A prominent chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Sani Abdullahi Shinkafi, has described President Bola Tinubu’s appointments as lopsided, particularly in the Northwest, where Zamfara State—one of the key states that secured his victory in the 2023 presidential election—has been largely sidelined.

Speaking to journalists in Gusau, the Zamfara State capital, during the inauguration of his political movement, the Wamban Shinkafi Democratic Front (WSDF), Shinkafi urged President Tinubu to address the imbalance in federal appointments and intensify efforts to resolve the persistent security crisis affecting Zamfara residents.

Shinkafi, who resigned as the National Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) to join the APC alongside former Zamfara State Governor Bello Mohammed, expressed disappointment that despite Zamfara being one of only two Northwestern states—alongside Jigawa—that voted for Tinubu in the last election, it has not been adequately rewarded.

He labeled the distribution of appointments under Tinubu’s administration as a betrayal of the people of Zamfara and warned that if the situation is not corrected, it could undermine the president’s chances in the 2027 election, as the Northwest may withhold the overwhelming support it previously gave him.

Shinkafi also called on Tinubu to intensify efforts to combat insecurity across Nigeria, with a special focus on Zamfara, where armed groups continue to kill, maim, and abduct innocent civilians while displacing entire communities.

Shinkafi further claimed that APC in Zamfara is deeply divided, with party members losing trust and confidence in its leadership.

He vowed to resist any attempts to impose candidates in the 2027 elections and called for strict adherence to internal party democracy to restore fairness and unity within the party.

Former President Goodluck Jonathan and former Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Attahiru Jega have raised concerns over political interference in the appointments of electoral commissioners.

Jonathan and Jega expressed their displeasure on Tuesday when they addressed attendees at a conference hosted by the pro-democracy and advocacy organisation Yiaga Africa, in Abuja.

At the event titled ‘Reflection Conference on Democratic Elections in West Africa,’ Jonathan said, “In Nigeria, you can’t get an accurate count of votes because I believe that we have too many ghost voters.

“We must have credible people. From what (ex-INEC Chairman, Attahiru) Jega said, political leaders who are so domineering will pressurise you to do what is wrong; you should be able to resign and leave. You should be able to resign and walk away, please.

“If we don’t have this kind of people, then we are in trouble. And I don’t want any INEC official to say I was pressurised. If you are accepting to be Chairman of INEC or to be a commissioner of INEC, then you should be ready to say, ‘If I’m pressurised to do what is wrong, I will take care of the democratic people and walk away’.

“And if we don’t have such people managing our electoral management bodies, if what we have are people who will continue to go in a circle, we will not get what we want.”

Jonathan further underscored the necessity of strong and ethical leadership in electoral management to avoid a flawed electoral system and advocated for a robust framework to ensure credible elections.

“When both parties are strong, and the system cannot be manipulated, only real human beings will cast and their votes will count,” he affirmed.

The former President condemned the regionalisation of the electoral process which has affected all facets, including religious groups.

“Sometimes, if I listen to the prediction by religious men and women and so on, their predictions tend to go towards the regional interest. So, when the electoral process is so regionalised, we are going to have issues. And that will be controlled by de-emphasising sort of key areas.”

He also pointed to the challenges confronting elections in Sierra Leone and Senegal, where allegations of irregularities, including voter intimidation, ethnic tensions, and controversial results undermined the polls.

“Late last year, Ghana conducted general elections which were indeed successful, despite the application of limited technology. The country, with a reputation of being one of Africa’s most stable democracies, lived up to this billing by conducting peaceful polling and smooth transfer of power.

“The Electoral Commission of Ghana and the security authorities played a crucial role in ensuring the elections were free, fair, and transparent, thereby demonstrating that Ghana’s democratic institutions and processes have continued to be resilient, even with limited technology.

“Two other countries, Liberia and Senegal also conducted general elections with limited deployment of technology. In these countries, the processes were generally peaceful, transparent, and credible with a high voter turnout.

“In the case of Liberia, incumbent President George Weah conceded defeat to the opposition candidate Joseph Boakai after a closely contested runoff, setting a positive example for democratic transitions in the region.

“The pre-election period in Senegal was notably marred by protests, arrests of opposition figures, and concerns about the independence of the judiciary. However, it was pleasing to observe that once the election process kicked in, the polling processes progressed without hitches, resulting in a free and fair outcome.’’

