Beyond Ethnicity: Why Mbah focuses on competence, merit for appointment of citizens into office 

By Dan Nwomeh

The controversy over Governor Peter Mbah’s appointments raises a far bigger question about Nigeria’s commitment to competence, national integration and constitutional citizenship.

Public discourse performs its highest function when it subjects those in authority to rigorous, evidence-based scrutiny. Democracy depends on the ability of citizens to interrogate government decisions, challenge public policy and demand accountability from elected leaders. 

However, such scrutiny loses both its moral authority and intellectual credibility when it abandons facts in favour of ethnic narratives.

The recent controversy surrounding Governor Peter Mbah’s appointments in Enugu State presents precisely such a moment. 

What initially appears to be a debate over political appointments is, in reality, a deeper contest over two competing visions of Nigeria. One vision defines public service through competence, experience and measurable performance. The other filters public appointments primarily through the lens of ethnicity.

It is this second approach that deserves careful examination. The central allegation against Governor Mbah is that the appointment of a handful of Yoruba professionals into strategic positions amounts to the “Yorubanisation” of Enugu State. Such a claim is not merely politically provocative; it also raises important constitutional, ethical and governance questions.

Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to live, work and pursue opportunities anywhere within the federation. Public institutions are expected to reflect fairness, competence and inclusiveness while respecting applicable constitutional and statutory requirements. 

It follows that the mere fact that a qualified Nigerian originates from another state or ethnic group cannot, by itself, constitute evidence of discrimination against indigenes.

Indeed, if ethnicity becomes the principal criterion for judging appointments, Nigeria risks replacing meritocracy with identity politics.

This distinction matters enormously.

A governor who appoints individuals solely because they belong to his own ethnic group may rightly attract criticism for exclusion. Equally, however, a governor who recruits competent professionals from different parts of the country should not automatically be accused of ethnic betrayal merely because those appointments cross regional boundaries.

The difference lies in the evidence.

Legitimate criticism asks whether appointees possess the qualifications, experience and integrity required for their offices. 

Ethnic profiling, by contrast, begins with ancestry and treats it as sufficient proof of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, much of the criticism directed at Governor Mbah’s appointments appears to fall into the latter category.

Rather than presenting verifiable evidence of incompetence, some critics repeatedly identify officials primarily by their Yoruba identity, implying that their ethnic origin is itself grounds for suspicion. Such reasoning shifts public debate away from governance and into dangerous territory where identity eclipses objective assessment.

Democracy demands higher standards than that.

If the Chief Executive of a public agency is ineffective, the evidence should be measurable: declining institutional performance, financial irregularities, poor service delivery or failure to meet clearly defined objectives. 

Those are the indicators by which competent governance is evaluated across modern democracies.

Ethnicity proves none of them.

Conversely, where officials possess distinguished professional records and bring relevant expertise into government, their performance should be judged on what they accomplish after assuming office—not on where they were born.

Several of the appointments that have generated controversy illustrate this principle. The officials in question bring extensive experience in healthcare administration, financial management, broadcasting, policing, aviation and public-sector reform. 

Whether they ultimately succeed remains a legitimate subject for public evaluation. However, reducing accomplished professionals to ethnic labels neither advances accountability nor enriches democratic debate.

The statistical context also deserves attention.

The appointments repeatedly cited constitute only a very small proportion of the Governor’s overall senior appointments. From a governance perspective, it is difficult to sustain the argument that such a limited number constitutes evidence of a systematic ethnic agenda.

More fundamentally, the controversy invites Nigerians to reflect on a broader national question. Should excellence have geographical boundaries?

History suggests otherwise.

Across Nigeria, governments routinely recruit expertise beyond their immediate communities. Lagos has, for decades, appointed and retained highly qualified professionals from every region of the federation. 

Numerous Igbo professionals have served with distinction in the Lagos State Government, rising to senior administrative and political positions because their competence was recognised.

Former Commissioner for Economic Planning and Budget Ben Akabueze remains one of the most notable examples. Joe Igbokwe likewise became an influential public official in Lagos despite being of Igbo origin. 

Similar examples can be found across Ekiti, Kaduna, Osun and other states where governors have appointed professionals from outside their dominant ethnic groups.

These appointments have generally been interpreted not as evidence of ethnic surrender but as expressions of administrative pragmatism.

That is how mature federations function.

Indeed, Governor Peter Mbah’s own professional history reflects the same philosophy.

Long before assuming public office, he built Pinnacle Oil and Gas into one of Nigeria’s major energy infrastructure companies in Lagos. The success of that enterprise depended not on ethnic patronage but on regulatory approval, investor confidence, technical capacity and commercial viability.

An Igbo entrepreneur was able to develop a nationally significant investment in a predominantly Yoruba environment because the relevant institutions evaluated the project on merit.

Imagine the alternative.

Suppose Lagos had insisted that such strategic investments should be reserved exclusively for indigenous entrepreneurs. 

The project might never have materialized, with consequences not only for the investor but also for employment, commerce and national economic development.

The lesson extends beyond business.

Nigeria’s progress has always depended upon the mobility of talent.

Doctors trained in one state save lives in another. Professors educate students far from their ancestral homes. Judges administer justice outside their states of origin. 

Military officers defend communities to which they have no ethnic connection. Entrepreneurs build industries where opportunities exist rather than where their surnames originate.

This movement of talent has been one of the country’s greatest strengths.

The Igbo, perhaps more than any other major ethnic group, have historically benefited from this openness. 

Across Nigeria and beyond, Igbo professionals have excelled because they were allowed to compete on the basis of ability rather than ancestry.

It would therefore be a profound contradiction to celebrate merit when it benefits Igbo professionals elsewhere while condemning the same principle when qualified Nigerians contribute within the South-East.

Consistency demands otherwise.

There is also a broader national concern.

Political rhetoric that repeatedly emphasises ethnic identity carries risks extending beyond immediate electoral competition. 

History demonstrates that social fragmentation rarely begins with violence. It often starts with language that subtly encourages citizens to view neighbours through ethnic categories rather than shared citizenship.

Countries that have experienced severe ethnic conflict frequently reveal similar patterns: persistent stereotyping, collective suspicion and the gradual erosion of trust between communities.

Nigeria, with its own painful historical experiences, cannot afford to ignore those lessons.

This does not mean governments should be immune from criticism.

Far from it.

Governor Mbah, like every elected official, should remain accountable for every appointment he makes. Citizens are entitled to ask whether public officials are delivering results, whether institutions are improving and whether public resources are being managed efficiently.

Those questions strengthen democracy.

Questions framed principally around ethnicity do not.

Ultimately, this debate transcends one administration or one state. It goes to the heart of Nigeria’s unfinished nation-building project.

Will the country continue moving toward a federation where competence, innovation and excellence determine opportunity?

Or will political discourse increasingly encourage citizens to evaluate public service through the narrower prism of ethnic origin?

The answer will shape not only governance but also national cohesion.

Enugu’s history offers reason for optimism. From its origins as one of Nigeria’s foremost administrative, commercial and industrial centres.

The city has welcomed workers, traders and professionals from across the federation. Its growth has been inseparable from migration, enterprise and cultural diversity.

That cosmopolitan heritage should not become a casualty of contemporary political disagreement. Healthy democracies challenge governments with evidence, not prejudice. Strong societies reward competence, not ancestry.

And confident nations understand that excellence knows no ethnic boundaries.

Those principles remain as relevant to Enugu as they are to Nigeria itself.