BY IDUH ONAH
NIGERIA’s 2027 election is already shaping up as a political farce. This is because of the intensely desperate political manoeuvring aimed at circumventing longstanding democratic tradition of the ballot and ethical rules guiding public service. The latest episode in this farce is dirty and disingenuous. Public officials, once expected to serve as custodians of the Nigerian state, are increasingly auditioning instead for the more spirited role of campaign foot soldiers in President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s re-election enterprise.
In the ongoing campaign, the distinction between institutional governance and campaigning for the incumbent has become so wonderfully indistinguishable that one is tempted to ask whether the Federal Government still maintains a government wing and a political party campaign wing, or whether, in the spirit of ‘bureaucratic efficiency’, the two have simply been merged, with the rest of us, the citizens, either confused or conveniently ignored.
Fine! While government officials are entitled to explain government policies; defend the performance of their agencies; tell citizens what the administration has achieved; there is however a world of difference between explaining government policy and organising politically for the President’s re-election. The former is public service. The latter is partisan politics. The two should not, and cannot, be baptised with a new nametag.
Take, for instance, the appointments of Dr Abisoye Coker-Odusote, the Director-General of the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC), as Director of Data Management in the APC/Tinubu 2027 Presidential Campaign Council; and Zacch Adelabu Adedeji, the Executive Chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), as Deputy Director for the Campaign Council’s fundraising.
ALSO READ: Atiku’s Inconsistent Consistency; Zainab Suleiman Okino
As though those were not sufficiently inventive, heads of federal agencies, most of whom were appointed by President Tinubu, gathered recently under the banner of the Forum of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Chief Executive Officers, or PBAT CEOs, whose maiden meeting pledged to mobilise support for his re-election.
President Tinubu has always been admired as a formidable political operator since his pro-democracy days, and his long career has demonstrated an unusually transactional understanding of building networks and alliances, influence management and oiling a strong forging political machinery. Certainly, there is nothing inherently wrong with anyone being good at politics.
But there is a profound difference between being politically transactional and turning the institutions of government into extensions of that transaction. That is where President Tinubu appears to be approaching a dangerous line.
Yes, public officials are citizens and must be allowed to have political opinions; freedom to vote. They may admire the President and believe he deserves another term. However, there is definitely a problem, an ethical one, when a public official entrusted with serving the Nigerian state simultaneously assumes an operational role in securing the political survival of the governing party.
ALSO READ: Growth Without Relief: Nigerians Cannot Eat GDP Figures; By Ivo Takor
In that regard, the Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD’s) call for the resignation of Coker-Odusote from either her NIMC position or her APC campaign role is apt. CITAD rightly pointed out that simultaneously heading the institution responsible for Nigeria’s national identity infrastructure while working on campaign data creates an unacceptable conflict of interest. Conflict of interest because NIMC banks highly sensitive identity and biometric data of millions of Nigerians.
As Director of Data Management of the APC/Tinubu campaign, can Nigerians trust that their data under NIMC will not be utilized to serve the political interest of President Tinubu and his party, APC?
Then comes the taxman, Zacch Adelabu Adedeji, with the APC/Tinubu fundraising hat. An obvious ethical and institutional question for Adedeji is: should the head of the national revenue agency simultaneously be soliciting funding support for the re-election of the President who appointed him?
Ordinarily, nobody needs to allege that Adedeji has threatened a taxpayer or abused confidential tax information, but common-sense naturally demands that such a combination will be unwise, indefensibly incompatible with the public perception of an impartial revenue authority.
ALSO READ: Has The NBA Found Its Lost Glory In VDM? By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
Imagine a company receiving a political fundraising call from the man who also heads the institution responsible for administering its taxes. Even if Adedeji insists that the request is entirely voluntary, the company executive may nevertheless wonder whether “voluntary” has suddenly acquired one of those uniquely Nigerian meanings. That is precisely why institutional ethics exist, not merely to prevent proven wrongdoing, but to prevent conflicts and suspicions that can corrode public confidence.
In addition to the Coker-Odusote and Zacch Adedeji infamy is the invention of the Forum of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Chief Executive Officers or PBAT CEOs. The forum said its mobilisation will be lawful, ethical, peaceful and issue-based. Its members have praised the administration’s reforms and declared that “one good term deserves another.”
