By A. O. Agada
The recent petition by some civil society groups against the appointment of Hon. Ayo Omidiran as Chairman-designate of the Federal Character Commission (FCC) is nothing but a case of selective outrage. Cloaked in the language of equity and fairness, the petitioners’ arguments collapse under scrutiny because they are neither backed by the Constitution nor consistent with Nigeria’s political realities.
A Misplaced Constitutional Argument
Section 14(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) requires that federal appointments reflect Nigeria’s diversity and promote national unity. That principle is already satisfied in the FCC because all 36 states and the FCT are represented by Commissioners, additionally the six geo political zones ( South-West, South-East, South/South; North-West, North-East, North-Central) is the only geographical system recognized and used in the implementation of Federal Character principles, every state and zones have a voice.
The petitioners’ claim that the South-West is unfairly treated because both Oyo and Osun fall under the same “sub-pairing” is misleading. These so-called “sub-pairings” — Oyo/Osun, Lagos/Ogun, Ekiti/Ondo — are political arrangements used for convenience and not a constitutional requirements. The Constitution recognizes states, zones and region not blocs pairings within zones.
Silence During Years of Northern Domination
The loudness of these groups today contrasts sharply with their deafening silence in the past. Since the FCC became operational in 1996 (29 years!), its substantive leadership has been dominated by the North almost without interruption.
Even worse, between July 2, 2020 and July 2, 2025, both the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission were Northerners. That was a clear double concentration of power in one region, and it flagrantly contradicted the spirit of federal character. Where were these “rights advocates” then? Why did they not storm the Presidency or the National Assembly with petitions or issue joint press statements? Their silence during those years speaks volumes.
Omidiran’s Nomination Represents Balance, Not Exclusion
Hon. Omidiran’s appointment marks the first real departure from a history of northern monopoly in the FCC’s leadership. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s adherence to the constitution with this appointment deserves applause, not nitpicking.
Rather than welcome the President’s action as a step towards balance, the petitioners are twisting it into an “injustice” within the South-West zone. This is a political nitpicking, not advocacy.
The fact remains that the President has the discretion to appoint the Chairman, provided the federal character principle is not violated. Nothing in Omidiran’s appointment breaches the Constitution.
Selective Advocacy Weakens Credibility
The petitioners cannot claim to defend fairness when their activism only surfaces conveniently. By ignoring the five years of northern double leadership (2020–2025) but crying foul over a Southern nominee. They reveal themselves as politically motivated rather than genuinely concerned about justice. Such hypocrisy breeds division and erodes public confidence in civil society voices.
The Way Forward
If these groups truly care about fairness, they should pledge for a working relationship to ensure FCC’s mandates and policy breeds unity across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones, not for parochial sub-pairings within one zone. That would be a consistent and nationally beneficial position.
Conclusion
The petition against appointment of the first substantive Chairman from the South West in the person of Hon Omidiran is misplaced, hypocritical, and constitutionally baseless. It ignores decades of northern dominance, overlooks the injustice of having both Chairman and Secretary from one zone between 2020 and 2025, and misleads Nigerians with arguments not rooted in law. Nigerians deserve advocacy built on consistency, truth, and national interest — not parochial outrage.
