Inadvisability Of Inheriting Leadership Position, It Must Be Earned -By Isaac Asabor

In a country grappling with economic instability, food insecurity, rising unemployment, and growing disillusionment among its youth, one would expect appointments into key leadership positions to be driven by merit, integrity, and a proven track record of performance. Instead, what Nigerians continue to witness is a disturbing pattern of appointments that suggest that a well-known surname has become a far more powerful qualification than experience or competence.

The recent appointment of Mohammed Babangida, son of former military ruler Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB), as Chairman of the Bank of Agriculture (BOA) by the Tinubu-led administration is yet another example in a long list of such dynastic placements. While the credentials of Mr. Babangida may not be in question, the symbolic weight of this appointment, and many like it, cannot be ignored. It underscores a growing concern in Nigeria: Leadership is increasingly seen not as a calling to serve, but as a birthright passed from one generation of the elite to the next.

This is not the first time Nigerians have watched the baton of leadership passed from parent to child like a family heirloom. From the Sarakis of Kwara State, to the Abachas of Kano, to the Obasanjos, Buharis, and even Tinubus, the trend is disturbingly familiar. Even recently, Alhaji Abdul-Ganiyu Vinod Obasa, the son of the Speaker to the Lagos State House of Assembly was to contest for the Chairmanship position of Agege Local Government but was later seconded for the Vice-Chairmanship position which he won in a joint ticket with Alhaji Azeez Tunde (Disco). In a similar vein, Mr. Sheyi Tinubu is being touted in certain quarters to contest for governorship position come next gubernatorial election in Lagos State. In fact, prominent surnames have become passports to positions of influence, and political legacy, rather than leaving personal merit to determine who gets appointed or elected.

This development begs the question: “Is leadership hereditary?” The answer, quite clearly, is No. Leadership is not embedded in DNA. It is not a chromosome that one inherits. Rather, it is cultivated through experience, service, resilience, empathy, and vision. In societies where leadership is taken seriously, those who rise to power are those who have proven their worth, demonstrated capacity, and earned public trust, not those who simply bear a famous last name.

In fact, the elevation of individuals on the basis of their family background sends a toxic message to millions of talented and hardworking Nigerians: “No matter how qualified you are, without the right name, you will always be an outsider.” That message crushes dreams. It kills morale. It breeds resentment. Most dangerously, it alienates the very youth population that the country claims to be investing in.

When the children of the elite are consistently handed the reins of national assets, parastatals, and key positions, many of which directly affect economic development, it creates a closed power loop that recycles old ideologies, protects vested interests, and blocks innovation.

The irony is stark: we clamor for a “new Nigeria,” yet rely on the same old families. We speak of transformation, yet appoint from a shallow and privileged talent pool. We demand accountability but keep rewarding nepotism.

The normalization of surname-based appointments in Nigeria is driven by several entrenched problems, and they cut across patronage politics, elite protectionism, institutional weakness, and public apathy to the detriment of merit.

Explanatorily put, Nigerian politics thrives on loyalty and repayment of political debts. Appointing the child of a powerful former leader like IBB is often a move to secure political alliances, not serve the national interest.

In fact, there is an unspoken pact among Nigeria’s ruling class to preserve their influence. By elevating their children, they ensure their relevance in national affairs long after they have left office.

Worse still, institutions like the Federal Character Commission, which should guarantee equitable and merit-based representation, have been compromised or sidelined.

Also, years of systemic inequality have made many Nigerians cynical. The outrage against such appointments is often fleeting, drowned in the daily struggle for survival.

Given the foregoing, it is expedient to ask, “What’s lost when merit is ignored”. The answer to the foregoing cannot be farfetched as the cost of sidelining merit is far-reaching. This is as it encourages underperformance. For instance, appointees who lack the necessary experience often under deliver, thereby worsening the inefficiency of already fragile institutions.

In a similar vein, not a few talented Nigerians, under the prevailing nepotistic atmosphere of surname-appointment syndrome are seeing no hope of advancement as they are not connected. In fact, not a few of them have opted to leave the country, contributing to the ongoing brain drain.

Still in the same vein is public distrust which is making citizens to lose faith in the system as they feel that hard work and qualifications do not count.

Worsening enough is recycling the same names which is tantamount to recycling ideas. So, fresh leadership is necessary for innovation, especially in critical sectors like agriculture, technology, and finance, but unfortunately, that is not what Nigerians are seeing.

In fact, if Nigeria is to move forward, it must begin to dismantle the culture of hereditary entitlement to leadership and replace it with a culture of earned trust and demonstrated competence. The country is blessed with an abundance of intelligent, visionary, and passionate individuals, many of whom are languishing in obscurity because they lack the right connections.

At this juncture, permit this writer to in this context highlight what must change. Looking at the issue from the perspective of Merit-Based Appointments, it is not out of place to opine that every public appointment, especially those affecting national productivity like the Bank of Agriculture, should be based on competence, not pedigree.

Also, key roles should have open calls for applications and undergo rigorous public screening, therefore let Nigerians see who is being appointed and why.

In fact, there should be leadership development for all. Leadership schools, mentorship programs, and public service fellowships should be made widely available to young people from diverse backgrounds, not just those with political surnames.

Without a doubt, there is an urgent need to strengthen institutions that oversee public appointments, ensuring they are insulated from political manipulation.

Given the foregoing facts, it is expedient for civil society, the media, and everyday citizens to consistently challenge nepotistic appointments and demand accountability from those in power.

At this juncture, it is germane to opine that Mohammed Babangida’s appointment may be the latest, but it will not be the last, unless we collectively insist that leadership is not a hereditary title. We must move beyond the illusion that greatness runs in family bloodlines and embrace the truth that true leadership must be earned through service, not inherited through a surname.

Nigeria’s problems are too vast, too urgent, and too complex to be entrusted to a small circle of privileged names. If we want a country that works for all, then leadership must be open to all, not just the children of the few who have already had their turn.

It is time to say it plainly: A famous surname should never be a substitute for qualification. The Nigeria of our dreams cannot be built by inheritance, it must be built by integrity, merit, and inclusive leadership.