President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers state has reignited scrutiny of his criticisms of actions carried out by Olusegun Obasanjo and Goodluck Jonathan, Nigeria’s former presidents.

Tinubu, on Tuesday, declared a state of emergency in Rivers following the persistent political crisis and instability in the state.

The president also suspended Siminalayi Fubara, the governor of Rivers; Ngozi Odu, his deputy; and the members of the state assembly.

He also nominated Ibok-Ete Ibas, a retired vice-admiral, as the state’s administrator. The president said the administrator will manage the state without enacting new laws but may issue regulations subject to federal executive council (FEC) approval and presidential promulgation.

Tinubu said the judicial arm of Rivers state remains unaffected and will continue its constitutional duties.

As a vocal political figure, Tinubu frequently condemned what he viewed as the federal government’s overreach in wielding emergency powers.

TINUBU CONDEMNED OBASANJO FOR IMPOSING EMERGENCY RULE IN PLATEAU

In 2004, Tinubu, then governor of Lagos, fiercely opposed Obasanjo’s imposition of a state of emergency in Plateau state on May 18.

Obasanjo’s declaration followed months of brutal ethno-religious clashes between Christian and Muslim communities in Jos, the state capital, and surrounding areas, leaving over 2,000 dead and displacing thousands.

Obasanjo had suspended Joshua Dariye, the Plateau governor at the time, and the state assembly and appointed Chris Alli, a retired major general, as sole administrator for six months.

Tinubu condemned the move as an assault on Nigeria’s federal structure, arguing that it stripped Plateau of its democratic rights without exhausting dialogue or state-level solutions.

“It is unfortunate and illegal; this has to be discouraged. It is a bad precedent. What the president of the country has done, I pray it doesn’t stand,” Tinubu was quoted to have said in 2004.

TINUBU ACCUSED JONATHAN OF INTIMIDATING GOVERNORS 

In 2013, Tinubu, a leading voice in the opposition All Progressives Congress (APC), criticised Jonathan’s state of emergency declaration in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states on May 14.

The measure came as the Boko Haram insurgency intensified, with bombings, abductions, and territorial seizures overwhelming local security forces in the three states.

Though, unlike Obasanjo, Jonathan retained the elected governors — Kashim Shettima, Ibrahim Geidam, and Murtala Nyako — but imposed dusk-to-dawn curfews, deployed heavy military presence, and granted security forces sweeping powers.

Tinubu slammed the decision as an “unpardonable mediocrity” that bypassed constitutional checks, warning that it risked turning the north-east into a militarized zone under federal control.

He said with the declaration, Jonathan had “intimidated and emasculated” the governors, adding that the action had scuttled the constitutional functions of the governors and elected officials in the three states.

“Let all those who love this country genuinely advise the federal government not to tinker with the mandates of these governors under any guise. It is a potentially destructive path to take,” he wrote at the time.

“Hiding under some nebulous claims that border on the intractability of the security challenges posed by Boko Haram or some acclaimed traditionalists who have killed some policemen to render ineffective the constitutional powers vested in elected governors and other representatives of the people, perceived as not amenable to manipulation for the 2015 project, amounts to reducing serious issues bordering on the survival of the country to partisan politics.”

Tinubu’s criticisms were rooted in his advocacy for federalism and autonomy for state governments.

“No governor of a state in Nigeria is the chief security officer. Putting the blame on the governors, who have been effectively emasculated, for the abysmal performance of the government at the centre which controls all these security agencies, smacks of ignorance and mischief,” he said as opposition leader in 2013.

“The president’s pronouncement, which seeks to abridge or has the potential of totally scuttling the constitutional functions of governors and other elected representatives of the people, will be counterproductive in the long run.”

In 2005, Tinubu, as a governor, vowed to defend the “territorial integrity and sovereignty” of Lagos against the tyranny of the federal government. He also accused Jonathan of using the insurgency as a pretext to weaken opposition strongholds in the north, where the APC was gaining traction.

Now, as the president, Tinubu’s emergency declaration in Rivers mirrors the actions he once strongly condemned.

[TheCable]

In the wake of a Supreme Court-triggered crisis in Rivers State —masterminded by Nyesom Wike, whose outsize influence over the judiciary has earned him the fittingly dubious distinction of being the de facto head of Nigeria’s “judiciary” — President Bola Tinubu has, with a stroke of imperial presidential pronouncement, declared a state of emergency and suspended democracy.

