In the last few months, I have read and listened to several comments of some commentators, particularly high-ranking government officials, on the issue of political appointments into federal government offices, accusing the President of nepotism.
Interestingly, this same accusation went for the immediate past President of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari. While the immediate past President is from the Northern part of the country, the current President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is from the southern part of the country.
The allegation simply was that while the former president populated the offices with Nigerians of northern extraction, the current president is recruiting largely from the southern part. The validity or otherwise of this allegation is not the crux of my intervention, and as such, I will not dissipate energy on trying to justify it or otherwise.
The essence of this intervention is to actually appraise the inherent advantages in the appointment of competent hands into public offices regardless of extraction while balancing the equities. The thesis, as I have been presenting in the past, (and while not justifying or supporting corruption in any way), is that it is better to have corrupt but competent people in public offices than corruption-free incompetent hands. By this, I will be ready and willing to have my competent team from a pool than diverse people that are incompetent.
The latter, I believe, has been the source of misery for the country.
Now the question is what is meritocracy for this purpose? This is simply the art of recruiting competent hands into positions via merit. Meritocracy, the principle of allocating positions and opportunities based on individual merit, competence, and performance, has long been regarded as a hallmark of just and progressive societies. It advocates that individuals should advance based on their abilities and efforts, rather than on arbitrary criteria such as ethnicity, religion, or social status.
Conversely, the quota system is a form of affirmative action that reserves opportunities for underrepresented or disadvantaged groups to foster inclusivity and correct historical imbalances. While both systems have their philosophical underpinnings and practical justifications, their coexistence in Nigeria has birthed a contentious debate about equity, justice, and national development.
As I remarked above, the essence of this conversation is to explore the tensions between meritocracy and the quota system in Nigeria, interrogating their implications for governance, education, national integration, and productivity.
Meritocracy hinges on the belief that competence, talent, and hard work should determine access to jobs, promotions, admissions, and other societal opportunities. It is widely believed to enhance productivity, innovation, and institutional integrity. In societies where meritocracy thrives, the best minds occupy the most critical positions, leading to optimal outcomes.
The quota system, on the other hand, is designed to address historical injustices, social imbalances, and systemic marginalisation.
It involves reserving a certain proportion of opportunities for specified groups—usually defined by geography, ethnicity, or gender.
In the Nigerian context, the quota system is mainly implemented to ensure the representation of different states and regions, particularly the less-developed northern region, in public service, education, and military recruitment. It has its legal basis in constitutional provisions and is seen by its proponents as essential to achieving federal character, national integration, and equity.
In order to properly situate the principle of quota system, it is important to take an excursion into its evolution in Nigeria.
To this end, the quota system in Nigeria emerged as a response to the glaring regional disparities in development and education that colonial rule bequeathed. At independence in 1960, the Southern regions, especially the South-West and South-East, were significantly more developed than the North in terms of infrastructure, literacy, and educational attainment.
This was as a result of different values and cultural systems obtainable during that era, for example, the North was not gifted to western education and would only settle for Islamic education. In fact, at a point, only heirs of royalty were allowed to be educated in the western manner.
The imbalance was so acute that leaders of the First Republic, particularly those from the North, expressed concerns about domination by the more educated South. To foster unity and allay fears of marginalisation, successive governments introduced policies that guaranteed regional and ethnic representation in federal institutions.
The 1979 Constitution, and later the 1999 Constitution (as amended), institutionalised the Federal Character Principle, a doctrine that aims to promote national unity by ensuring that appointments to public service institutions reflect the diversity of Nigeria’s various ethnic and regional groups.
This principle gave rise to formal mechanisms such as the Federal Character Commission (FCC), and policies like the quota system in educational admissions and employment. The application of the quota system has, over the years, led to tensions between merit and representation.
One of the most visible areas of this conflict is in educational admissions. For instance, the cut-off marks for admission into federal unity schools and tertiary institutions are often skewed in favour of candidates from educationally less-developed states (ELDS).
This means that a candidate from a southern state may need to score 250 to gain admission into a federal university, while a counterpart from a Northern ELDS may be admitted with a score as low as 120 or even less.
This disparity, while intended to level the playing field, is seen by many as a disincentive to excellence and a breeding ground for mediocrity. It undermines the morale of high-performing students and fuels resentment among groups that feel penalised for their relative advancement.
Moreover, when extended into civil service appointments and promotions, the quota system is resulting in the placement of underqualified personnel in sensitive positions, thereby compromising efficiency and governance outcomes. Supporters of the quota system argue that it is a necessary tool for social justice. Given Nigeria’s history of uneven development and ethnic inequality, affirmative action is seen as a moral imperative to bring all parts of the country to the same starting line.
