Reno Omokri’s recent rebuttal to Farooq Kperogi’s critique of ethnic favoritism in President Tinubu’s administration is as passionate as it is misdirected. While Omokri tries to mount a vigorous defense of the President, he ultimately sidesteps the core argument and instead builds a case on selective evidence and political deflection.
Kperogi's original piece raised alarm over what he sees as a pattern of ethnic consolidation under Tinubu, with a specific focus on the overrepresentation of Yoruba individuals—particularly those within Tinubu’s Lagos-based political circle—in key positions. He cited the census committee as just one among several examples to illustrate a broader trend. But rather than engage with this broader context, Omokri narrows in on that one example, accusing Kperogi of overreaction and ethnic incitement.
This is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.
Omokri attempts to balance the ethnic equation by listing Tinubu’s appointments across regions—security chiefs, ministers, agency heads. But a closer look reveals some misclassifications and tokenism. For instance, painting appointees from Kwara State as non-Yoruba “northerners” simply because of geography stretches credulity. More importantly, high-profile appointments do not always translate to real power. Kperogi’s point wasn’t just about who holds office, but who truly wields influence within the corridors of Aso Rock.
Omokri also leans heavily on comparisons with the Buhari era, arguing that Tinubu is more accommodating. But this is a weak defense. That Buhari was openly sectional does not justify a continuation of the same pattern. If anything, it underscores Kperogi’s warning: Tinubu isn’t correcting the imbalance—he’s building upon it.
Then comes the federal character debate. Omokri suggests that dominance by the Southwest and Northwest is justified due to their larger populations and educational attainment. But this logic defeats the very purpose of federal character, which exists to temper such natural imbalances and ensure national inclusion—not to entrench regional hegemony.
What’s most disappointing is Omokri’s descent into ad hominem attacks and distraction tactics. Accusing Kperogi of hyperbole and flip-flopping over Tinubu’s certificate saga doesn’t address the actual issue at hand. Kperogi’s argument is consistent: a critique of ethnic imbalance under Buhari, and now under Tinubu. Omokri, meanwhile, seems more interested in political scorekeeping.
In the end, Kperogi’s column challenges us to look beyond numerical representation and consider the symbolism, patterns, and concentration of influence. Omokri’s response, unfortunately, dances around those deeper issues.
If Nigeria must truly move beyond ethnic politics, we need more sober engagement with such critiques—not deflections dressed as data dumps.
Tags
Articles