Nigerians are incensed and deeply concerned by recent media reports revealing that the newly appointed 48 ministers by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will receive a staggering N8.6 billion in salaries and allowances within a mere four years.
These revelations have unleashed a wave of fury and condemnation from the public, particularly in light of the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission’s (RMAFC) disclosure that these ministerial expenses would drain N8.63 billion from the nation’s already strained resources.
Furthermore, there is growing apprehension that this monetary allocation may increase over time, exacerbating the public’s anger and disapproval. The disclosure of the ministers’ remuneration has sparked widespread discontent, especially considering the promises made by the current All Progressives Congress-led Federal Government to reduce the cost of governance and improve the living standards of the people.
Many are left wondering how it would be possible to fulfill the pledge of reducing the cost of governance when 48 ministers are slated to earn such an exorbitant amount of money in just four years.
Critics argue that Tinubu should have followed in the footsteps of former President Goodluck Jonathan, who reduced the number of ministers to 33 during his tenure, freeing up substantial funds that could have been allocated to other vital sectors of the economy in light of the country’s fiscal challenges.
Marcellus Onah, a lawyer and vocal proponent of this view, stated, “Tinubu’s cabinet of 48 ministers appears to be the largest since Nigeria returned to democratic governance in 1999. His immediate predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari, had 42 ministers. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo also had 42 ministers throughout his eight years in office. Late President Umar Musa Yar’Adua had 39 ministers. Goodluck Jonathan had the least, with 33 ministers, nine of whom were carried over from Yar’Adua’s administration. Jonathan later increased the number to 37 just before the 2015 general elections.”
Faced with the reality of exorbitant governance costs, as evidenced by the ministers’ remuneration over four years, many Nigerians are now calling on Tinubu’s government to revisit the report on civil service reform submitted by Stephen Oronsaye in 2011, which has since been gathering dust in the presidential villa.
The report, which was rejected due to its “objective” content, recommended the merger of several Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) to reduce the cost of governance and allocate funds to address other pressing national issues. Oronsaye suggested abolishing 38 federal agencies, merging 14 agencies into their respective ministries, reducing statutory agencies from 263 to 161, and merging 52 institutions, among other recommendations.
Experts argue that implementing the report, even partially, by downsizing the MDAs to 161 could save the country over N12 trillion. Consequently, they are urging the government to seriously reconsider the report and explore the possibility of implementing its recommendations.
This has become imperative, given the current fiscal challenges the country faces, where indiscriminate borrowing without an effective repayment plan has become the norm, with more than half of the annual budget being allocated to servicing mounting debts.
While some may argue that the appointment of ministers is a constitutional matter, there is a counter-argument asserting that, although the appointment of ministers is indeed a constitutional function, the same constitution stipulates one minister per state, including the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja—totaling a maximum of 37 ministers.
Advocates of reducing the number of ministers point to former President Jonathan, who successfully governed with just 33 ministers during a period of economic prosperity. They contend that if Jonathan could function with fewer ministers when the economy was thriving, then Tinubu should certainly consider reducing the number of ministers, particularly now that the economy is in dire straits and citizens are enduring immense hardships.
As a concerned Lagos resident, Mike Okaro, put it, “Government borrowing has become a national embarrassment. The government’s debt profile is at its peak. Considering the current debt profile and the crippling effects of the fuel subsidy removal, one would expect a government that promises renewed hope to emulate Jonathan or adhere to the constitutional requirement of one minister per state, at least for now. Regrettably, the government seems oblivious to the dire state of the country’s economy.
“Obasanjo had 42 ministers during a period of economic viability. Yar’Adua had 39 ministers. Buhari also had 42 ministers. All these presidents served during periods when there was fuel subsidy and essential commodities were within the reach of ordinary people. Today, with no fuel subsidy, the impact is felt in almost every aspect of people’s lives, making survival extremely challenging.
“Yet, despite preaching renewed hope, the government appoints 48 ministers—the highest number since Nigeria’s return to democracy in 1999. Where is the renewed hope when people lose hope on a daily basis?
“Under these circumstances, the government should have considered the economic situation and taken a leaf out of Jonathan’s book, who managed with fewer than 36 ministers. Alternatively, it should have appointed even fewer ministers, given the country’s financial constraints. Unfortunately, politicians insist on enjoying themselves at the expense of the masses,” Okaro concluded.
Pogu Bitrus, President of the Middle Belt Forum (MBF), echoed the growing concerns and expressed his dissatisfaction, stating that appointing 48 ministers at this time was unwieldy and unsustainable.
“This is not the first time this has happened in Nigeria. To appease people, governments often appoint more ministers than the constitutional requirement. It is not good for the economy,” Bitrus said.
“The constitution permits one minister per state, totaling 36, plus one from the FCT, Abuja. However, this does not limit the number of ministers, resulting in presidents appointing more than the minimum required number,” he added.
Bitrus emphasized the pressing need for the National Assembly to address this issue and take necessary action to reduce the number of ministers in Nigeria.
“The National Assembly must revisit this matter urgently and modify the constitution to establish a more efficient government that does not excessively burden taxpayers,” Bitrus asserted.
He also highlighted the serious drain on the economy caused by the large cabinet structure, as each minister would require a substantial number of aides, exacerbating the financial strain.
Umar Yakubu, Executive Director of the Centre for Fiscal Transparency and Integrity Watch (CefTIW), also criticized President Tinubu’s decision to appoint 48 ministers, particularly at a time when the government claims to be cutting costs and generating revenue.
Yakubu argued, “The constitutional requirement for appointment mandates one minister from each state and the FCT, totaling 37. However, the president has appointed 11 additional ministers, exceeding the constitutional requirement and further straining the cost of governance and recurrent expenditures.
“It is wasteful to have 48 ministers when other countries are merging ministries. The United States, for example, has only 15 ministries.
“Unfortunately, we are expanding and burdening our already beleaguered economy. Each minister will have to be provided with official vehicles, entailing significant costs for fuel and maintenance,” Yakubu lamented.
Hon Yusuf Shehu, an APC chieftain and former member of the Katsina State House of Assembly, echoed these sentiments, describing the situation as unfortunate given the hardships faced by Nigerians.
He expressed his dismay at the fact that only about 10 percent of the population in northern states like Katsina, Kano, Jigawa, and Zamfara can afford three meals a day, while the rest struggle even to afford one meal.
“Some can’t even afford a single meal per day. Families go for two or three days without food. Therefore, for only 48 ministers to consume N8.6 billion is highly unfortunate,” Shehu stated.
Shehu decried the brand of politics practiced in Nigeria, which, in his opinion, is responsible for the country’s lack of development.
Highlighting the dilapidated state of hospitals, collapsed schools, and poor road conditions, he criticized the government for investment on such a massive scale—spending a staggering amount of money on only 48 ministers in just four years.
“This sum excludes other undisclosed perquisites. It accounts solely for salaries and allowances. How can Nigeria progress when its leaders allocate such vast sums to themselves?” Shehu exclaimed.
He stressed that, considering the current hardships resulting from the removal of fuel subsidies, currency swap, and devaluation of the naira, the government should have reconsidered such extravagant spending on ministers.
“If the ministers truly work for the people, they should reduce their salaries and allowances, as the sum involved is outrageously astronomical. They must acknowledge the suffering of the people,” Shehu implored.