In a twist as darkly ironic as it is emblematic, he has chosen to replace elected officials with a retired military officer by the name of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, effectively reviving the tired and dangerous fallacy (actively nurtured and propagated by Nigeria’s past military dictators) that when civilians falter, only soldiers can "restore order."

This move reinforces the infantilization of civilian governance and reduces democracy to something that must be periodically "rescued" by the men in fatigues.

Interestingly, in May 2013, Tinubu himself condemned the declaration of a state of emergency in Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa as a dangerous assault on democracy and a ploy to rig the 2015 election.

“The body language of the Jonathan administration leads any keen watcher of events to the unmistakable conclusion of the existence of a surreptitious but barely disguised intention to muzzle the elected governments of these states for what is clearly a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2015,” he said.

Now, with his own state of emergency in Rivers, two years before the 2027 election in which he will seek a second term, the question writes itself: Is this, too, a “display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2027”?

Or do the rules of democracy shift when the emperor changes robes?

One hopes Tinubu has fully considered the ramifications of his decision. He based his suspension of democracy in Rivers on the Supreme Court’s tendentious declaration that “there is no government in Rivers State.”

Well, for the millions of Nigerians already struggling under the weight of his government’s reckless economic policies, “there is no government in Nigeria” right now. Governance, for most, is an abstraction at best and an illusion long shattered at worst.

Should the military intervene to restore governance?

Fellow Nigerians, I feel greatly disturbed at the turn we have come to regarding the political crisis in Rivers State. Like many of you, I have watched with concern the development with the hope that the parties involved would allow good sense to prevail at the soonest, but all that hope burned out without any solution to the crisis.

 With the crisis persisting, there is no way democratic governance, which we have all fought and worked for over the years, can thrive in a way that will redound to the benefit of the good people of the state. The state has been at a standstill since the crisis started, with the good people of the state not being able to have access to the dividends of democracy.

Also, it is public knowledge that the Governor of Rivers State for unjustifiable reasons, demolished the House of Assembly of the state as far back as 13th December 2023 and has, up until now, fourteen (14) months after, not rebuilt same. I have made personal interventions between the contending parties for a peaceful resolution of the crisis, but my efforts have been largely ignored by the parties to the crisis. I am also aware that many well-meaning Nigerians, Leaders of thought and Patriotic groups have also intervened at various times with the best of intentions to resolve the matter, but all their efforts were also to no avail. Still, I thank them.

On February 28, 2025, the supreme court, in a judgment in respect of about eight consolidated appeals concerning the political crisis in Rivers State, based on several grave unconstitutional acts and disregard of rule of law that have been committed by the Governor of Rivers State as shown by the evidence before it pronounced in very clear terms:

“a government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a state under the 1999 Constitution as amended. In this case the head of the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to govern without the legislature as a despot. As it is there is no government in Rivers State.”

The above pronouncement came after a catalogue of judicial findings of constitutional breaches against the Governor Siminalayi Fubara.

Going Forward in their judgment, and having found and held that 27 members of the House who had allegedly defected

“are still valid members of Rivers State House of Assembly and cannot be prevented from participating in the proceedings of that House by the 8th Respondent (that is, the Governor) in cohorts with four members”

The Supreme Court then made some orders to restore the state to immediate constitutional democracy. These orders include the immediate passing of an Appropriation Bill by the Rivers State House of Assembly which up till now has not been facilitated.

Some militants had threatened fire and brimstone against their perceived enemy of the governor who has up till now NOT disowned them.

Apart from that both the House and the governor have not been able to work together.

Both of them do not realise that they are in office to work together for the peace and good governance of the state.

The latest security reports made available to me show that between yesterday and today there have been disturbing incidents of vandalization of pipelines by some militant without the governor taking any action to curtail them. I have, of course given stern order to the security agencies to ensure safety of lives of the good people of Rivers State and the oil pipelines.

With all these and many more, no good and responsible President will standby and allow the grave situation to continue without taking remedial steps prescribed by the Constitution to address the situation in the state, which no doubt requires extraordinary measures to restore good governance, peace, order and security.

