From Southeast Marginalisation to Marginalisation Of Federal Character Commission -By Ifeanyichukwu Afuba

Although I never studied journalism, formally, I learnt long ago that news was about what draws attention, the unusual. Accordingly, one of the elementary ways of explaining the subject was this contrast: “Dog bites man”, is not news but “man bites dog” is something else. Who would be so trivial to cast the headline: Policeman Accepts Bribe! Who would choose to bore with the trite line: Power outage occurs in Nigeria! Similarly, the marginalisation of the southeast in Nigeria’s power structure is no longer news. General Yakubu Gowon laid the foundation with a skewed twelve state creation in 1967. And subsequent regimes perpetuated the plot of making the southeast a minority by military fiat or democratic inaction. In the present dispensation, state creation under Constitution review is not about righting the wrong against the southeast. Rather than adopt an affirmation framework of creating an additional state in the region only, the establishment continues to encourage proliferation of demands for states across the country.

From the base of structural disadvantage, came schemes of shortchanging. In appointments, siting and funding of projects, the southeast must take a distant last. Ex Senate President, Chuba Okadigbo, was so disgusted by the trend, he called on the people of the region to “make noise and shout against” the injustice wherever it occurs. Shouting does help but marginalisation’s Jericho wall will take more than media protests to fall. For Mohammadu Buhari’s provincial presidency, shrinking the southeast’s rights was a directive, though unwritten principle. Buhari’s 1984 Supreme Military Council had only Navy Captain Ebitu Ukiwe as member from southeast in an 18 man ruling body. Yet, those who knew his antecedents, including Wole Soyinka, were enthusiastic about his second coming. In eight years of aloof presidency, the southeast was shut out from Buhari’s security architecture. There were initial hopes that President Bola Tinubu’s outlook would be broad and fair. But statistics on the administration’s appointments indicate that profile of activism do not guarantee balanced treatment. In the articles, ‘Between Obasanjo and Dare’, (December 12, 2024) and ‘Again, Southeast Excluded From National Projects’ (May 29, 2025), I showed the extent of discrimination against the southeast by this government.

There is currently a viral document on social media listing thirty – three positions occupied by persons from the southwest under the current system. None of the government’s spokesmen has come out to fault the compilation.The last controversy on dispossession of the southeast was about appointment of Appeal Court judges. An association of lawyers, Otu Oka Iwu, had in February this year petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria over alleged underrepresentation of the southeast in the process for selection of fourteen new justices of the appellate court. The outcome of Otu Oka Iwu’s protest is yet unknown. But it’s curious that the plan for recruitment of federal high court judges, which commenced a month earlier in January was also trailed by complaints of regional neglect. Matters are not helped by the historicity of the contentions. In 2017, there were similar allegations of southeast denial in the appointment of another fourteen jurists in the second highest courts. National Judicial Council, Director of Information, Soji Oye, had at the time said the charge was not true. In 2021, Alaigbo Development Foundation sued the NJC over geographical lopsidedness in the appointment of eighteen judges to the Court of Appeal. It’s important to note that the suit was only dismissed on technical ground of lacking locus standi.

Well, it’s the wisdom of our fathers that when handshake goes past the elbow, it has become something else. Since the southeast will not ordinarily get it’s due as other components of the federation, it behoves the zone to take measures to start cutting it’s losses. Where is the Ohaneze Ndi Igbo? What interventions has the leadership made on this red – hot subject? The missiles of marginalisation represent not just an assault on the Igbo psyche. The unwritten policy constitutes a threat to the cohesion of the Igbo subnation. Why then is the vaunted apex socio – cultural body silent over a force that seeks to disempower it’s constituents? Socio – cultural mandate does not preclude the civic space, socialisation, living conditions in the polity. Culture does not exist in a vacuum. It finds expression within time and space. What may be avoided is partisan politics. But standing up for citizenship rights is not politicking. Many Igbos have a problem of functional value with Ohaneze. This poverty of relevance in the eyes of younger generations endures with the kind of resignation displayed on marginalisation. Ohaneze should be leading the campaign against marginalisation. It is expected not only to have dossiers on distribution of offices and appointments but to task the Federal Character Commission (FCC) on redress of the inequities.

The 1999 Constitution (amended) has mandated the FCC to stop the sectional dominance of public service positions and government – funded organisations. Or so it seems. Under the Third Schedule, Part 1 of the Constitution, Section 8 gives the Commission the responsibility to ‘work out an equitable formula subject to the approval of the National Assembly for the distribution of all cadres of posts in the public service of the Federation and of the States, the armed forces of the Federation, the Nigeria Police Force and other government security agencies, government owned companies and parastatals of the States.” Really! It goes ahead to state in sub section c that the FCC has the authority to ‘take such legal measures, including the prosecution of the head or staff of any Ministry or government body or agency which fails to comply with any federal character principle or formula prescribed or adopted by the Commission.’

These provisions may well be news for many Nigerians. First, you wonder why the content does not feature in analyses, debates and discussion in the media about governance generally and abuse of appointive power specifically. Secondly, you cannot help but wonder if the several FCC boards since 1999 were aware of these letters of the Constitution. Yes, the FCC has come up with some allocation percentages in the composition of public offices. By the Commission’s prescription, a State should take no more than three percent of the manpower in a federal establishment. On zonal basis, the limit for the six geo – political zones is eighteen percent of the workforce. These parameters are hardly known to Nigerians. And that says a lot about the effectiveness of the FCC. The Commission rarely responds to the outcry about ethnic or regional domination of strategic institutions in the country. If the Commission had been engaging the public, it’s interventions on prominent cases would be well known, and perhaps appreciated too. A situation where the Commission’s exercise of it’s mandate is shrouded in obscurity raises questions about both leverage and responsibility.

What notable abuses of appointment authority has the FCC reversed or taken to court? What are a few cases from among the hundreds of ethnic favouritism in national institutions that the Commission remedied on scales of justice, balance, fair play? Can we cite even ordinary representation to the Buhari and Tinubu presidencies for review of their grossly discriminatory appointments? It’s double tragedy then when even the watchdog is rendered impotent by the system. In the face of the Commission’s helplessness over presidential assault on federal character, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe in 2020, made a bold intervention. The Abia State senator initiated a Bill for the establishment of Armed Forces Service Commission. In essence, the proposed law sought an instrument to make the President comply with federal character in the appointment of service chiefs. Consistent with the interests of Nigeria’s ruling blocs, Abaribe’s Bill did not live to see second reading in the Senate.

What do we do? Resignation is not an option so all progressive minds have to keep on pushing. Constitutional amendment seems a necessary step to take. The FCC needs the teeth to bite. As appointees of the President, they are as handicapped as the INEC leadership in rebuffing the executive’s agenda. And so, back to the Mohammed Uwais Committee on Electoral Reform. Create an INEC as well as FCC to be appointed by the National Judicial Council. The FCC should receive direct funding from the Federation Account. Under the terms of the proposed amendment, the President should submit certain categories of appointment lists to the FCC for vetting. To be sure, no statutory measures are foolproof. The human will remains a critical factor in any venture. But it helps to set up a strong machinery and conducive environment. The Fourth Republic legislature has so far shown a disposition for what it calls alterations to the Constitution. Why not this one too? And why don’t the coalition of progressives, within and outside the Legislature, lend it their support? Leaving the vice of discrimination unchecked not only diminishes us all. It erodes the path of unity, bogs down the wheels of governance.