On two occasions, President Muhammadu Buhari had made it known that not all the ministers-designate would be given portfolios in the about-to-be-constituted Federal Executive Council (FEC).
Of course, no sane person can fault the President especially, on the account of the nation’s battered economy. As a matter of fact, for the President to admit and continue to insist that the nation is broke shows the extent to which the nation’s economy had been plummeted by the previous regimes.
The President’s position could also be understood from the point of view of several aides and officials that each minister would engage to ease their work.
One cannot but sympathize with the President on the basis of the fact that he who feels it knows it: being on the steering for this past four months. The period is enough for him to fully understand and feel the pinch of the devastated economy. He met and is contending with the near collapsed economy that had all along been covered with fine grammar by the past leaders.
However, for the President to say that not all the ministers-designate would be assigned portfolios amounts to taking the matter to an entirely different level; the moral one in particular.
Indeed, the constitution appears not to make it mandatory for him to assign anyone appointed as minister in the ministerial office, but how would it look like for a man or woman to have gone through the joy of being nominated by the President, the hassle of going through senate screening and the expectations of friends and well-wishers only for such approved ministers to be benched?
Which of the states would accept to have its minister-designate benched, giving an indication of inferiority? In other words, what is the criteria the President would use to determine who among the ministers should be assigned portfolios and those that would be left in the limbo?
Even at the point of view of the constitution, subject however to expert’s interpretations, ordinarily, it does not seem to envisage a situation where a man would be made a minister without portfolio. Does it make any political sense that the constitution would put emphasis on minister being nominated from each state and leaving the choice as to whether to assign portfolio or not to the President?
In any case, what is the joy in being a minister if it is just to answer the name?
What would a man be doing as a minister around the corridors of power?
The humming around the country now, just a few hours before the President assigned portfolios, has been that any minister-designate that ends up not being given an office would be called ‘papalolo’ or sitting-minister.’ Why would any adult want to be so dehumanized, as if his life depends on the position?
Obviously, if the constitution is forthcoming on the fact that those who are to be ministers should possess the same qualifications and requirements as those contesting election as senators, it should also follows that as the senators are entitled to all the paraphernalia of office, so should the ministers.
To stem the embarrassment and carry every minister along, the President should kindly give all of them portfolios, for, it is not really the salaries of the ministers that drained the nation’s economy, but the terrible corruption: awards of fake contracts and so on.
The President could prune down the salaries of the ministers, reduce the number of their aides and limit the amount of contract they can award, with full monitoring mechanism. This is more honourable, acceptable in today’s civilised world and above all, make the position of minister a thing of joy for the few lucky ones.
So, please, Mr. President, give them all, portfolios. [myad]