In the circumstance, having soberly reflected on and evaluated the political situation in Rivers State and the Governor and Deputy Governor of Rivers State having failed to make a request to me as President to issue this proclamation as required by section 305(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, it has become inevitably compelling for me to invoke the provision of section 305 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State with effect from today, 18th March, 2025 and I so do.

By this declaration, the Governor of Rivers State, Mr Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, Mrs Ngozi Odu and all elected members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State are hereby suspended for an initial period of six months.

In the meantime, I hereby nominate Vice Admiral Ibokette Ibas (Rtd) as Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the state in the interest of the good people of Rivers State. For the avoidance of doubt, this declaration does not affect the judicial arm of Rivers State, which shall continue to function in accordance with their constitutional mandate.

The Administrator will not make any new laws. He will, however, be free to formulate regulations as may be found necessary to do his job, but such regulations will need to be considered and approved by the Federal Executive Council and promulgated by the President for the state.

This declaration has been published in the Federal Gazette, a copy of which has been forwarded to the National Assembly in accordance with the Constitution. It is my fervent hope that this inevitable intervention will help to restore peace and order in Rivers State by awakening all the contenders to the constitutional imperatives binding on all political players in Rivers State in particular and Nigeria as a whole.

Long live a united, peaceful, secure and democratic Rivers State in particular and the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a whole.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will address the nation today in a nationwide broadcast on the situation in Rivers State.

The NTA and Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria will transmit the broadcast at 7 pm.

All TV and radio stations are requested to link up with the broadcast.

Bayo Onanuga

Special Adviser to the President

(Information & Strategy)

The Alaafin-elect, Prince Akeem Owoade, on Tuesday released his official title.

The palace made this known in a statement.

It noted that the Alaafin wants to be addressed as His Imperial Majesty, Iku Baba Yeye, Oba Abimbola Akeem Owoade I, Alaafin of Oyo

“This is to inform the general public that the proper manner of addressing the Alaafin for all activities and in the media is EXACTLY as follows: His Imperial Majesty Iku Baba Yeye Oba Abimbola Akeem Owoade I, Alaafin of Oyo.

“The number after OWOADE is the Roman Numeral One (I), not the English Number One (1),” the statement reads in part.

This follows the commencement of a 21-day traditional rites popularly known as “Oro Opebi”.

On March 7, the Chief of Staff to the monarch, Rotimi Osuntola, in Ibadan, announced that the traditional rites would end on Saturday, March 29, 2025.

[DailyPost]

The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, has revoked the land allocation for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) national secretariat in Abuja.

The decision was conveyed in a letter dated March 13, 2025, titled “Notice of Right of Occupancy with File No: MISC 81346 in Respect of Plot No: 243 within Central Area District, Abuja.”

Signed by the Director of Land Administration (FCT), Chijioke Nwankwoeze, the letter cited the PDP’s failure to pay annual ground rents from January 1, 2006, to January 1, 2025, as the reason for the revocation.

The letter read, “I have been directed to refer to the above Right of Occupancy granted to PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP), NATIONAL SECRETARIAT and inform you that the Minister of Federal Capital Territory has in the exercise of powers conferred on him under the Land Use Act No. 6 of 1978, Cap. L5, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, revoked your rights, interests and privileges over Plot No. 243 within Central Area, Cadastral Zone A00, Abuja.

“The revocation is in view of your continued contravention of the terms and conditions of grant of the Right of Occupancy by failing to pay the annual ground rents due on the property for twenty (20) years, from Ist of January 2006 to 1st of January 2025. This is despite the many publications made by the FCT Administration since 2023 in several national dailies and on electronic media requesting all allottees of plots in the Federal Capital Territory to pay up every outstanding bill and ground rent on their property.

“You would please note that the said breaches by PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP), NATIONAL SECRETARIAT (MISC 81346) run contrary to the provisions of Section 28, Subsection 5 (a) and (b) of the Land Use Act.”

Details shortly…

[TheNation]

The House of Representatives on Tuesday resolved to probe allegations about Standard Organisation of Nigeria’s reversal of its decision to shut down 18 companies found wanting in the production and distribution of substandard building materials, especially manufacturers of iron rods.

The resolution of the House followed the adoption of a motion of urgent public importance sponsored by Edo lawmaker, Mr Billy Osawaru.

Osawaru, a member of the All Progressives Congress urged the House to ask SON to do everything possible to eliminate fake products particularly building materials from the Nigerian market and ensure only quality products find their way to markets nationwide.

