TRIBUNE EDITORIAL “Ambassadorial List and the Uneasy Arithmetic of Bias”
TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
- “Ambassadorial List and the Uneasy Arithmetic of Bias”
The newly released breakdown of ambassadorial nominees has reopened a debate this administration has never quite escaped: the question of balance, equity, and whether President Tinubu’s appointments reflect a commitment to national inclusion or an emerging pattern of bias.
The statistics circulating widely — including the graphic published by the Nigerian Tribune — tell their own story. Out of the total nominees:
• South-West: 11
• South-East: 6
• North-West: 5
• North-East: 5
• North-Central: 5
• South-South: 3
Even without partisan lenses, one number dominates the conversation: 11 nominees from the South-West, a figure almost double that of any other zone and nearly quadruple that of the South-South.
For many observers, this is not merely an imbalance; it is a reinforcement of an old grievance — that federal appointments have become increasingly tilted, feeding suspicion that personal, regional, or political loyalties are edging out the constitutional principle of federal character.
Critics argue that the distribution is particularly troubling because ambassadorial postings carry symbolic weight. Ambassadors do not represent states or regions; they represent Nigeria. For that reason, the public expects the selection process to model unity, not disparity. The appearance of over-concentration in one zone undermines that expectation.
The strongest reactions have come from the South-South, which received only three nominees. Leaders and commentators from the region note that this level of under-representation feels less like an oversight and more like a deliberate de-prioritisation — especially when compared with the South-West’s 11 slots.
Defenders of the administration counter that professional competence, experience, and geopolitical considerations — not raw numbers — drive ambassadorial choices. They insist that the list reflects the pool of qualified candidates and the diplomatic needs of the moment. But that argument has struggled to gain traction, largely because the government has not offered transparent selection criteria or provided any explanation for the sharp regional differences.
For a presidency already navigating public suspicion over earlier appointment patterns, silence is costly. In the absence of clarification, perception hardens into narrative — and the narrative gaining ground is that Tinubu’s government is drifting toward regional favouritism.
This is not a trivial matter. Nigeria’s unity requires more than speeches; it requires that every region sees itself in the architecture of power. Even if unintended, an appointment imbalance of this scale sends the wrong message at the wrong time, especially in a country where federal character was designed to prevent precisely this form of concentration.
The way forward is simple and achievable:
• The Presidency should publish clear criteria for ambassadorial nominations.
• It should address the noticeable disparities in the list.
• And it should commit to more balanced future appointments, matching competence with inclusion.
In a nation as diverse as ours, fairness is not optional — it is the currency of legitimacy. And where numbers raise questions, leadership must provide answers.
