Rights activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mike Ozekhome, recently blamed former President Muhammadu Buhari for setting a precedent that has allegedly allowed his successor, Bola Tinubu, to fill key government positions with individuals from his Yoruba ethnic group. While this statement may resonate with those frustrated by ethnic favoritism in Nigerian politics, it is fraught with contradictions, selective outrage, and a lack of actionable solutions.
Ozekhome’s assertion at the International Human Rights Commission (IHRC) symposium in Abuja essentially boils down to: “If Buhari did it, why can’t Tinubu?” This argument, while highlighting the deep-rooted ethnic politics in Nigeria, inadvertently justifies a vicious cycle of tribal favoritism instead of advocating for genuine reform.
Ozekhome’s lament that northerners tolerated Buhari’s perceived “northernisation” of government positions for eight years raises a valid point about selective outrage. However, his critique rings hollow when it shifts blame solely to Nigerians for their silence during Buhari’s tenure while failing to hold Tinubu equally accountable. If “no country grows like that,” as Ozekhome claims, why not unequivocally condemn both leaders instead of implicitly excusing one by pointing fingers at another?
While Ozekhome cries foul about ethnic favoritism, his speech lacks actionable solutions to address the underlying issue of nepotism in Nigerian governance. Where is the call for systemic reforms to ensure merit-based appointments? The argument that Buhari’s actions justify Tinubu’s mirrors the flawed “two wrongs make a right” logic. Nigerians deserve better leadership, not recycled justifications for ethnic bias. Ozekhome proudly touts his numerous articles and books criticizing Buhari, but what concrete impact did these efforts have? Advocacy without sustained and collective citizen action is, at best, a passive effort.
Instead of stoking division through ethnic blame games, Ozekhome and other prominent voices should champion a unified, meritocratic system. Call for constitutional reforms to mandate ethnic diversity and merit in government appointments. Demand independent oversight to review appointments and ensure fairness. Advocate for civic education to empower Nigerians to reject leaders who exploit tribalism for political gain.
The ethnic favoritism exhibited by both Buhari and Tinubu underscores a systemic failure rather than isolated incidents. Over 60 years after independence, Nigeria remains shackled by tribal loyalty and “our man” politics. This myopic approach ignores the collective good and stifles national progress.
If Ozekhome truly wants to combat these issues, his focus should be on dismantling the structures that perpetuate ethnic bias, not perpetuating blame. Tribal favoritism is not the fault of one leader or ethnic group; it is a national disease. Fixing it requires unity, not division.
Nigerians must demand a new era of governance where competence trumps ethnicity. Leaders must be held accountable for promoting inclusive policies that benefit all citizens, not just their clansmen. Ozekhome’s critique, while valid in parts, misses the mark by failing to rise above the petty politics it condemns.
If Nigeria is to grow, the cycle of blame and tribalism must end. The time for reform is now. Will our leaders—and citizens—rise to the challenge?