The process of appointment of ministers in Nigeria is ordinarily simple. It has two main phases, namely: the nomination of some persons by the president to serve as ministers of government and the confirmation of such nominees by the senate. As at today, the president’s nomination is constitutionally guided to consist of at least 37 persons, one per state and the federal capital territory, Abuja. A fresh legal requirement is for the president to ensure that the nominations are made not later than 60 days from the day of his inauguration. On its part, the senate is required to diligently perform the confirmation of the nominees by subjecting them to a process of screening with a view to certifying that only persons of integrity that are fit and proper are confirmed to serve as ministers.

Both the president and the senate ought to perceive their assignments as constitutional mandates that must be conscientiously handled so as to situate the cabinet as a veritable tool for good governance. It is partly to ensure that the assignments receive a mandatory rather than a discretionary flavour that both arms of government were co-assigned for one to serve as a check on the other. Unfortunately, from 1999 when democracy was restored in Nigeria till today, both the executive and the legislature made up mainly of members of the same ruling political party have tended to handle the assignment with a huge posture of discretion; allowing forces to negate the intendment of the drafters of our constitution. 

Perhaps because politicians do not care to remember that what matters most should be the competence of nominees, undue emphasis has always been placed on membership of the ruling party. Whereas there is nothing wrong with the appointment of party members, such a factor ought to be an additional advantage to competence. This is because it is only when those who best fit a job are left to handle it that development can thrive in society.  The corollary is the case when appointments into sensitive positions such as that of ministers are treated essentially as compensation to party members who worked hard for the victory of the party or who during elections, helped to rig their party into power.

Since last week, when the Nigerian senate began to screen persons nominated as ministers by president Bola Tinubu, citizens are yet to see any departure from the tendencies of the past. To start with, the first set of 28 nominees emerged a few days to the deadline for nominations making it appear that from the electioneering period till swearing-in, not much effort was directed at identifying persons likely to assist the new president as ministers. Second, the senators have been engaged in ‘blind screening’ of the nominees, asking general questions that are based on assumptions of how portfolios may be distributed. How can the senate identify who can best handle a particular job if what each nominee would finally be assigned with remains guess-work?

The argument that there is no need to indicate portfolios now because the president could along the line reshuffle the cabinet is simplistic. There is no doubt that blind screening is obsolete and that to reshuffle a cabinet cannot be for the fun of it. In addition, the senate has certainly not out-grown its archaic ego that it has a discretion on matters concerning the screening of ministers when in actual fact it is a mandatory duty.  To screen a ministerial nominee in order to confirm the nominee’s suitability for appointment is the direct opposite of exempting a nominee from screening. In truth, to have once served as a legislator is not a rational basis for concluding that a former legislator would be a good minister. Put differently, to declare certain persons fit for a job without ascertaining the presumption lacks any iota of empiricism.

The point to reiterate is that it is unwise for our senators to hold-on to the practice of thinking that they have a right to vary a constitutional mandate. It is indeed unpatriotic for a group of political leaders to handle with levity, the constitutional assignment of confirming the suitability of nominees for sensitive positions in government. There is no better way of understanding the policy of ‘bow and go’ instituted by senators of the federal republic to suit their material or political interests. This column has consistently made the point in the last decade that the ‘bow and go’ policy is characteristically indiscrete and that if the makers of our constitution had imagined that our senate would toy with the assignment, the appointment of ministers would have been left as the prerogative of only the president.

It is obvious therefore that our senators have no other option than to help the president to attain considerable stability by using the screening of ministers to ward-off undue pressures and frivolities that can hinder good governance. The senate would do well to halt nominees brought in through pressures such as, persons whose school age almost coincide with their dates of birth or those who offend the law on the youth service scheme. Indeed, persons with ridiculous credentials ought not to pass through the senate. We have had enough of citizens who having evaded the scheme are always able to get into top public appointments thereby making the enabling law of the NYSC which criminalizes evasion from the scheme irrelevant

The screening of ministers is one of those critical occasions when the legislature can demonstrate an affirmative posture of collaborative federalism. It is a time when the rubber-stamp toga that the legislature has been wearing for some time now is given a positive colouration if the senate can use it to redirect the executive to operate within the rule of law.  The senate should have worked behind the scene to ensure that no less than 37 nominees were presented within 60 days as the law provided, instead of screening new nominations after the expiration of the deadline. It should have helped the president to keep to the campaign pledge of unifying the nation by dissuading him from nominating three persons from any state. It should in fact have helped the president to avoid an unwieldy cabinet of 48 ministers in these austere times of the nation

Nigeria recently witnessed several controversies which many expected would be raised during the screening. The few that came up were perhaps all that people enjoyed while watching the screening on national television. The question of disobedience to court orders which was put to a likely Attorney General during the screening was salutary but it was not followed up. Although the nominee clearly deprecated the tendency for anyone to disobey court orders, the fact that courts of law in Nigeria were only a few months back constrained to convict the Inspector General of Police and the EFCC chairman for contempt of court made the question the best, though it was feebly asked.  The media would no doubt play back the answer given by the nominee when the executive and its agencies commit the breach again. 

Of the few laudable nominations, two stand out for applause. The first is the nomination of Professor Tahir Mamman, Vice Chancellor of Baze University Abuja- an institution whose proprietor, Senator Datti Ahmed was the vice presidential candidate of the Labour Party. Tahir has always been an active member of the ruling APC, but was neither hindered from holding opposite political views nor removed as VC for not decamping to the Labour Party. The second is the support given by Governor Ademola Adeleke of Osun state to the nomination of his arch rival, former Governor Gboyega Oyetola. Adeleke was reported to have mandated all the PDP senators from his state to support the nomination which no doubt was in the interest of the state. 

The two cases above represent the best of political tolerance in today’s Nigeria. Some other politicians would have sought to block the nominations. We therefore commend Senators Datti Ahmed and Ademola Adeleke for displaying uncommon statesmanship of putting public interest beyond partisanship.  This notwithstanding, the senate should still ensure that both nominees are fit to hold their appointments. By so doing, the importance of the senate in the attainment of good governance would be underscored.