Cabinet reshuffle: Political gaming or genuine reform?
In line with the Yoruba proverb, “When a child trips, he looks forward; when an adult trips, he look backward,” President Bola Tinubu’s recent ministerial reshuffle, dated October 23rd, invites critical reflection. Acting as both President and Minister of Petroleum, Tinubu dismissed and appointed new ministers, stirring mixed feelings across Nigeria.
The buildup to this reshuffle began on September 23, when Bayo Onanuga, the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, hinted at impending cabinet changes. Nigerians assumed the reshuffle would coincide with Tinubu’s Independence Day address on October 1. However, the address passed without any such announcements, and the President immediately departed for a vacation, leaving the nation in suspense and citizens facing rampant economic challenges. Throughout Tinubu’s absence, government advocates worked vigorously to justify the President’s break while Nigerians braced themselves for what the reshuffle might entail.
Upon Tinubu’s return on October 19, he swiftly enacted changes within the cabinet. Just 72 hours after his arrival, he dismissed five ministers, appointed seven new faces, and created several ministries, all of which sparked debates and confusion. This abrupt reshuffle seemed to run contrary to the expectations of the public, who had anticipated a more strategic overhaul, especially given the economic difficulties currently gripping the nation. In contrast, the President’s most ardent supporters hailed the move as a strategic “two-birds-one-stone” victory. Onanuga claimed that feedback from citizens on ministerial performance influenced Tinubu’s decision, though this explanation seemed closer to irony than truth. Many Nigerians, questioning the administration’s dedication to meaningful reform, noted that the reshuffle left key figures in critical areas—such as Power, State for Defense, and Petroleum—largely unaffected, despite widespread dissatisfaction with their performance.
At The Burning Mic Podcast, we approached this reshuffle with careful analysis and patriotic objectivity. While acknowledging some positive changes, we could not overlook the growing frustration over Nigeria’s bloated political structure. Calls for a smaller, more efficient government have been ongoing for decades, and the 2012 Oronsaye Report highlighted a need to trim Nigeria’s governance structure. At the time, the report identified 541 government agencies and parastatals that contributed to excess bureaucracy and wasteful spending. Unfortunately, instead of reducing the government’s size since then, it has only expanded to over 1,300 agencies.
Today, Nigeria faces an economic landscape that verges on full recession, with millions sinking deeper into poverty. The middle class, once somewhat secure, is now dwindling as inflation and unemployment rates soar. Tinubu’s early days in office inspired hopes for sweeping economic changes, with fuel subsidy cuts aimed at redirecting funds toward critical infrastructure projects. Yet months later, Nigerians are struggling to meet the steep cost of living. Citizens are not only wrestling with higher daily expenses but also dealing with erratic electricity, higher transport fees, and rising unemployment.
The relentless call for cuts in government expenditure gained momentum during the #EndBadGovernance protests, as Nigerians protested the government’s extravagant spending while millions suffer. In response, Tinubu implemented superficial measures, such as limiting the number of aides on official trips and reducing security details in convoys. But while Tinubu’s supporters herald these efforts, they fall short of a comprehensive approach to reducing government waste. Rather than implement the Oronsaye Report, which could reduce inefficiencies nationwide, these actions seem minor—akin to trimming a few branches on an overgrown tree without addressing its oversized roots.
The problem is not just at the federal level. Sub-national governments, too, are plagued by excessive political appointments, with redundant advisers and aides who add little to governance but siphon off public resources. State governments could lead by example, adopting the Oronsaye Report recommendations, reducing their own costs, and redirecting these funds to social services. The bloated political machinery has fostered a culture of patronage rather than productivity, while essential services remain severely underfunded.
Among Tinubu’s new cabinet posts are those focused on regional development, which some see as promising. However, critics view this as another example of political maneuvering. For genuine regional progress, restructuring Nigeria’s political framework is crucial. Many citizens continue to call for restructuring to decentralize power, ease regional tensions, quell secessionist movements, and foster healthy inter-regional competition. A restructured Nigeria could tap into the immense potential of its regions, stimulating growth and unburdening the federal government from regional affairs.
Despite these potential benefits, Tinubu’s preference for “political leg-overs” instead of direct actions reveals an inclination for symbolic gestures over structural reform. This reluctance to tackle the nation’s systemic challenges head-on echoes a deep-seated hesitancy within the administration to fully confront Nigeria’s pressing issues.
The administration has consistently urged Nigerians to be patient, which has not sat well with many who feel the weight of high living costs and stagnating policies. The recent reshuffle adds another layer to this discord, as the government’s claims of progress are met with skepticism. While Tinubu has the right to reassign ministers, the brief terms of the ousted ministers—averaging just 13 months—suggest a lack of cohesive governance. The public remains unconvinced that this administration has delivered on its promises, leading many to view the reshuffle as yet another political stunt rather than a meaningful change.
The new ministers now face a challenging task: they have about 18 months to make tangible progress before the 2027 general elections dominate the national conversation. Given this tight timeline, the ministers may find themselves torn between the demands of their official roles and the allure of political ambitions as they eye the upcoming election season. This divided focus risks further stagnating national development, with public interests again sidelined by personal and political priorities.
In conclusion, while we extend congratulations to the newly appointed ministers, we remain skeptical about their ability to make lasting improvements within the limited time available. The looming 2027 elections will likely cause the nation’s political landscape to heat up, and with it, the ministers’ attention may shift toward their political futures rather than their current duties. National progress, unfortunately, may become the casualty of these inevitable distractions, as the ministers’ aspirations for 2027 overshadow their responsibilities to the public today.
