The ascension of a new political dispensation invariably brings with it a moment of national reckoning — a chance to elevate the discourse, recalibrate ethical standards, and signal a departure from the transactional politics of the past.
However, the emerging pattern of appointments under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu suggests not a departure but a deepening commitment to a system where moral currency is devalued and ethical principles are rendered elastic to accommodate political expediency.
The contemplation of high office for figures like Reno Omokri, Femi Fani-Kayode (FFK), and — in the spirit of political reward — Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, serves as a shocking parade of this alarming elasticity. These potential or actual appointments are not merely personnel choices; they are a polemical statement on the administration’s moral choices and priorities.
The nominations, whether actual ambassadorial postings or symbolic high-level appointments, collectively represent the canonization of toxicity, inconsistency, and institutional compromise. Scrutinizing these choices reveals the moral landscape of our Fourth Republic and a troubling absence of integrity.
The Case of the Serial Defector: Femi Fani-Kayode. Fani-Kayode embodies the apex of political transactionalism in Nigeria. A figure defined less by policy contribution and more by the rapidity and vehemence of his political defections, his public conduct has been a masterclass in rhetorical aggression often untethered from verifiable fact. His entire political career is a testimonial to the notion that ideological consistency is a weakness, and loyalty is a commodity to be traded at the highest prevailing market price.
To elevate such a personality to a position of executive or diplomatic trust- a role that demands measured diplomacy, strategic silence, and profound ethical consistency- is to mock the very essence of public service. What message is being sent when the most polarizing, caustic, and inconsistent voice is rewarded with a platform of national representation?
It is a stark affirmation that loyalty, however opportunistic, trumps integrity, however scarce. It confirms that the apparatus of state is merely a lucrative holding company for political mercenaries who pivot their allegiance based on proximity to power, thereby rewarding the very instability that plagues Nigeria’s democratic ethos.
The Cynical Rhetorician: Reno Omokri. Omokri’s candidature for a high-level post – especially one demanding diplomatic finesse and polish – presents an equally distressing ethical anomaly. His brand of engagement is rooted in digital gutters, characterized by highly divisive, personalized, and often inflammatory rhetoric.
While political punditry demands robust commentary, Omokri’s brand output frequently veers into the realm of vehement, unprincipled partisanship where constructive criticism is forsaken for pathological opposition or fanatical defense, depending on who may be the paymaster. The reward of a diplomatic or executive position for such a profile is not just a lapse in judgment; it is a strategic error that legitimizes online toxicity as a prerequisite for national service.
Diplomacy is the art of mediation, nuance, and bridge-building. By contrast, Omokri’s public identity is built on confrontation and morbid partisanship. To appoint him a diplomat is to inject a crude political pugilist into a refined arena of decent engagement, signaling to the world that Nigeria’s governing philosophy rewards the aggressive pursuit of influence over the diligent maintenance of national respectability.
The Institutional Liability: Prof. Mahmood Yakubu. The inclusion of Prof. Mahmood Yakubu in this discourse strikes at the heart of institutional integrity. As the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) during a highly contentious 2023 general election, his management of the process was met with widespread, credible allegations of systemic failures, inconsistencies, and a disturbing lack of transparency regarding the deployment of technology.
While the specific facts of his tenure are subject to ongoing debate, the critical issue here is one of perception and rehabilitation. Offering a figure who presided over an election that polarized the nation and severely tested the confidence of the populace in democratic processes, any high-level appointment immediately following that tenure – be it ambassadorial or otherwise- is an egregious act of political patronage.
It undermines the essential neutrality of the electoral body and sends a chilling message: that the compromise of institutional integrity and independence during a critical period of national transition can be tacitly forgiven and even celebrated with a political compensation. This potential action utterly desecrates the fragile autonomy of INEC and mocks the millions who sought but were deprived a free and transparent democratic exercise.
The Triumph of Expediency: These three individuals – FFK, Omokri and Yakubu – form a tripod supporting a governance structure built on morally debased elasticity. Their collective representation reveals a system prioritizing political reward, transactional loyalty, and aggressive partisanship over competence, consistency, and ethical rectitude.
My title, “Parading the Elasticity of Moral and Ethical Principles”, is not hyperbolic or poetic licence: it is diagnostically accurate. Any administration that seeks to secure its legitimacy and stabilize a fractured nation must, first and foremost, demonstrate fidelity to unimpeachable ethical standards. But by elevating and exporting onto the global stage figures whose public history is characterized by flip-flopping, toxic rhetoric, or institutional compromise, the current government is doing the exact opposite.
What these nominations signal is that character deficits are not impediments to high office but, paradoxically, their very enabling qualifications. This practice does not merely undermine governance; it actively subverts the moral foundations of the Nigerian state, replacing principle with the raw, cynical calculus of political gratification and transaction.
Haruna Yahaya Poloma.
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