For his part, Prof. Jega highlighted persistent challenges limiting democratic development in West Africa.

“Political interference in the appointment (and/or removal) of electoral commissioners and other electoral management body officials; intimidation/targeting of electoral officials to ensure desired outcomes; obstruction of legal reforms to extend EMB powers (for example to strengthen oversight of campaign finance) or more broadly provide for more inclusive electoral processes.

“Introduction of rules that enable fraud or manipulation, for example through weak regulations around registration or voting procedures, or strategic changes to electoral laws which significantly favour incumbents.

“The withholding of funds and other resources from electoral operations and attempts to discredit the EMB,” Jega stated.

He added that citizens, civil society organisations, and change drivers should continue mobilising effectively for credible elections.

In pursuit of viable and smooth operations of its universities, the federal government initiated legal instruments for their administrative autonomy several years ago.

The initiative led to the passage of the Universities Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, which empowers these institutions to discharge their functions and exercise their responsibilities without undue external interference.

The autonomy covers their right to make decisions without interference from external entities, including the government. It encompasses their ability to design academic curricula, set admission requirements, fix various fees (except tuition), set salary scales, and appoint principal staff, including vice chancellors.

All these measures received legal backing when the National Assembly (NASS) passed the University Autonomy Bill in 2004 to enhance the independence of universities.

As a newspaper, we are saddened that the governing councils of these citadels of learning are grossly abusing the government’s good intentions, particularly regarding the appointment of their principal officers – vice chancellors.

In several federal universities across the country, the appointment of vice chancellors has turned institutions into battlegrounds, starting with divided and biased governing councils and extending to restive workers’ unions and student bodies.

The situation has become so deplorable that religion, ethnicity, mediocrity, and individual agendas have taken precedence, while merit and due process have been sacrificed.

More worrisome is the undue interference, pressure, and intimidation from host communities of universities now insisting on producing the vice chancellors of federal universities.

This indigenisation drive for principal offices has dealt severe blows to tertiary institutions, leading to governing council members being blackmailed, intimidated, harassed, and coerced into submission.

Similarly, aspirants who are not indigenes of the host communities or states face blackmail and discrimination until they are forced to abandon their ambitions.

The governing councils have compounded the situation by ignoring due process and adhering to ethnic and religious biases in the selection and appointment of vice chancellors.

In some cases, governing council chairmen have become demigods whose actions cannot be questioned and whose preferred choices cannot be challenged through a competitive process.

Universities have indeed become the fiefdoms of governing council chairmen, who use divide-and-rule tactics and ethnic and religious platforms to pit members against one another.

The implication is that universities are gradually dying and losing reputation both nationally and globally, as some vice chancellors can no longer command the respect of their university communities.

This disturbing trend has recently unfolded at the University of Abuja (UNIABUJA), Nnamdi Azikiwe University (UNIZIK) in Awka, Anambra State; University of Benin (UNIBEN), and the Federal University of Health Sciences Otukpo (FUHSO) in Benue State.

At the center of the crises in these universities and many others were governing councils that sacrificed merit for tribal, political, and individual considerations until President Bola Tinubu intervened decisively.

The dust over the UNIABUJA leadership tussle has yet to settle, even though a new vice chancellor has been appointed.

In our opinion, federal authorities must not allow these leadership crises to fester. Urgent measures are required to save the university system from collapse. An institution that sacrifices merit for extraneous factors in appointing its leaders cannot be expected to operate efficiently or produce quality graduates.

A compromised vice chancellor can only be loyal to those who manipulated their appointment.

To resolve this quagmire, we call for multifaceted approaches that compel governing councils to adhere to transparent, merit-based appointment processes and strict adherence to due process.

This can be achieved through systematic advertising of vacant positions, setting clear eligibility criteria, and conducting rigorous interviews to assess candidates’ qualifications, experience, and vision for the university.

There should also be independent selection committees comprising respected academics and professionals to oversee the appointment process. These committees should evaluate candidates based on their academic credentials, leadership experience, and ability to drive innovation and growth.

Since the governing councils have failed in their responsibilities, the government should, as an interim measure, develop and enforce strict guidelines for appointing vice chancellors to check the interference of host communities and ethnic and religious bigots.

The government should also allocate sufficient funds for university development to reduce vice chancellors’ reliance on external sources.

Finally, the government should promote a culture of accountability within universities and hold vice chancellors responsible for their actions and inactions.