Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Tinubu, firmly rejected Senator Ali Ndume’s claims of biased appointments, defending the administration’s inclusive policies.
On April 8, 2025, Onanuga dismissed Ndume’s allegations via a detailed social media statement, stressing transparency in governance.
Ndume, during a televised interview, accused Tinubu of regional favoritism, igniting public debate.
Onanuga swiftly countered, labeling the criticism hypocritical and factually inconsistent.
He highlighted that two NNPC appointees hailed from Ndume’s senatorial district, undermining the senator’s argument.
“If the President were tribalistic, why appoint Ndume’s constituents to key roles?” Onanuga challenged, questioning the senator’s selective narrative.
He accused Ndume of sensationalism, arguing the senator prioritized controversy over constructive dialogue.
Onanuga reiterated Tinubu’s commitment to merit-based appointments, emphasizing integrity and national diversity as core criteria.
He clarified that geographic spread, not tribal bias, guided leadership selections to ensure fair representation.
The adviser urged Ndume to elevate discourse, aligning remarks with his senatorial duty to foster unity. He condemned divisive rhetoric, stressing Nigeria’s diversity as a strength for collective progress.
Tinubu’s vision, Onanuga noted, prioritizes harnessing Nigeria’s multicultural fabric to achieve shared prosperity and stability. He called for collaborative efforts to address national challenges, rejecting polarization.
Ndume’s silence following the rebuttal underscores lingering tensions over equitable political representation in Nigeria. Critics argue such debates distract from pressing issues like economic reforms and security.
Observers note Tinubu’s appointments face scrutiny for balancing merit with regional equity, a recurring dilemma in Nigerian politics. Public trust hinges on transparent, inclusive governance amid ethnic and geographic sensitivities.
The clash highlights Nigeria’s struggle to harmonize competence with fair representation in leadership roles. Stakeholders urge clear criteria for appointments to prevent perceptions of exclusion or bias.
Onanuga’s statement concluded by urging leaders to prioritize national unity over divisive tactics, especially during economic and social crises. Constructive criticism, he asserted, should replace inflammatory rhetoric.
As the administration navigates these criticisms, its ability to reconcile meritocracy with diversity remains under watch. Analysts stress that equitable appointments could strengthen social cohesion and institutional legitimacy.
Citizens demand accountability, transparency, and fairness in leadership decisions shaping Nigeria’s future. The outcome will influence public confidence in Tinubu’s reform agenda and governance ethos.
This exchange reflects broader societal debates on representation, power distribution, and national identity in Africa’s most populous nation. How Tinubu addresses these concerns may define his legacy.
For now, the administration maintains its stance: appointments prioritize capability while reflecting Nigeria’s multifaceted demographics. The dialogue continues, underscoring the complexity of leadership in a diverse democracy.