The Nigerian government has issued a formal apology regarding errors discovered in a recently published list of federal appointments, which was intended to address accusations of regional bias in President Bola Tinubu’s administration.
Special Adviser on Media & Public Communication to the President, Sunday Dare, acknowledged the mistakes in a brief statement posted on social media platform X: “We have noticed a number of errors in the list of appointments tweeted. We are sorry. We will provide an updated list later. Thank you.”
The controversy emerged following allegations from prominent figures, including Senator Ali Ndume, an All Progressives Congress (APC) lawmaker representing Borno South, who publicly criticized President Tinubu for what he described as violations of the federal character principle in his appointments. During an interview with Arise TV, Senator Ndume asserted his right to challenge the President despite their shared party affiliation.
In response to mounting criticism about regional favoritism, particularly allegations that Tinubu was disproportionately appointing individuals from his tribal background, the Presidency released a comprehensive breakdown of appointments categorized by Nigeria’s six geo-political zones.
According to the disputed list, appointments were distributed as follows: North West (35), South West (29), North Central (25), North East (24), South-South (22), and South East (16). The Presidency presented these figures as evidence of a balanced approach to federal appointments across Nigeria’s diverse regions.
However, the credibility of the list was immediately questioned when observers noticed significant omissions, most notably the absence of Femi Gbajabiamila, the President’s Chief of Staff, who hails from Tinubu’s home region of South West. This oversight particularly undermined the government’s attempt to counter the narrative of regional imbalance, as excluding a high-profile appointee from the President’s home region effectively skewed the data presented.
The federal character principle, enshrined in Nigeria’s constitution, requires that government appointments reflect the country’s diverse ethnic, religious, and regional composition. This principle aims to ensure equitable representation and foster national unity in a country with over 250 ethnic groups and sharp regional divisions.
President Tinubu, who assumed office with promises of inclusive governance, has faced increasing scrutiny regarding the regional distribution of key positions in his administration. Critics argue that appointments should not only be numerically balanced but should also reflect equity in the significance and influence of the positions allocated to each region.
Political analysts suggest that the government’s hasty release of a flawed list may have inadvertently intensified rather than alleviated concerns about the administration’s commitment to regional balance. The incident highlights the challenges of managing perceptions in Nigeria’s complex political landscape, where ethnic and regional considerations often influence public discourse.
The controversy occurs against a backdrop of Nigeria’s historical struggles with regional tensions. Since independence, successive administrations have grappled with accusations of favoritism, with citizens from various regions frequently expressing concerns about marginalization in federal appointments and resource allocation.
For the Tinubu administration, addressing these concerns effectively remains crucial for building national consensus and implementing its policy agenda. Political observers note that beyond the numbers, the perception of inclusivity plays a vital role in establishing the legitimacy and popular support necessary for governance in Nigeria’s diverse federation.
The presidency’s prompt acknowledgment of the errors and commitment to provide an updated list demonstrates an awareness of the sensitivity surrounding this issue. However, some critics argue that the initial oversight reflects a concerning lack of attention to detail on matters of national importance.
Civil society organizations have called for greater transparency in the appointment process, suggesting that a comprehensive database of all federal appointments, including details about qualifications and selection criteria, could help address concerns about regional imbalance and nepotism.
As Nigerians await the promised corrected list, this incident serves as a reminder of the delicate balancing act required in managing a diverse federation. The administration’s response to this controversy may well influence public perception regarding its commitment to equitable representation and national unity.
The government’s willingness to acknowledge and correct mistakes represents an opportunity to rebuild trust. However, critics maintain that true adherence to the federal character principle goes beyond statistical distribution to include meaningful representation across all levels of decision-making in government.
As the debate continues, many Nigerians hope that the forthcoming revised list will not only correct numerical errors but also reflect a genuine commitment to inclusive governance that values competence while respecting Nigeria’s constitutional requirement for regional balance in federal appointments.