President Tinubu may either win or lose 2027. The APC may retain power or return it to the opposition. If, however, in the process, the administration succeeds in making the partisan capture of public institutions seem normal, we, Nigeria, will lose something considerably more vital than an election – another piece of the moral boundary between party and state. Once that boundary disappears, every government will inherit the temptation to push it even further.
Fine! While government officials are entitled to explain government policies; defend the performance of their agencies; tell citizens what the administration has achieved; there is however a world of difference between explaining government policy and organising politically for the President’s re-election. The former is public service. The latter is partisan politics. The two should not, and cannot, be baptised with a new nametag.
Nigeria’s Public Service Rules themselves recognise this boundary, restricting public officers from engaging in partisan political activities without the requisite permission. The broader constitutional principle is equally clear: public officers are expected to avoid conflicts between personal interests and their official responsibilities.
These safeguards did not emerge because Nigerians are naturally suspicious, but essentially because democracy understands a simple danger – that when the state becomes partisan, elections cease to be contests merely between political parties and become contests between political parties and the machinery of the state. That is much more dangerous game, in fact, a game transforming into a battle or war.
The temptation is to dismiss all this as an APC-versus-opposition argument, but it is not! If another party were in power and behaved exactly the same way, the principle should remain unchanged; otherwise, we are not defending institutions but merely negotiating the price of our own turn.
ALSO READ: The Bureaucratic Labyrinth: Can The New Helmsman Tame The Civil Service Machine? By Lanre Ogundipe
There is even a larger danger! What happens when the next President inherits a precedent under which heads of sensitive public agencies are expected to become campaign operatives? What happens when every administration begins appointing public officials partly on the assumption that they will eventually become political foot soldiers? That is how institutions decay, not necessarily through one spectacular constitutional crisis, rather through the gradual normalisation of conduct that once would have caused embarrassment.
Today it is extraordinary, but tomorrow it becomes a precedent and eventually, somebody will ask why people are complaining. In other words, the abnormal ultimately becomes normal.
President Tinubu and the APC are perfectly entitled to campaign on their record – if his subsidy reform has worked, make the case; if his tax reform is improving revenue, publish the evidence; if infrastructure is expanding, show the roads; if domestic refining, healthcare, education, agriculture or technology have improved, let Nigerians examine the evidence.
President Tinubu can say: “This is what we promised. This is what we have done. Give us another term.” His opponents can answer: “This is what you promised. This is what happened. Nigerians deserve something else.” Then citizens decide. That is the beautiful simplicity of electoral politics that makes democracy appealing
ALSO READ: From Abuja To Hangzhou (2): Thrills, Frills And The Chinese ‘Smart Life’; By Max Amuchie
In simple terms, Tinubu and the APC do not need NIMC to campaign or the NRS to raise campaign funds. It does not need federal agency heads to become a presidential fan club. It has politicians, governors, legislators, party officials, wealthy supporters and professional campaigners. Let those people do politics and allow public servants do public service.
Governments come and go; presidents enter and leave office either by winning or losing elections, but institutions are supposed to remain. The NIMC belongs to Nigerians, the Nigeria Revenue Service belongs to Nigerians, and so are federal ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). Their first loyalty must therefore be to the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Nigerian, and not to the electoral fortunes of whoever happens to occupy Aso Rock.
President Tinubu may either win or lose 2027. The APC may retain power or return it to the opposition. If, however, in the process, the administration succeeds in making the partisan capture of public institutions seem normal, we, Nigeria, will lose something considerably more vital than an election – another piece of the moral boundary between party and state. Once that boundary disappears, every government will inherit the temptation to push it even further.
The real question, therefore, is not about Coker-Odusote, Adedeji, the PBAT CEOs or even Tinubu, it is whether Nigeria still believes that public office is a trust rather than a political asset.
Onah is the Editor-in-Chief of NATIONAL RECORD and writes this column every Wednesday. Send reactions via email to: nationalrecordng@gmail.com, onahiduh@yahoo.co.uk. WhatsApp: +234 8033209749
