Presidency’s Attempt to Defend Tinubu’s Appointments Backfires Amid Accusations of Lopsidedness

Efforts by the Presidency to defend the alleged lopsided appointments made by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu have not only fallen flat but stirred further controversy, intensifying the debate over the administration’s adherence to the federal character principle.

The firestorm was ignited by a televised interview in which Senator Ali Ndume, representing Borno-South in the National Assembly and a prominent member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), accused President Tinubu of breaching constitutional provisions in his appointments.

Ndume’s Bold Critique

Senator Ndume didn’t mince words in his criticism. Speaking on national television, he cited Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that political appointments must reflect Nigeria’s diversity to prevent dominance by any particular group or ethnicity.

“The figures are there. It’s not just an accusation. I sent you the figures,” Ndume said during the interview. “It’s a constitutional provision. Section 14(3) is very clear. Political appointments must reflect the federal character of Nigeria.”

The senator stressed that the issue at hand was not a matter of political loyalty but of constitutional duty. As a lawmaker, he said, it was his responsibility to hold even a president from his own party accountable.

Presidency’s Misstep

In a bid to douse the growing flames, the Presidency responded swiftly through Sunday Dare, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication. Dare published a list detailing appointees made by President Tinubu, broken down by geopolitical zones.

According to the list, the breakdown of appointees stood as follows:

• North-West: 35

• South-West: 29

• North-Central: 25

• North-East: 24

• South-South: 22

• South-East: 16

The intention was to demonstrate regional balance and disprove Senator Ndume’s claims. However, the effort quickly unraveled when key omissions and inconsistencies in the document came to light. Most glaring was the absence of Femi Gbajabiamila, the President’s Chief of Staff, from the list.

Amid public scrutiny and backlash, Mr. Dare took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to issue an apology:
“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.”

Critics Say the Real Issue Is Ethnicity, Not Region

The fallout prompted further reflection on the core issue raised by Senator Ndume—ethnic imbalance, particularly what he and others perceive as a growing dominance of individuals of Yoruba descent in key federal appointments.

Public affairs analyst, Hon. Ayuba Mohammed Bello, weighed in, arguing that the presidency’s regional breakdown missed the mark.
“What Nigerians expect is a transparent ethnic analysis of appointments, especially since the Yoruba were specifically referenced,” he said.

According to Bello, the attempt to reframe Ndume’s critique as a “North vs. South” issue ignores the real concern—ethnic concentration within the federal government.

“When people say ‘Yoruba-dominated,’ they’re referring to ethnic identity—not just geopolitical zones,” he wrote. “It’s about individuals who are authentically Yoruba by language and culture, even if they reside outside the South-West.”

He pointed out that the North itself is an ethnically diverse region, comprising groups such as the Fulani, Hausa, Kanuri, Nupe, Gwari, and others. “Lumping everyone under a regional tag obscures the diversity within those regions and is a convenient smokescreen to avoid acknowledging the imbalance Senator Ndume is talking about,” Bello explained.

A Widening Trust Deficit?

The controversy has once again put the Tinubu administration under the microscope, raising questions about its commitment to fairness and inclusiveness. While presidential appointments are constitutionally within the President’s prerogative, the federal character principle is designed to promote national unity and prevent feelings of alienation among Nigeria’s over 250 ethnic groups.

With mounting criticism from within the ruling party and growing public discontent, the Presidency may be forced to take a more thoughtful and transparent approach going forward—not only in the substance of its appointments but in how they are communicated to the public.

For now, the backpedal by the Presidential spokesperson serves as a cautionary tale: in a country as diverse as Nigeria, perception matters, and so does precision.