Recent policy reversals by the Federal Government – from the reviewed presidential pardon to the swift withdrawal of the decision to scrap compulsory Mathematics for Arts students- highlight a troubling governance pattern marked by inconsistency and reactionary decision-making. JOSEPH ONYEKWERE reports that these policy flip-flops reveal the urgent need for stronger institutional discipline within the government.
In recent months, Nigerians have witnessed a troubling pattern of policy reversals from the Federal Government, a phenomenon that underscores growing doubts about the depth, coherence and consultative nature of governance in the country.
Two recent examples stand out – the presidential pardon granted and later reviewed and the decision by the Federal Ministry of Education to remove Mathematics as a compulsory subject for Arts students in the West African Examinations Council (WAEC), an announcement that was swiftly withdrawn after an avalanche of public criticism. These incidents, though unrelated in content, converged on one critical point: a governance process seemingly guided by reaction rather than reflection.
Governance, at its best, should be anchored on foresight, consultation and credibility. Yet, these frequent policy U-turns expose an absence of rigorous internal checks, stakeholder engagement and policy impact assessments before decisions are made public.
The result is a governance pattern that appears impulsive, one that undermines confidence, not only in the policies themselves but also in the institutions responsible for formulating them.
Public policy, by its nature, demands stability. Each time a major decision is announced and hurriedly reversed, it diminishes institutional trust and weakens public faith in government communication. Investors, development partners and citizens alike begin to perceive such indecision as a reflection of deeper systemic incoherence.
While it is commendable that the government is responsive to citizens’ opinions, excessive sensitivity to public backlash without prior consultation suggests the absence of an inclusive decision-making framework. In democracies, responsiveness should complement, not substitute, robust policy planning.
The education policy reversal, for instance, generated avoidable confusion among teachers, students and parents, revealing the risks of making pronouncements without the necessary groundwork. Similarly, the presidential pardon saga conveyed mixed signals about the seriousness of the government’s moral and legal judgment processes.
However, in a statement issued on Tuesday, October 29, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), sought to clarify the government’s position. He announced the “formal conclusion of the Presidential Prerogative of Mercy exercise” and explained that the President had ordered a “due process review” following consultations with the Council of State. According to the statement, the review was to ensure that “only persons who met stipulated legal and procedural requirements would benefit from the prerogative of mercy.”
The Attorney General added that some names were delisted after being found not to have met the requirements, while other cases had sentences reduced “to reflect fairness, justice and the spirit of the exercise.” He described the review as evidence of “the President’s desire to balance justice with compassion” and reaffirmed that future mercy exercises would be guided by new procedural guidelines to prevent controversies.
The Attorney General confessed that during the final review, a few persons earlier recommended were found not to have met the requirements and were accordingly delisted, while in some other cases, sentences were reviewed and reduced to reflect fairness, justice and the spirit of the exercise.
He stated that to ensure that future exercises meet public expectations and best practices, the President has directed the immediate relocation of the Secretariat of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy from the Federal Ministry of Special Duties to the Federal Ministry of Justice
“This will ensure that only persons who fully meet the stipulated legal and procedural requirements will henceforth benefit from the issuance of instruments of release.
“I commend the public for their patience and constructive engagement throughout the process, and assure Nigerians that the government remains steadfast in promoting a justice system that upholds human dignity while safeguarding national security and social order.
“The President has further directed the Attorney General of the Federation to issue appropriate guidelines for the exercise of the power of prerogative of mercy, which includes compulsory consultation with relevant prosecuting agencies”, he clarified.
While the clarification offers some procedural justification, it still highlights a recurring pattern in Nigeria’s governance – one where official communication often comes after confusion has already spread. The need for after-the-fact explanations suggests a gap in policy coordination and public engagement. In a nation as politically sensitive as Nigeria, such gaps can easily be misinterpreted as inconsistency or lack of direction.
Ultimately, the credibility of any administration lies not just in its capacity to make decisions but also in the discipline with which it stands by them. Governments earn legitimacy through consistency and consultation, not by issuing directives that must later be walked back under pressure.
To rebuild confidence, the Federal Government must institutionalise a more deliberate and evidence-based policy process – one that emphasises expert input, transparency and communication before decisions reach the public domain. Governance is not a relay of experiments; it is a solemn commitment to stability, coherence and accountability. Nigeria cannot afford a policy culture where reversals become the norm rather than the exception.
