Nigeria’s political culture has a dangerous addiction to patronage, and recent comments credited to Isa Ali Pantami on Arise TV and Trust TV have once again exposed how deeply normalized this mentality has become within the corridors of power.
It was both disturbing and disappointing to watch a former Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria publicly brandish documents allegedly showing how he facilitated employment opportunities for over 700 Nigerians. Rather than inspiring admiration, the spectacle raised troubling questions about the understanding of public office, institutional responsibility, and the dignity of citizens.
Public service in a constitutional democracy is not charity. Government jobs are not personal gifts from politically connected individuals to helpless citizens. Appointments into public institutions are meant to be driven by merit, due process, competence, and lawful recruitment structures not by the benevolence or influence of a powerful office holder.
That is why the public celebration of “getting people jobs” by a former minister is problematic on many levels. First, many of those allegedly “helped” may actually be more academically qualified, professionally competent, and institutionally deserving than the man presenting himself as their benefactor. The fact that one individual temporarily occupied political office does not automatically make him superior to every Nigerian seeking employment. Power is often circumstantial. Public office is a privilege entrusted by the state, not a personal inheritance or private empire.
Ironically, the same system that elevated Mr. Pantami into national prominence did so through opportunities created by other Nigerians. He did not appoint himself minister. He was nominated by a President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria whom Nigerians elected and entrusted with a portfolio within government. Before then, he benefited from educational opportunities, professional placements, institutional endorsements, and scholarship structures created by the Nigerian state and society.
The irony is glaring. Pantami himself rose through privileges facilitated by others. His employment at Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU), Bauchi, his scholarship to Robert Gordon University in Scotland, UK and other opportunities were not self-made miracles but doors opened by benefactors and institutions. If he now insists on documenting how he “helped” others, should Nigerians not equally demand a record of who helped him? Reciprocity in transparency would expose the fallacy of self-congratulation.
If every influential Nigerian begins to publicly display lists of citizens they “helped,” governance will degenerate completely into a feudal culture of political indebtedness where citizens are expected to eternally worship office holders for opportunities they lawfully deserve.
More troubling is the psychological implication of such public disclosures. A citizen who earned employment through established procedures should never be subjected to the humiliation of being publicly reminded that someone “helped” him secure the position. If assistance was genuinely rendered, basic courtesy and human decency demand discretion. Gratitude, where deserved, should come voluntarily from beneficiaries not through public self-glorification by the alleged benefactor.
This is precisely why modern democracies attempt to institutionalize recruitment systems. The framers of public service regulations never intended governance to become an informal marketplace of influence. Public office is designed as a formalized, full-time responsibility requiring integrity, professionalism, and fidelity to institutions — not an avenue for building personal patronage networks across agencies beyond one’s statutory supervision.
That is why many Nigerians are understandably alarmed by claims of facilitating employment not only within sectors connected to the Ministry of Communications and Digital Economy, but reportedly even in agencies such as the Central Bank of Nigeria and Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited. Such assertions inevitably provoke uncomfortable questions. Was the nation dealing with a minister discharging constitutional duties, or with a political operator informally brokering access into public institutions?
Nigeria must be careful not to normalize this culture. The real tragedy is not merely what was said on television. The greater tragedy is that many young Nigerians may begin to internalize the belief that competence alone is insufficient without political godfathers. That perception weakens public confidence in institutions and deepens cynicism about fairness within the Nigerian state.
Leaders must understand that dignity matters. Citizens are not political trophies to be displayed for applause years after receiving opportunities they may well have deserved on merit. Governance should empower people without reducing them to statistics in personal legacy campaigns.
In the end, Nigerians must ask: do we celebrate ministers for the jobs they claim to secure, or for the institutions they strengthen? Pantami’s “employment empowerment” may well be remembered, but not as a legacy of service. Instead, it risks being seen as a liability a reminder of how privilege can be wielded callously, and how public office can be distorted into personal narrative.
- Mr Abdulkadir, Esq is a legal Consultant and can be reached via [email protected]
