I am an advocate of merit. I believe that part of the problem of the country is that we have perfected putting square pegs in round holes. We sacrifice excellence on the altar of primordial mawkishness and nepotism with disastrous consequences.
I refrained from commenting before now on President Muhammadu Buhari’s appointments which favour the North more than the South because I thought it was too early to start reading meanings into his actions.
His critics allege that there is a tinge of clannishness in all his appointments. These allegations are not new. He failed in his earlier attempts to become the chief tenant of Aso Rock because of the perception that he has a mindset that is not nationally inclined.
Many Nigerians, particularly those from the South, distrusted Buhari. He is perceived to be too cliquish, narrow and insular in his worldview despite his military background.
While many voters still perceived him in that light as they cast their ballots on March 28, there was a significant number that believed, not necessarily that he was a changed man as he had claimed, but that he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
In any case, most Nigerians had come to the inevitable conclusion long before the election that returning the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) with Goodluck Jonathan as its presidential flag bearer to power was drinking hemlock.
So, the pan-Nigeria goodwill that propelled Buhari to power was more of a no-confidence vote in Jonathan and the PDP, particularly in the South.
But two months after assuming power, even those who believed that he was a changed man, a nationalist who sees the whole of Nigeria as his constituency, are beginning to ask themselves if they had not made a mistake.
I have always believed in Buhari, arguing at great political cost that he is a misunderstood man who is not vindictive.
I have come down hard on those who accuse him of being guided by ethnic considerations in the appointments he has made so far, insisting that it is still early in the day to conclude.
But I am no longer sure of what to believe about the Buhari Presidency and whether he can rise above primordial tendencies to be the national leader Nigerians expect him to be.
My doubt was provoked by the game of musical chairs at the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) recently.
On Tuesday, July 21, Buhari announced the termination of the appointment of Patrick Akpobolokemi as the Director General and Chief Executive Officer of NIMASA.
The sack, announced by Buhari’s Media Adviser, Femi Adesina, was with immediate effect. Akpobolokemi was directed to hand over to the most senior officer in the agency who will remain in charge until the appointment of a new DG.
NIMASA issued a statement the same day through the Deputy Director and Head of Public Relations, Isichei Osamgbi, announcing Callistus Obi (Executive Director, Maritime Labour and Cabotage Services), as acting DG and CEO. Akpobolokemi handed over to him.
Four days later, on July 25, the same NIMASA, acting on the directive of the Presidency, announced Haruna Jauro (Executive Director Finance and Administration), as the new acting DG. Jauro formally took over from Obi on Monday, July 27.
Why was Jauro preferred to Obi? Definitely, the decision was not taken based on seniority or competence. Both Obi and Jauro were appointed by former President Goodluck Jonathan on July 24, 2012.
Born in 1964, Obi studied law at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka and was called to the Bar in 1991. He is a member of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), International Bar Association, and Fellow, Chartered Institute of Secretaries and Administrators.
There is ample evidence in NIMASA to prove that he is not lacking in competence.
So, the only reason why he was dropped was that he is a Southerner. Worse still, he is Igbo, from a zone where Buhari garnered only 5 per cent of the votes in the presidential election.
This decision is too petty and unbecoming of the highest office in the land.
Coming shortly after Buhari was quoted as saying during his recent trip to the United States that he will reward regions that voted for him before others, his action cannot be seen as anything other than vendetta.
Answering a question on how he intends to deal with issues in the Niger Delta, particularly amnesty, bunkering and inclusive development, Buhari reportedly said: “Going by election results, constituencies that gave me 97 per cent cannot in all honesty be treated on some issues, with constituencies that gave me 5 per cent.
“I think these are political realities. While certainly there will be justice for everybody but the people who voted and made their votes count, they must feel the government has appreciated the effort they put in putting the government in place. I think this is really fair.”
This mindset is dangerous. The country can ill-afford a president who thinks he is only in office to serve those who voted for him. And the reason is simple.
The values and resources the president allocates on behalf of the Nigerian state by virtue of the position he occupies belongs to all of us and not only those who voted for him and “made their votes count.”
Those who did not vote for him, or who voted for him but could not make their votes count because they were overwhelmed by the coercion unleashed against them by the Nigerian state, as happened in some parts of the South South and South East, are entitled to the country’s patrimony as of right. It is not a privilege.
Buhari’s victory in the election was not a landslide. He won by only 2.57 million votes, according to the official result announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
He won 15,424,921 votes or 53.95 per cent of the 28,587,564 total valid votes cast. Jonathan won 12,853,162 (44.96 per cent).
So, is Buhari going to exclude 45 per cent of the population from their heritage because they preferred a candidate other than himself?
Has it also occurred to him and those bent on excluding some sections of the country from governance that though he may have received only 5 per cent of the votes in the South South and South East, the Rotimi Amaechis, Chris Ngiges, Ogbonnaya Onus, et al, took far more political risks supporting him and are bound to pay a steep political price even with his victory than the Rabiu Kwankwasos, Nasiru el-Rufais, et al, from those zones where he scored the fabled 97 per cent?
This winner takes all mentality is at the root of most political crises in the country. It also explains why politics has become a do-or-die affair.
It will be too sad if Buhari, by his actions and inactions, proves right those who believe that a chameleon can never change its spots.