Examining the issue, senior lawyer and public policy commentator, Abubakar Sani, said it was a matter of perception, illustrated with a cup being half-full or half-empty.
“On the one hand, they could be perceived as reflecting a sensitive government, which is responsive to public reactions and attitudes to its policies (which is always a plus for any government anywhere in the world), but on the other hand, it portrays government policies as not fully or carefully thought-out, made up on the hop as it were, and lacking the expected intellectual rigour and benefit of diligent, informed research. This is obviously uncomplimentary and casts the government in a negative, if not embarrassing light”, he explained.
For Lagos-based lawyer, Stephen Azubuike, the reversal appears to portray the government as having a listening ear and accommodating public reactions.
“Nevertheless, these developments tend to question the process of arriving at some of these policies and decisions. One would have imagined that the team charged with reviewing these issues and arriving at a position would have done a thorough job in critically considering the variables before conclusion and presentation to the public.
“A justified process would then be evidenced by a reasonable response in defence of the policies and decisions, showcasing that proper homework was done. But that does not appear to be the situation”, he stated.
Former President, Campaign for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Mr Malachy Ugwummadu, is not very comfortable with this development.
“Regrettable as it presents itself regarding the confusion it has all created, the excitements and hopes that were dashed, it underscores the fact that eternal vigilance remains the price we shall continue to pay for the liberty we enjoy. Had we kept quiet and allowed this slip to pass, it would have been part of history.
“Secondly, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has demonstrated a trait of leadership, which is to own up to mistakes and make amends”, he noted.
He argued that, having acknowledged the flaws inherent in his last outing on the matter, Mr President should proceed to identify those in his government who have misled him (if it was, indeed, a mistake) and discipline them accordingly.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and public interest advocate, Olakunle Edun, lamented that though Nigeria copied the American model of presidential system of government, it has consistently refused to also copy their governance principles. He declared that the existence of acute leadership problems in all strata of governance in Nigeria was not in doubt. According to him, the cash and carry politics practised in the country has substantially enthroned mediocrity, tribalism and religion as directive principles of state policy.
He stressed that the policy flip-flop has been entrenched even by successive governments across different layers of government.
His words: “The consequence of all this decadence is the flip-flopping we have been seeing in some of the policies and actions of both the Federal and State Governments. It is worse at the state government level. The Honourable Attorney General of the Federation is the Chairman of the Committee on Prerogative of Mercy and the buck stops at his table concerning the initial list of beneficiaries of presidential pardon and clemency.
“The original list, to say the least, might be seen by many as highly compromised, with the names of the worst set of criminals being in it. How such a list got to the table of the President for approval is very concerning. The Nigerian people deserve to know those behind the original list and what really happened. A whole nation was embarrassed by that list, as it was evidently clear that, rather than the government serving the public interest, the original list was mostly in favour of the private interests of some people. Was there an exchange of anything?”
The SAN cited the example of the nation’s refineries as another set of ding-ding games. The Obasanjo administration, he said, sold one of them because they were mere conduits of wastage and corruption, gulping billions of naira year in, year out, still unable to produce petroleum products; rather, lies are being sold to Nigerians just to justify the continued wastage and corruption.
“Dangote Refinery is now clear evidence that the decision to retain those refineries is a bad one. Sadly, Yar’Adua’s government reversed the sale of one of the refineries and we are now back to square one, where billions of naira are churned out yearly for turnaround maintenance, still they produce no drop in fuel and the Nigerian government continues to retain the staff of refineries that produce nothing.
If the refineries were their private business, would they continue to be pumping money into it? Where lies patriotism?
“I recall when I was in Secondary School, we had History as one of the arts subjects, but it was later removed from the secondary school curriculum. Which serious country would deliberately prevent its future generations from learning about how the country and Africa came about, the great personalities that emerged from the various tribes in Nigeria and how they shaped our present generation? I understand that History as a subject has been brought back too.
“These inconsistencies and confusions are indications of a dearth of competent policy advisers in government. Politicians are messing up our polity. Is it the Executive, the Legislature or the Judiciary? It seems anything the average Nigerian politician touches becomes damaged. The refusal to put competent hands in sensitive positions would only lead to disaster”, he warned.
A president’s policy, he said, is as good as the kind of ministers and aides he has. According to him, it is those aides who will flesh up proposals and execute them.
“If their appointments were secured based on political patronage or other mundane factors, then nothing good will come out”, he declared.
