On ministerial nominations

For many years, what has been the normal practice in the country is for the president to forward a list of ministerial nominees to the senate for screening without their corresponding portfolios. Flowing from this, the debate has elicited whether this pattern of nomination brings about the emergence of suitable and competent candidates or not. Various reasons have been adduced for and against why portfolios should be assigned to the ministerial nominees.

Arguing in favour of this is the position that when candidates’ portfolios are ascertained, it would make it possible and easier to conduct thorough screening on them. This is because their curriculum vitae would easily be matched against the duties that they are billed to carry out when eventually cleared. This point is salient, going by past experiences such that people with different qualifications are made to preside over ministries they knew little or nothing about. In otherwords, a round peg is fixed in a square hole. What that translates into is inefficiency and ineffectiveness in productivity.

The principle of best practices requires that the president attaches portfolios to the lists of ministerial nominees. The basic reason is hinged on the very fundamental and pivotal fact that it would ultimately afford the legislature the rare privilege to interrogate closely such nominees with a view to ascertaining the preparedness of such individuals for the offices they are nominated. In several advanced societies such as the United States of America, nominees are usually sent to the parliament or congress with their portfolios attached. This is to guide the legislators in the screening exercise and to let them ask questions that are relevant to the proposed portfolios.

For instance, a nominee for the post of defence minister is asked questions about his knowledge and track records on security matters and where the nominee fails to show adequate knowledge of the issues, he or she could be dropped in the best interest of the nation. The best practice is to make the screening more resourceful and purposeful in line with universal best practices and creating the best opportunity to pick critical interest in specific portfolios, ask critical questions that would advance national interest, rather than serving palliative measures, parochial, misplaced political patronage and settlement. Beyond this, a window of opportunity should also be given to allow for critical scrutiny by the media and the people, to engender openness and transparency.

The task of nation building is very demanding for anybody to underrate and to translate the change mantra of the All Progressives Congress (APC) into reality and improve the well-being of Nigerians, as there is the need for intelligent and sound nominees from every part of the country. Such a hindrance is nothing but an invitation to national retrogression. The impression such an attitude creates is that nothing works. Those that feel that assigning portfolios to the respective offices is not necessary would argue that what it takes to be a good administrator and leader is not necessarily the possession of certain qualifications but passion for service, sincerity of purpose, strong political will to storm the weather and make positive impact.

Afterall, the critical mass of those driving government machinery are the technocrats and civil servants. Therefore,what is necessary is leadership strength and passion to drive development and bring about positive change. Many successful people have excelled in other fields of endeavour. What is important is not whether or not portfolios are attached but having the desired calibre of ministerial nominees because once the nominees are appointed on the bases of competence, pedigree and merit.

Senate’s decision to suspend further discussion on the enactment of a bill in this connection is a disservice to the nation’s democratisation. The 9th Senate has described as unnecessary the resolution passed by the 8th Senate that which mandated the President to attach portfolios to the ministerial nominees’ list. The 8th Senate had passed a resolution asking the President to indicate the portfolios that would be assigned to the ministerial nominees as such an arrangement would enable the lawmakers to know the specific questions to ask the nominees.

By the day, there should always be lessons learnt in a bid to have a progressive society. That is why the call of a cross-section of Nigerians including the main opposition party; Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), is apt. The argument is that it was proper and ideal for the president to do so to enable the Senate properly screen the nominees and ascertain their competence and appropriateness. The nation’s constitution does not envisage that ministers would be spectators in government.

The reality of today does not lend itself to ministers without portfolio as there is no basis to hold onto ministries and ministers with little or no value to national aspirations and development. President Muhammadu Buhari would certainly be enhancing public administration by assigning portfolios to the ministerial nominees. This would certainly be a manifestation of genuine change; a mantra that is widely associated with the APC. The change may truly begin with that move.

Leave a Reply