and ensure transparency in the process. In the past, there have been allegations of inmates being paraded as criminals, so publicizing the real suspects would ease tensions and prove that the government is taking the right steps.
In light of these issues, why is it that every matter related to Kano is now being politicized or trivialized? The Edo State governor was supposed to travel to Kano to offer condolences to the government and people over the brutal lynching of 16 Kano indigenes in Uromi—a commendable move. However, he was instead diverted to Abuja for a political photo-op with the Deputy Senate President, Senator Barau, before proceeding to Kano. This is disappointing. May God help democracy thrive in Nigeria as it should.
Lastly, those calling for Nigeria’s breakup should reconsider. Separation is not the solution to Nigeria’s problems. Instead, we must unite, love, and support one another. Stop the insults, mockery, and division. We must learn patience, tolerance, understanding, faithfulness, honesty, and commitment to making Nigeria better.
We should pray for our country’s unity, peaceful coexistence, mutual understanding, political stability, and positive societal changes.
Remember, Ojukwu tried to divide Nigeria but failed. He is now gone. Gideon Okar attempted it and was in handcuffs within 24 hours—facing a firing squad a month later. Gani Adams and Sunday Igboho tried but fled. Nnamdi Kanu made noise, ran to the UK, and was eventually returned to Nigeria, ending up in Kuje Prison.
The truth is, if anyone were to divide Nigeria, it would be a Northerner—but we won’t, because we believe in unity. The North is educated, wealthy, politically aware, and has the landmass and population to stand alone as a country, but we choose unity, tolerance, and coexistence. Our brothers in the South should stop provoking us.
I leave you with the words of Alexander the Great:
“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.”
Adamu writes from Kafin-Hausa, Jigawa State.
In many Nigerian homes today, the problem isn’t just about money – it’s the emotional and spiritual pain that comes from neglect. Husbands, who once cared deeply for their families, now spend more time with side chicks than with their wives and children. This isn’t just about cheating; it’s about the broken trust and emotional emptiness that come with it.
A viral video shows a Nigerian wife, her voice full of sadness, recording her husband sleeping all day snoring while their children play around him. She says, “Side chicks, have mercy. Our husbands are not machines. They have wives and children. Please stop draining them.” While this may have started as a funny moment online, it reflects a deeper reality: many wives are fed up with a culture that doesn’t value family or loyalty.
Infidelity, once seen as a private issue, is now tearing many homes apart. Husbands come home tired, distant, and more interested in their affairs than in their marriages. Wives are left to hold things together, feeling rejected and alone. This emotional pain is hard to ignore, leaving many wives feeling abandoned.
Dr. Paul Enenche, a well-known Christian preacher, once said: “Adultery is not just a sin; it is a curse. It destroys families and leaves everyone in pain.” Infidelity affects not just the couple, but also their children, who grow up in broken homes with absent fathers.
Arch. Raymond Duke Haruna, a respected Nigerian pastor, often talks about the damage caused by neglect in marriage. He says, “A home that lacks trust is like a house built on sand. It will crumble with time. We must not take marriage vows lightly, for they are sacred.” His words remind us of how serious marriage is, and how betrayal can tear it apart.
The Holy Bible also speaks against betrayal in Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” This verse warns that cheating isn’t just a sin against God, but it also breaks the foundation of trust in a marriage.
In Nigerian culture, there’s a saying: “The goat that eats yam from the barn will answer to the farmer.” This means that those who take what doesn’t belong to them will eventually face the consequences. Husbands who cheat are taking from their families, and they will answer for it one day.
While side chicks may seem to be the cause of the problem, the real issue is the lack of respect for the sacredness of marriage. Some women are very obstinate. However, husbands need to remember the wives who have stood by them, built their homes, and supported them. These wives deserve loyalty, love, and respect—not the pain of emotional and physical cheating.
Christian revivalist Juanita Bynum once said: “We need to return to God. Adultery is not just a sin; it is a sacrilege that brings destruction to everyone involved.” Her words are a reminder of how infidelity hurts not just the couple, but the children, the extended family, and even the community.
Arch Raymond Duke Haruna also says: “In marriage, loyalty is everything. Without it, there is no foundation for trust. Infidelity is not just a personal choice—it’s a betrayal that spreads pain to all those involved.” His message is clear: cheating doesn’t just hurt the couple, it damages the whole family.
The Holy Bible calls for repentance and reconciliation in Malachi 3:7: “Return unto me, and I will return unto you.” Husbands must heed this call and return to their families. Saving marriages is important, but saving families and communities is even more crucial. Repentance is needed from those who cheat and those who allow this culture of betrayal to continue.
The wife in the viral video may have expressed her frustration with humor, but her message is serious. To the side chicks: stop. The man you are with belongs to someone else. To the husbands: remember your vows. You promised to love, cherish, and protect your wife. It’s time to return to your family and fix what you’ve broken.
Wives, too, must take care of themselves by looking beautiful. Some husbands complain that their wives don’t meet their needs for intimacy and often nag, while others say their wives demand new wrappers but don’t show affection. These frustrations, combined with the easy company of side chicks who don’t ask for much, push many men to stray.
This piece is a call to action for every man out there. God is watching, and it’s time to break the cycle of betrayal. It’s time to bring loyalty, love, and faithfulness back into our marriages. Let’s rebuild our families and restore the sacredness of marriage.
Inah Boniface Ocholi – writes from Ayah, Igalamela Odolu LGA
08152094428 (Whatsapp Only)
-
News1 week agoAbia: LG Chairman, Iheke accused of using soldiers to detain IRS agent, claims Governor Otti’s support
-
News3 days agoSenators Natasha, Abbo unite in peddling dangerous falsehood against me – Akpabio
-
News1 day agoEchocho provides food items, cash to victims of windstorm in Kogi East
-
Politics3 days agoAbure’s Supreme Court Sack: Peter Obi, Nenadi Usman, LP faction react
-
News1 week agoKogi government bans rallies ahead of Natasha’s homecoming slated for Tuesday
-
News21 hours agoAt 76, Governor Ododo extols Ibrahim Idris’ statesmanship, service to Kogi
-
News1 week agoIran may secure a deal before Trump’s deadline – or face Israeli strikes in Tehran – analysis
-
News1 week ago
Jungle Justice and the collapse of Law in Nigeria