Osawaru had expressed concern about the incessant occurrence of building collapse in Nigeria, a development he attributed to the use of substandard products, poor regulatory practices and poor construction processes.

Quoting statistics from the Building Collapse Prevention Guild, Osawaru said that Nigeria recorded 47 building collapses across 14 states in 2024, with Lagos State accounting for about 56 per cent of them through 13 incidents, followed by Abuja with 4.37 per cent having recorded six collapse incidents.

He lamented that the use of substandard materials has sent numerous lives to their early grave, adding that at least, three buildings have collapsed in different states since January 2025, leading to several deaths and casualties.

“This is a clear indication that the Standard Organization of Nigeria has not done enough to prevent further occurrences.

“Study has revealed that poor quality of materials and cheap labour contributed about 53 per cent of building collapse in Nigeria with most of them being private residential buildings executed by indigenous companies and locals.

“SON allegedly reversed its decision to shut down 18 companies implicated in the production and distribution of substandard building materials, particularly iron rod manufacturers.

“The reversal, reportedly influenced by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment has sparked criticism from different quarters, raising concern over the government’s commitment to enforcing quality standards in the construction industry.

“The alleged defaulted companies responsible for production of substandard building materials especially irons hides under the weak enforcement mechanisms in Nigeria to flood the Nigerian market with inferior products while exporting products of high quality to countries where substandard materials are not tolerated,” he said.

Following the adoption of the motion, the House resolved to investigate the organisation and make useful recommendations on how to tackle the scourge of substandard building materials in the country.

AMIDST the heightening tension in Rivers State, President Bola Tinubu is currently meeting behind closed doors with the Service Chiefs and the Inspector-General of Police, IGP, at the Presidential Villa, Abuja.

Also present at the meeting are the President of the Senate, Senator Godswill Akpabio and Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele.

Besides, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon.Tajudeen Abbas, and the Deputy Speaker, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Kalu, were also spotted at the Presidential Villa.

It is unclear if the presiding officers of the National Assembly are part of the meeting with security chiefs.

Those in attendance are the National Security Adviser, NSA, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the Directors General of the Department of State Service, DSS, Mr Adeola Ajayi and the Director General of the National Intelligence Agency, NIA, Mohammed Mohammed.

Although the agenda of the meeting is not made public at the time of filing this report, it may not be unconnected with the security situation in the country.

Besides, the meeting is coming on the heels of is an explosion that rocked a section of the Trans Niger Pipeline in Bodo Community in Gonna Local Government Area of Rivers State.

The explosion occurred late on Monday night near the Bodo-Bonny Road under construction.

Recall that the youth wing of the Pan Niger Delta Forum, PANDEF, had given the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Nyesom Wike a 48-hour to apologize to the Ijaw nation over his recent utterances on the political crisis in Rivers State.

The ultimatum issued to the minister to apologize over his alleged attack on PANDEF and South-South leaders expired on Monday.

Vanguard News Nigeria

• Lagos Gov receives Silverbird Governor of Year Award

Lagos State Governor, Mr. Babajide Sanwo-Olu, has promised to continue to deliver good governance and dividends of democracy to Lagos residents, saying the Silverbird Governor of the Year Award bestowed on him will motivate him to do more for the people.

Governor Sanwo-Olu spoke on Sunday night after receiving the Silverbird Governor of the Year Award at a ceremony held at the Eko Hotels and Suites, Victoria Island. He received the Award in the company of members of the Lagos State Executive Council and some top government officials.

In his acceptance speech, Governor Sanwo-Olu, who dedicated the Award to the people of Lagos State, vowed to redouble his efforts and continue to deliver good governance and dividends of democracy to the people of Lagos State.

The Governor also praised President Bola Tinubu, saying the visionary leadership and innovative policies by the first Lagos State Governor in the Fourth Republic laid the groundwork for Lagos to become a vibrant and dynamic city.

Governor Sanwo-Olu also described President Tinubu's Renewed Hope agenda as the panacea for the country’s economic recovery.

He said: "This award is a tribute to the hard-working and resilient people of Lagos State who have supported our vision and initiatives. Your unwavering belief is what fuels our commitment to excellence.

"I am grateful to His Excellency President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, former Governor and visionary architect of modern Lagos. His leadership and innovative policies laid the groundwork for our vibrant, dynamic city.

