Andy Ezeani
Tuesday,December 2,2025
Every government in power defines its character. This does not always relate to ideological leaning in the strictest sense of the concept.
It is true that fidelity to an ideology often translates into a certain level of discipline, but then an underlining proclivity to chaos, or preference for an unsystematic approach to governance, could in itself, be an ideology. If only there was a method to it.
Because the character of a government, which is often an extension of the particularities of its leader, substantially, determines the condition of the society, purpose is a critical factor in examining the character of a government.
Why does a government behave the way it does? What could its overriding motive be? What does the character of a purposeless government portend for society?
Questions about the character of government and why it does what it does, with particular focus on Nigeria, have become of urgent importance presently, against the backdrop of the curious bearing of the President Bola Tinubu government.
A number of choices Tinubu has made at various critical instances since his ascension to Aso Rock are, at best, baffling, if not outrightly contemptuous of common sense. There is an increasing unease that should he continue on this trajectory, Nigeria will be grossly undermined by the time Tinubu leaves office. It gives no comfort that he does not seem to care.
Disagreement by various segments of the citizenry with government over its policy thrust and inclination is not uncommon in the democratic state. This hardly translates to an alarm bell in many instances, as it is often conceded that that government does its best to manage contending dynamics, especially in plural societies.
Whatever the ideology may be, the government is trusted to ultimately pursue policies that secure the core values and interest of society in the long run. This is not exactly the predominant feeling among Nigerians at the moment.
A look at the disposition of the government to the raging issue of insecurity underlines the basis for mass discomfort. Until America’s Donald Trump forced the Nigerian government to turn its attention to the killings in its domain, Tinubu had restricted his response to killings to the issuance of statements that offered no comfort to the victims and no threat to the terrorists.
To make matters worse, especially for the endangered communities in the line of fire from the terrorist invaders, the structure established by President Tinubu to combat terrorism and serial devastation of indigenous communities, particularly in the Northern parts speak loudly of insincerity and complicity.
When some of the persons appointed by Tinubu to lead the charge against terrorism, banditry and ethnic hegemonic expeditions appear to confound the endangered communities more than the terrorists at their doors, then there is a serious problem.
The absurdity of the President’s tendency and obtuse approach to combating the security crisis remains incomprehensible to many of the affected communities.
How exactly, in any sincerity, did Tinubu expect to build confidence in his security policies and initiatives when the configuration of his team in that sector already left some of the concerned parties feeling undone? Was it possible that the president, with all the security information available to him, did not know the profile and antecedent of all thise he gathered to combat terrorism? Could it truly be that he did not know what he was doing?
While the country is contending with the intricacies and the calamity in the security realm, President Tinubu just launched another self-retarding move, further calling to question the character of his government.
For the two years and seven months of his presidency, Tinubu has refused to fill vacancies for the position of ambassadors and high commissioners in Nigeria’s diplomatic posts.
All entreaties highlighting the cost to the country of not having heads of the diplomatic missions failed to sway the president. Apparently, as part of the benefits of Trump’s rumble, Tinubu, after dithering for nearly three years, has nominated ambassadors and high commissioners.
Lo and behold, what does his list of ambassadorial nominees contain? Flotsam and jetsam around his political environment, elements lacking in character, family discipline, stability of mind, and decency in public conduct. The very tendencies that no serious country will tolerate in its representatives abroad are loaded in certain characters that Tinubu is sending out to be the face of Nigeria.
So, what, exactly, is Bola Tinubu’s concept of public service and the moral bearing of the society he now leads? It is obvious that he does not reckon much with diplomatic representation abroad. That much has been communicated by his extended refusal to appoint them.
It would have been better,however, not to appoint ambassadors than to further saddle Nigeria with the liability of characters who will be viewed with derision by their host countries.
The case of Mr. Ayo Oke, a former National Intelligence Agency boss and now an ambassadorial nominee, is, at best, hazy. Effort is being manifestly made in the public domain, to explain the circumstances that led to the whopping sums of $43 million, N 23million and 28,000 Pounds Sterling found in his Ikoyi Lagos apartment few years back. Oke had been declared wanted over the discovery, dragged to court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and eventually sacked by President Buhari, after an investigation led by the then Vice President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo reportedly returned an unfavourable report. All that is now said to have been cleared.
Somehow, however, EFCC still had Oke on its website as a wanted person until President Tinubu nominated him and the anti-graft agency scrambled to delete the information on Oke.
It is not as if all this will matter in his senate vetting. Any nomination from President Tinubu receives only one verdict at the senate; “approved, approved” except, of course, the name is Nasir el Rufai. No mischief intended.
The character of the Tinubu government, as personified by a number of his appointments elicit cynical turning of the nose by the public. This is a sad commentary.
A predisposition to appointing into office individuals whose past are mired in one questionable activity or another adds to the burden of Nigeria’s present integrity challenge.
Presidential nominees to prime public positions used to approximate the best the country could offer, in character, professionalism, and conduct. It used to be that the federal cabinet and the diplomatic missions were the bastion of integrity. Those found in those public stations matched anyone in their field from any part of the world. Not anymore. President Tinubu should pity Nigeria.
