Ministerial Appointment: Again, S’East Short-changed with No Zonal Representation

With the unveiling of the second batch of his ministerial list and addition of another name yesterday, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has finally assembled 48 persons that would serve in his cabinet.

Mr. President selected his men and women from across the length and breadth of Nigeria.

But there’s no cause for cheer in the South-east geopolitical zone because, once again, the zone has been shortchanged.

An analysis of the president’s ministerial spread shows that the South-east is the only zone without a zonal representation in the ministerial appointments.

President Tinubu barely accommodated the South-east in his cabinet to satisfy the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which made it mandatory that each of the 36 states and Abuja must have a minister each.

Now, after complying with the constitutional provision, Tinubu has additional 12 ministerial slots to allocate because of the size of his cabinet, which of course, was his own making. That is where the zonal allocation of ministers comes in.

By virtue of the discrepancies in the creation of states, all the other five zones were already ahead of the South-east in the constitutionally mandatory allocation of ministers.

North-west, the zone with the largest number of states, got seven ministerial slots while North-east, North-central, South-west and South-south received six slots each. The South-east were left with five ministers, just to fulfill constitutional righteousness.

Yet, in his distribution of the extra ministerial slots, Tinubu gave additional three ministers each to North-west and South-west zones, making it a total of 10 and nine ministers for the zones, respectively.

Each of North-east, North-central and South-south were given two extra ministers, making it a total of eight for each of these favoured zones.

In fact, the South-south zone received yet another additional ministerial slot yesterday when the name of the immediate past Minister of state for Labour, Festus Keyamo, surfaced in Tinubu’s ministerial list.

Sadly, the South-east was stuck with its five constitutionally mandatory number of ministers. No addition. No zonal representation. Just a paltry 10.4 per cent of the 48 names in Tinubu’s prospective ministers.

In his zonal distribution of his extra ministerial slots, Tinubu was obviously persuaded by the number of votes he received in each zone during the 2023 presidential poll.

However, denying the entire South-east a share of the zonal ministerial representation cannot be considered a smart political decision on the part of Mr. President.

Though Tinubu did not get the quantum of votes he had expected in the South-east, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) controls two states – Ebonyi and Imo out of five states in the zone, representing 40 per cent.

That should have provided for Tinubu a source of comfort and renewed hope for high yielding political outing in future. Certainly, not a shabby treatment for a zone with equal stake like others, in the Nigeria project.

Following the treatment meted out to the South-east, some prominent leaders and civil society groups in the South-east zone have expressed displeasure over the quality of ministerial nominees selected from the zone.

An Ohanaeze Ndigbo chieftain in Lagos, Chief Ogbonna Kanu, said he was worried at the lack of depth and pedigree of the so-called ministerial nominees from the South-east.    

He said the educational attainments being bandied about by some of the nominees are “suspect and implausible”.

Chief Kanu, who particularly wondered how anybody could believe the educational qualifications bandied by the nominees, faulted their claims saying, “how on earth can these people represent a formidable race like the Igbo?”

The Ohanaeze chieftain expressed doubt if Mr. President would “have nominated these kinds of people if they were from the South-west.”  

He called on Tinubu to review the ministerial nominees from the South-east and pick people of high quality to represent the zone in his cabinet.

Kanu also urged the President to give additional slots to the South-east, noting that the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), preaches justice and equity for all irrespective of tribe, ethnicity and religion.

A member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) from Anambra, who requested anonymity, wondered “whether Asiwaju still wants people to vote for APC in future elections with this kind of behaviour.”

He described the ministerial nominees as “a direct assault on the South-east.”

On its part, the Coalition of South East Youth Leaders (COSEYL) slammed President Tinubu for not giving additional nominees to the South-east.

In a statement issued by its President General, Comrade Goodluck Ibem, the group which prides itself as the apex sociopolitical youth group in the South-east geopolitical zone, expressed alarm at Tinubu’s ministerial list.

“The recent ministerial nomination has shown Tinubu is yet to fully embrace Ndigbo,” COSEYL cried out, adding, “the list smacks of nepotism”.

According to the coalition of youth leaders, it has turned an irony that President Tinubu “who swore to protect the constitution of Nigeria and treat all Nigerians equal has shown his lack of appreciation for Ndigbo by shortchanging the South-east region.

“This, he has done by not giving the region additional ministerial positions the same way he gave to other geopolitical zones.

“It is disappointing that President Tinubu gave the South-west and North-west additional three ministerial slots, gave North-east, North-central and South-south two each and South-east no additional slot.

“This action goes a long way to tell us that, had it been the constitution did not provide that a state must provide one ministerial nominee, the people of South-east would have been denied the opportunity of nominating a minister under (Tinubu) administration,” COSEYL said.

“It is unconstitutional to share ministerial positions or political offices based on votes or electoral considerations.

“Democracy is about the people and not political compensation for political loyalty or votes.”