"I remain committed to ensuring that good governance is at the forefront of our administration and delivering the dividends of democracy you deserve.

"Together, we have made significant strides; let us continue to work hand in hand to create a brighter future for every Lagosian."

Governor Sanwo-Olu also appreciated the Silverbird Group for the Governor of the Year Award.

SIGNED

GBOYEGA AKOSILE

SPECIAL ADVISER - MEDIA AND PUBLICITY

In this piece, I want to pay critical attention to the reform significance of the relationship between what has been called the “cult of the generalists,” on the one hand, and the necessity for more of a cadre of specialist or professionals given the imperative demand of the knowledge age, on the other. This discourse might appear academic at first glance. However, we immediately grasp its significance when we understand that a civil service system that must anticipate the challenges of the future needs to adequately articulate a governance, strategic and operational managerial framework that has the capability of preparing the civil service for such a future. How does this distinction affect the way we think about development on the continent? It does because it is intimately connected with the evolving nature of work, and how work mediate the significance and urgency of national productivity. The nature of work in the twenty-first century has changed drastically. Work is no longer place-based and full-time/lifetime vocation. It is now more remote-based, and attended by all sorts of dynamics. 

This therefore brings to the fore the imperative of connecting this changing workplace with the traditional understanding of the public service in public administration studies. How a public service performs, therefore, has a lot to do with how the business model of the public service is organized and connected with the developmental framework of the state. When the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854 was submitted, as part of the reform effort to transform the operational basis of the British Civil Service, it was founded on one of four significant premises:

• “Entrants should not be recruited for life into a specific department but would enter a Home Civil Service that would facilitate inter-departmental staff transfers. Civil servants, therefore, would need to have had a general education and to be generalist rather than specialist in their knowledge and experience.

One critical implication of this development is the emergence of the cadre system which served as the basis for the establishment of a generalist class—administrative, executive and clerical—as the top administrative echelon of the civil service system in a descending hierarchical order of responsibilities and qualifications. This elite administrative echelon was solely responsible for policy initiation and implementation. 

In its Nigerian incarnation, the Administrative Staff College of Nigeria (ASCON) offers three streams of general management courses, for professionals and administrators, that appeals to the lower, middle and top management cadres. These courses are “general” in the sense that they have nothing to do with the specialized training that participants and officers have as professionals before attending. The assumption behind the general management courses is that while an officer could remain a specialist until she gets to GL 14, advancing to the top management position requires taking on more general management responsibilities that demands more multidimensional financial, human and managerial imperatives. Thus, whether a generalist-administrator or core professional, becoming a top management officer is a status that leans more to general management, and is preparatory to becoming a permanent secretary—a position that makes the officer simultaneously a chief administrative officer, chief policy adviser and chief accounting officer. 

The relationship between the cult of generalists that the Nigerian civil service system inherited from the British and the necessity of specialized and professional competence is one significant tension that the system has to contend with in terms of institutional reform. The colonial structure of the civil service was first addressed by the Gorsuch Commission of 1956 which recommended the creation of a cadre division of civil service personnel corresponding to general education standard of the period. The four divisions were: sub-clerical and sub-technical; clerical and technical; executive and higher technical; and administrative and professional. Each of these divisions was further divided into cadres. The professional class contained cadres like engineering, education, law, accountants, medical, etc. On the other hand, the contribution of the 1959 Newns Commission was the introduction of a Westminster organizational model which is more compatible with a ministerial framework. The Newns Commission recommended the grafting of the ministerial structures on the colonial departmental structure. This new arrangement, for instance, created the position of the permanent secretary on whom the Minister could depend on all decisional and administrative matters, especially those bothering on specific technical needs that require liaising with the professional heads of department. 

