The sham of a ministerial screening

The recent ministerial nominees screening by the Senate has been an exercise in jocularity, triviality and amounts to toying with a crucial national assignment. This has left many Nigerians in doubt as to the kind and quality of the oversight function this 10th National Assembly will bring to this dispensation.

The entire screening process is designed to scrutinise the suitability and competence of the individuals to occupy the high-calibre public offices for which they have been nominated. It is also meant to give the public, through their elected representatives, a glimpse into the thinking, psyche, competence and ideology of the nominees and to allow the senators to interrogate the records, antecedents and competence of these individuals.

However, the levity the Senate, and the senate president in particular, brought to the exercise has given it the appearance of a joke played out on a massive stage and at the highest level, to a large number of Nigerians.

While we recognise that in politics, compromises are inevitable, standards and due processes should not be compromised and a sacred national assignment such as ministerial nominees’ screenings should not be ridiculed and handled like weekly market sideshows.

We must point out that it was erroneous for the federal government to have sent the nominees to the Senate without attaching portfolios to their names to guide the lawmakers on the task ahead. But even without the portfolios being attached, we are appalled by the lack of proper grilling of nominees, some of whom were asked to merely take a bow and leave. One nominee was even asked to take a bow and go not because of her track record but simply for the reason that she got emotional. Important decisions that could have nationwide ramifications cannot be based on the dispensation of histrionics from persons occupying sensitive offices that will require calm, calculated and rational thoughts and action, and accounting for them.

Others who have held public offices before were not required by the Senate to account for their stewardship in these offices and were regrettably asked to bow and go. This would have been a good opportunity to measure the growth of such individuals since they last held public offices and what have they learnt from their previous mistakes that could benefit the country through their new offices. While the nominees might have been former colleagues, friends and allies of the senators, there remains the need for them to account for the offices they occupied prior and how their visions align with the new policy direction of the government or the present social and economic realities of the country. This missed opportunity is a great misapplication of national resources, and time and an abdication of responsibility by the Senate.

The flippancy with which the exercise has been handled so far means that discrepancies noticed in the nominees’ records, such as one who got into the university with only two WAEC credits and another whose records showed that he started primary school at age three, were not satisfactorily resolved with the senate president dramatically waving aside concerns from other senators, and corralling barely screened nominees through the chamber to confirmation.

Nigeria is at a crucial stage in its nationhood where it is vital to know that the people who are going to handle the affairs of this country, and who will be occupying sensitive offices, are people of sound character and clarity of thought with competence. We have been left to continue harbouring doubts and concerns while a very important national assignment is treated like child’s play.

While the Senate has argued that the culture of ‘bow and go’ is used globally for persons who have distinguished themselves, we observe that the culture is being abused in Nigeria, especially with this Senate. Some of the arguments we have seen demanding that certain nominees be excused from proper screening, such as one coming from a “deprived community” or someone getting emotional, are simply unacceptable.

The mishandling of this assignment by the Senate has only emphasised the suspicion that this could be a rubber stamp parliament that would not provide the required oversight function that the executive sorely needs. While we recognise and acknowledge the need for the executive and legislature to work in harmony, the system was never designed for this harmony to be abused in the manner that we have seen at the Senate ministerial screening. The legislature is there to provide checks and balances and if the NASS will overindulge itself and the president, then it is neglecting its raison d’être and that can only cause distrust between it and the populace.

This culture of the Senate asking nominees to bow and go should be reviewed immediately to ensure that in future, the Senate does the job that is required of it and that nominees are properly screened and asked the requisite questions that will probe their suitability for office and the vision they hope to bring to public service. Important national assignments such as this must be treated with the requisite gravity and commitment. The Senate and its president would do well to up their game, and speedily too.