buhTHE issue of ministerial appointments by the Buhari administration has been a topical issue since the new government was sworn on May 29, 2015.

But with the nomination of 36 ministers whose names were forwarded to the Senate for screening and confirmation, the matter seems to be coming to a close. Senate did a good job last week by confirming the first batch of 18 ministers without emotion or sentiments. The remaining 18 would be screened from today, after which they are confirmed and forwarded back to the President.

As this is going on, there are high expectations from the new ministers. This is normal whenever a new government is in place and ministers are being appointed. Nigerians would always want to set agenda for the government and its ministers. Setting agenda, to me, means that there is no agenda on ground. As such, the ministers, indeed, government need to be given agenda of what to do in the different sectors of the economy.

But, is it true that there is no agenda for government to base its activities? If the answer is yes, it then means that we are starting afresh. The question then arises: Why is it so? Is Nigeria starting today? After 55 years of independence, ought the country not to have a clear vision of where it is going? Why should we begin to formulate new agenda each time a new government is in place? Is government no longer a continuum? What about the policies and programmes formulated by the previous administrations? Have they been thrown overboard? If government is a continuum, then, there ought to be a national agenda for development in all sectors of the economy that must be followed by every government irrespective of the party.

America remains America no matter the party in power. The American dream is pursued by all governments irrespective of the party. The same guiding principle is followed in all developed countries of the world. No party comes to power in America and whittles down the super power position of America. The same American vision/dream is what is pursued from different angles.

The non-performance of ministers, indeed, administrations in Nigeria, is due to the fact that there is no national agenda, no vision, and no framework that must be followed by every administration. If one is asked what the Nigerian vision or dream is, that is a difficult question to answer. The best you may hear, depending on who the question is thrown to at present is “Change”.

But “Change” is the mantra of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It is, indeed, not Nigeria’s vision or dream. You may ask, Change for what? And the answer you get is good roads, regular power supply, good education, employment, fighting insecurity and by extension, Boko Haram. Boko Haram was not there in 2000 (15 years ago), so, it couldn’t have been part of our national dream if there was such in 2000. The quest for functional social amenity services has been pursued since independence. It is shameful that 55 years later, the same issues remain our major headache. Nigeria’s peers in Asia and Latin America take these things for granted.

When the U.S. President Barack Obama proclaimed “Change” in the run up to the 2008 presidential elections that brought him and the Democratic Party into power, the Change was not in isolation. It was geared towards redressing the ailing economy and the threat of terrorism that appeared to have worsened under the Republican Party’s administration under George Bush. Obama and the Democratic Party did not set out to begin to fashion out a new Change agenda for America. Whatever they did was in line with the American dream, which they pursued with renewed vigour. America has not changed but there are positive developments that have bolstered America’s position as a super power.

The reality is there no Nigerian vision or dream. That explains why every new government starts afresh to formulate new agendas. In the same vein, different interest groups formulate their own agendas for the government. At the end, there is a catalogue of agendas put across to government.

In the case of ministers, even though, they were screened without knowledge of the portfolios they were going to be assigned to, agendas are being set for whoever would take charge of one ministry or the other. Usually, we have ministers who are assigned portfolios without targets. I have said this before, except there is a national agenda, with targets of what is expected to be achieved within a given timeframe, it would be absolutely difficult to know what a minister achieved. At present, we hear of disjointed “achievements” made by one minister or the other that don’t form a coherent whole.

Besides, the history of ministerial appointments in Nigeria is a history of putting square pegs in round holes. Usually, state governors nominate individuals on the basis of political patronage rather than ability to perform. This entrenched blunder is the cause of the logjam in our national development aspirations. It is also the reason why the country has not made much progress more than five decades after independence in 1960.

There will be no end to the embarrassing underdevelopment quagmire until the ill-conceived approach changes. The President should be free to appoint whosoever he chooses into his cabinet. This is because if the administration fails, the president is to blame and the ministers.

Year in year out, government proposes huge budgets that end up not achieving anything concrete because those charged with the responsibility did not perform. No targets or benchmarks are set. Time and resources are wasted. The ministers leverage on their appointments and eventually leave.

There is no reason why a team selected on the basis of what they would offer and not what they would reap from office will not succeed. It is also pertinent to note that each of the appointees was assigned a portfolio right from the outset. It isn’t a blind appointment as we have here. The consideration (or call it screening in our own case) should be matched with the envisaged portfolio. No individual should be appointed without knowing the department (ministry in our case) he or she is to take charge of.

On this note, the so-called screening of ministerial nominees by the Senate is meaningless when the individuals were not screened on the basis of the ministry they would head. It is fanfare bringing individuals to the Senate and asking them general questions after which they are thrown to a strange ministry to wobble. We need expertise to achieve results.

What is wrong in assigning portfolios to ministerial nominees and then screening them based on what they plan to contribute? That is the right thing to do for the screening to have meaning. After screening and confirming the nominees in vacuum, they spend one year to adjust in a strange ministry.

While this is going on, nothing is working and the country is worse off. Can the Buhari administration afford to waste any more time in view of the high expectations of Nigerians? The president has to give account of his stewardship at the end of the first term.

President Buhari should take cue from what Obasanjo did by overlooking the states and appointing competent individuals with track record to drive the second term of his administration. Otherwise, I am afraid not much will change at the end of the current four-year tenure.