Unfortunately, however, this wholesale transplantation of the Westminster model—the most significant underlying structural arrangement of the Nigerian civil service system till date—has constantly frustrated almost all reform intentions and implementation because it failed to take the peculiarity of the Nigerian context into consideration. The cadre system created a subsisting conflict between the generalists and the specialists, and this inevitably led to the tension that subverted service delivery efficiency in the departments. Within this system, key operational tasks are undertaken by generalist officers who have no expertise in the area. And this leaves the system weakened in terms of the urgent need for a specialist section with requisite professional qualification that matches competence with specific job and task. To cite a rather critical example, a very large proportion of the workforce at the Federal Civil Service Commission is made up of pool of generalist-officers who are without sufficient knowledge and expertise that could enable them deploy fundamental concepts and models in the field of HRM and public administration to bring professionalism to bear on their job. And this leaves a significant gap in terms of professionally trained and certified HR practitioners that are trained to take on specialized functions and tasks. Working under the influence of the Fulton Report of 1968, the Udoji Commission report made a valiant effort to dislodge the cult of generalists by recommending—under the burden of performance management, central to the managerial revolution sweeping public administration—the infusion of the public service with new professionals and specialists whose competences can be contracted to specific performance task within a result-oriented management system. The fundamental dimensions of the Udoji Report dealing with managerial dynamics were not implemented, unfortunately.

The generalist-specialist controversy is not unique to public administration. It pervades the entirety of the managerial structure of both the public and private management, as well as executive government. And this is because it impinges on workplace efficiency and performance management. Within public administration, government organizations possess a strong preference for recruiting public officers with broad-based and multidisciplinary knowledge over those public officers—the specialists—with professional expertise and competences in specific fields and areas. This “cult of generalists” derives from a general belief in management and administration that a generalist approach is superior for managing complex policy issues and navigating diverse government functions, even when highly technical knowledge might be required. In the private sector, the concern is not different. The workplace of the twenty-first century is leaning more in the direction of multidimensional expertise—a sort of Jack-of-all-trade. Indeed, there is the argument that generalists provide “marginal value”—the extra value that people are willing to pay, far above the value that specialist create. And this is because generalist appeal more to the general population, and specifically the general managerial requirement of any institution or organization. In both the public and the private sectors, the general manager is denoted by six fundamental tasks: (a) shaping and reshaping the workplace and its many environments, like dictating the performance standard, business concepts and personnel values; (b) designing strategic vision and mission; (c) strategically putting the available resources together; (d) attracting and harnessing the high performing managers and staff; (e) dealing with structural, institutional and organizational dynamics, decisions, and problems that anticipate future challenges; (f) supervising day-to-day operations and implementation of organizational decisions. 

I suspect, however, that no matter the acclamation for a generalist orientation in the public and private sectors, or even the argument for the specialists in government, arguing for either of them is in bad taste. Every organization or institution requires both. It is as simple as that. The reality of effective managerial presence in the public service requires that the generalist and the specialist possess a bit of competences required in the other’s domain, and this involve a range of subsidiary skills, for instance in policy analysis and project management. For instance, there is no generalist that would have any justifiable excuse not to have some significant and specialist expertise aside the general management skills. This is the core reason why core bureaucratic skills that were the competences of generalist administrators are now actively being professionalized. These include  economists, planners, procurement, records management, financial management and accounting systems, Human Resources, organization, operations and management research and management research, knowledge and talent management, training administration, HR information system, ICT, policy research and analysis, statistics and data management, decision science, investment planning and promotion, project management, negotiation, crisis and conflict resolution, strategic planning, pension management, PPPs, and so on. 

And on the other hand, to be an efficient professional public manager and administrator demands some significant generalist competences not only in people management but also some core establishment issues, especially in the management of the policy process and strategic planning. Such a specialist public administrator must have significant experience and expertise in the management of the five Ms of management: men (HR), money (finance), methods (management techniques), machine (technology), and materials (inventory, stocks and procurement). 

To offset the low efficiency and performance quotient of the system as well as the diminished managerial creativity of public officers, we need to insist, as a matter of regulatory gatekeeping, that every officer aspiring to top leadership positions in the civil service must acquire core specialist and generalist competency, and the system must see to it that officers are sufficiently rounded in these skills as part of professional development and leadership pipelining to top administrative level positions. This is a recognition of the fact that on the one hand, the civil service is not just an academic/intellectual space where candidates dazzle with erudition and breathe of intellectual rather than getting things done which is the core of bureaucratic professionalism. And on the other hand, running the business of government demands a whole multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary cocktail menu of a mix of strategic, tactical and operational skills.

⁠The reform program and strategy that must undermine the fundamental structural bases of administrative and managerial operation in the Nigerian civil service system must factor this understanding of the generalist-specialist dynamics and relationship into consideration. Taking them as adversarial opposites will not work for reform.