Power, patronage and survival in Nigeria’s political landscape, By Mohammed Dahiru Aminu

In Nigeria’s complex political landscape, the dynamics of power, influence and loyalty play a critical role in shaping ministerial appointments and the longevity of those who hold such positions. Ministerial roles, once considered the pinnacle of governmental service, are now seen as a mixed bag of sorts—a blend of political reward, patronage and meritocracy, with varying levels of qualification among those appointed. This situation is not new, and it reflects the evolution of politics in Nigeria, where relationships and alliances often determine who is appointed to these coveted roles.

One notable case is that of Professor Tahir Mamman, a distinguished academic and legal expert, who was recently dismissed from his position as Minister of Education by the Tinubu administration. In many ways, his situation represents the dual nature of Nigeria’s ministerial appointments. Professor Mamman was a classmate of Nuhu Ribadu, Nigeria’s current National Security Advisor, at Ahmadu Bello University, where they both studied law in the early 1980s. It is said that Ribadu, widely regarded for his role in spearheading the fight against corruption, admired and respected Mamman, and may have influenced his appointment in the Tinubu administration. Whether they still share the same level of camaraderie today is unclear.

But if Ribadu did indeed play a role in securing Mamman’s political appointment, it demonstrates how their shared past reflects the intricate personal networks that often shape political careers. Also, the question of whether Mamman and Ribadu remain close friends speaks to a larger truth about Nigerian politics, where relationships that once seemed strong and enduring could become strained or fade away entirely as the demands of political life take hold. This is particularly evident in the case of ministers, where political loyalty becomes paramount, and friendships may either flourish or dissolve based on the shifting sands of political alliances and power struggles.

Following Mamman’s recent dismissal from his ministerial role, many are questioning the rationale behind it, as he was widely seen as competent or, at the very least, more effective than many recent education ministers, despite his relatively brief tenure. But we must remember that in Nigeria, ministerial appointments are rarely based solely on merit or expertise. Instead, they are often influenced by factors such as political allegiance, regional representation and the perceived loyalty of the candidate to those in power. Although, technically, any Nigerian with a secondary school education is eligible for a ministerial position, this minimum requirement does not ensure that only the most qualified are appointed. More often, these roles are granted as rewards for political loyalty. Political figures who were instrumental in bringing the government to power or contributed significantly to the ruling party’s success frequently become ministers as a reward for their support. These persons may, over time, even become influential powerbrokers within the government.

This system of political patronage means that some persons who ascend to ministerial roles possess exceptional qualifications and experience, while others fall well below the standard of competence expected of such positions. For many, these appointments represent the culmination of years of political work, maneuvering and loyalty to the powers that be. For others, the appointment may come as a result of playing political games, such as engaging in public verbal spats against the opposition or demonstrating unswerving allegiance to the president’s agenda.

As these appointments often reflect the president’s personal preferences, ministers serve “at the pleasure of the president.” This means that their tenure can be cut short by the slightest misstep, real or perceived, that might offend the president or undermine his authority. Thus, it is not uncommon to see ministers being dismissed with little to no explanation, often due to political miscalculations or a falling out with the president or his henchmen. The high stakes of serving in such roles make them as much a test of political survival as they are of governance and leadership.

Those who pursue a career in politics in Nigeria understand that there is a price to be paid for their ambitions. One of the most significant costs is the loss of the freedom to speak one’s mind. To survive in the often-cutthroat environment of Nigerian politics, ministers and other government officials must walk a fine line between advancing their own agendas and ensuring they do not cross the president or other key figures in the ruling party.

This dynamic is most evident in the visual symbolism of political life. In photographs with the president, it is common to see ministers and other politicians grinning broadly, their smiles often masking the political calculations going on behind the scenes. These broad grins are not necessarily reflective of genuine joy or satisfaction but are instead a performance designed to please the president and demonstrate loyalty. The political reality is that anyone who does not toe the line or dares to challenge the president risks losing their position and being cast out of the inner circle of power. For Mamman and his supporters, it is important to remember that ministerial positions, while prestigious, come with this implicit understanding. One must always be attuned to the whims and preferences of the president. Any act that offends the president, whether intentional or not, could lead to a swift dismissal. It is a precarious balance, and one that requires constant vigilance and political acumen.

But not all ministers are equally vulnerable to dismissal. Certain persons, particularly those with deep political roots and strong connections to President Tinubu, likely enjoy a level of protection that others do not. Such persons cannot be easily dismissed based on the ratings of Hadiza Bala Usman, who is reportedly responsible for periodically evaluating ministers’ performance and submitting her findings to the president, allowing for the removal of those with unsatisfactory ratings. Some ministers are indeed shielded from consequences that may affect their less-connected counterparts, making Usman’s assessments of their performance less consequential. These are figures with political lineage and entrenched status within the ruling party’s hierarchy, rendering them immune to the influence of Usman or other prominent figures who may otherwise sway decisions regarding officials with fewer political connections. This hierarchy of influence reflects the broader structure of Nigerian politics, where certain persons or factions hold disproportionate power and sway over government decisions. Those outside this circle must constantly steer the political waters and ensure they do not run afoul of the president or key powerbrokers. The result is a political system in which ministers and other appointees must sacrifice their autonomy and often act with caution to preserve their positions.

The fate of Mamman may not be solely about merit or qualifications but may instead reflect the broader Nigerian political landscape, where loyalty, political patronage and influence play critical roles. For Mamman and others who were dismissed, it is possible they were unable to traverse the complex Nigerian political sphere, which demands political savviness, an understanding of power dynamics and a readiness to prioritize survival in an environment where political favor can shift at any moment. As Nigeria’s political system continues to evolve, those who aspire to serve at the highest levels of government must be prepared to sacrifice some degree of freedom and independence, all to remain in the president’s good graces. Good luck to them.

Mohammed Dahiru Aminu (mohd.aminu@gmail.com) wrote from Abuja, Nigeria.