It is believed that ignoring these disparities would perpetuate inequality, fuel marginalisation, and threaten national unity. The quota system, in this view, is not antithetical to meritocracy but a temporary measure to ensure that merit can eventually emerge from all regions.
Indeed, in a society where access to quality education and training is unequal, insisting solely on merit could reinforce existing privileges. A child born in a rural community without electricity, good teachers, or internet access cannot realistically compete on equal footing with a child from a metropolitan elite school.
Hence, for meritocracy to be meaningful, there must be deliberate efforts to create a level playing field—which the quota system attempts to do. In as much as I believe in the balancing mechanism, the reality however is that there must be a terminal date. It cannot be said that as at date, people of northern extraction are not educated enough to fill probably all vacancies in the country.
Same goes for infrastructural development with the conviction by some Nigerians that the northern region has been more of the beneficiary of greater infrastructural development.
Quota system ought to be a transitional tool and not a permanent device. By now, the country must be thinking of jettisoning this anachronistic and retrogressive doctrine in favour of merit and competence.
I am personally convinced that all equities are now equal, but assuming without conceding that I am wrong, when would the equities be balanced so as to eliminate this quota system and what is the barometer for determination?
These are the issues we must, as a people, start agitating now. To my mind, the continuous adoption of quota system is perpetrating evil. As opined above, despite its noble intentions, the quota system has had far-reaching implications for national development.
The over-politicisation and institutionalisation of quota policies have hindered the emergence of a performance-based culture in the civil service, educational institutions, and even in the private sector where such influences seep through. The long-term consequence as we have been experiencing is a governance structure that lacks the requisite capacity to tackle complex developmental challenges.
From failed infrastructure to poor healthcare delivery and underwhelming policy implementation, the fingerprints of suboptimal human capital are evident. By prioritizing representation over competence, institutions continue to risk being led by individuals who lack the skills, knowledge or drive to deliver effectively.
Furthermore, there remains the perception that certain groups are being favoured at the expense of others which is breeding suspicion and undermining national cohesion.
Meritocracy, as it continues to be relegated, is undermining and eroding the confidence of citizens in the government and weakening the sense of shared destiny that is critical to nation-building.
The key challenge before the country, therefore, where it is believed that the balancing is still required, is how to balance the competing demands of equity and excellence. While neither absolute meritocracy nor rigid quota system can serve the nation’s interests in isolation, alignment of the intents of both is essential.
It is in this regard that there is now a seeming consensus among policy thinkers in the circumstances that a hybrid approach might be the antidote as this gradually reduces dependence on quotas while investing massively in human capital development across the country.
This implies that the application of quota system must therefore be strictly within the pool of competent hands that I believe is now available across the country.
To further enhance the equality, there is an urgent need to uplift the standard of education in disadvantaged regions, particularly in terms of the safe school programs.
This can be achieved through targeted investments in schools, teacher training, scholarships, and infrastructure.
Most of these, I am aware, are ongoing and will gradually improve the situation. Once the educational equality, as believed, narrows the unavailability of competent hands, the justification for the quota system, as canvassed above, will naturally diminish.
As I said, I have no data to buttress my assertion of accomplishment yet. As we attain educational equality, we must continuously appraise the quota system periodically to prevent its abuse and ensure that it serves its intended purpose. The implementation must be transparent as there are continuous allegations of abuses and should not be allowed to replace merit where it is evident.
For instance, while initial appointments may reflect federal character, promotions and leadership roles should be based purely on performance.
This is the only way to help the country. A point that must be further underscored is that merit must be redefined to include both cognitive and non-cognitive abilities.
Soft skills such as integrity, discipline, and emotional intelligence are just as important in leadership and public service as academic scores. This broader conception of merit can help accommodate diversity without compromising standards. In attaining this height, however, political will is crucial.
Leaders must be bold enough to confront the entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo and implement reforms that put Nigeria’s long-term development above ethnic patronage.
The debate between meritocracy and the quota system in Nigeria encapsulates the broader struggle between inclusivity and efficiency in a multi-ethnic society. While the quota system emerged as a corrective mechanism for historical injustices, its continued application without reform risks entrenching mediocrity and stalling progress.
Consequently, Nigerians must start thinking merit without subjugating inclusivity. The negative impact of quota system vis-a-vis merit is best seen in the composition of our national football team.
This continues to hamper the countries performance always, quite apart from the fact that it fails to promote nationalism and patriotism. The way forward, therefore, lies in a pragmatic balance—upholding merit as the ultimate goal while using affirmative action as a transitional tool.
With deliberate investments in education, political courage, and a shared vision of nationhood, Nigeria can evolve into a society where every citizen, regardless of origin, has the opportunity to rise, based on merit—and where such merit can emerge from every corner of the nation.
