At the twilight of the government of President Muhammadu Buhari, Mr Festus Keyamo (SAN), then Minister of State for the Ministry of Labour and Employment, but now minister of Aviation, stirred up the hornets’ nest when he declared that the practice of appointing junior ministers constitutes an aberration to the constitution and urged succeeding governments to jettison it. With the advice unheeded in this current administration, AMEH OCHOJILA, in this report examines the propriety of the practice. 

Until the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari was left with hours to exit office, Nigerians didn’t know that those who occupied the offices of ministers of state were grumbling in silence and dissatisfied with their appointments, but remained in their duty posts.

Considering himself bold and courageous among them, Festus Keyamo, voiced out and told the then-president that the appointment of junior ministers was unconstitutional.

At the valedictory session presided over by President Buhari to mark the end of the Federal Executive Council (FEC), at the Council Chamber, Presidential Villa, Abuja Keyamo said: “What I am about to say is just my little contribution to our constitutional development as a relatively young democracy, and to aid future governments to optimise the performance of those they appoint as ministers.

“Mr. President, the concept or designation of “minister of state” is a constitutional aberration and is practically not working for many so appointed. Successive governments have come and gone and many who were appointed as ministers of state have not spoken out at a forum such as this because of the risk of sounding ungrateful to the presidents who appointed them.”

He went on to argue that Sections 147 and 148 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which deal with the appointments and responsibilities of ministers of the federation do not make provision for such appointments.

Section 147(1) says: “There shall be such offices of ministers of the government of the federation as may be established by the president. (2) Any appointment to the office of minister of the government of the federation shall, if the nomination of any person to such office is confirmed by the Senate, be made by the president.

“(3) Any appointment under Subsection (2) of this section by the president shall be in conformity with the provisions of Section 14(3) of this constitution:- provided that in giving effect to the provisions aforesaid the president shall appoint at least one minister from each State, who shall be an indigene of such state.

Section 148 (1) says: “The president may, in his discretion, assign to the vice-president or any minister of the government of the federation responsibility for any business of the government of the federation, including the administration of any department of government.”

Keyamo argued that the 7th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution provides for the Oath of Office to which each minister must subscribe. “There are no different oaths for “minister” and “ministers of state”. They all take the same Oath of Office,” he pointed out.

His words: “In addition to the above, the ministers-designate appear before the Senate and are grilled and cleared as ministers, not as ministers in some instances and ministers of state in some other instances. It is at the point of assignment of portfolios that successive presidents then reclassified some as “ministers of state.”

He argued that even though a president has the constitutional powers to assign portfolios to his appointees, such appointments must be in line with constitutional provisions.

According to him, some may want to justify this by saying that the president is given the discretion by the constitution to assign whatever responsibility(ies) that he likes to ministers, but such cannot be by a designation different from that prescribed by the constitution.

“Simply put, it is akin to the President assigning responsibilities to the office of the vice-president and re-designating that office as “deputy president” under our present constitution. That is clearly impossible. Why then should that of ministers be different?” he had queried.

Apart from the argument about the legality of this postulation, Keyamo’s suggestion appeals to some Nigerians, who believe that adopting such practice would help to reduce the cost of governance, especially since there have been calls on the Federal Government, by political analysts to cut down the cost of governance in line with Stephen Oronsaye’s White Paper recommendation on public sector reforms.

The Oronsaye committee submitted an 800-page report on April 16, 2012, recommending the abolition and merger of 102 government agencies and parastatals, while some were listed to be self-funding.

The report held that 263 statutory agencies should be reduced to 161, while 52 agencies should be merged. The report further recommended that 14 agencies should revert to departments in ministries.

In his memo, Keyamo argued that the “minister of state” portfolio is practically not working for many of those appointed for the post.

Noting the submissions of the committee and the view expressed by Keyamo, the legality, and relevance of having a minister of State in Nigeria is a highly debatable issue within the country’s legal framework.

The constitution provides the legal basis for the creation and structure of the executive arm of government, which includes ministries and their corresponding ministers.

While the constitution does not specifically mention ministers of state, it does allow the president the discretion to appoint any number of ministers to assist in the execution of his functions.

Furthermore, the minister of state designation is derived from conventions and practices that have become an integral part of the Nigerian political system.

Therefore, it can be argued that the existence and appointment of ministers of state are legally sound and fall within the purview of the president’s prerogative.

However, the question that readily comes to the minds of political watchers is: to what extent does the constitution explicitly mention the position of the minister of state and its legal status; what legal justifications can be provided to support the inclusion of ministers of state within the political system, and how has the appointment of such ministers contributed in efficiency and effectiveness of the executive arm of government?

Proponents argue that the legality of the minister of state is, by inference stipulated in the constitution.
According to them, the role of a minister of state is recognised and permitted by law as they assist the main minister in discharging his duties.

Analysts also contend that the minister of state acts as a subordinate to the minister, and supports him in various administrative and executive functions.
“The legality of this position is firmly established in Nigeria’s legal system, ensuring effective governance and efficient decision-making processes within the government,” some argued, insisting that ministers of state help in policy advisory, where the substantive minister may not have the needed expertise.

For others, the position of minister of state is a mere waste of resources because it was expected that the government would trim Ministries, Agencies, and Parastatals (MDAs) in sync with current economic realities.

They further argue that the position of ministers of state is nothing more than a drain on Nigeria’s already scarce resources, and a means of political patronage.
They, therefore, contend that the government should reduce the number of MDAs and consequently move away from unnecessary spending and being wasteful.

They, however, added that while this perspective may seem compelling, it is important to consider the potential implications and consequences of such a decision on governance and effective leadership.

To some, appointing ministers of state instead of ministers may affect the country’s delicate composition, which may also affect the overall functioning and efficiency of governance.

But Abuja-based lawyer, Emmanuel Oche, begged to differ with Keyamo and other antagonists of the idea, insisting that the appointment of ministers of state is legal and constitutionally right.
He said Section 147 subsection (1) (3) of the 1999 Constitution, gave the president the power to appoint ministers and any other additional office as may be deemed fit by the president.

He said the number of offices, or ministers to be appointed by the section are at the convenience of the president, who is expected to appoint one minister from each state at least. Oche held that the president’s power is derivable from the above-mentioned section of the constitution.

Agreeing with this position is another legal practitioner, Christian Oti, who maintained that as far as the constitutional powers of the president are concerned, it is legal for him to appoint as many ministers as he wants for the running of the government as possible.

“In that respect, he can designate any of them as minister of state. There is therefore nothing illegal in it,” he stressed. He, however, stated that the question might hinge on morality, and the need to be frugal in the use of public resources, adding that it makes no sense to have two categories of ministers doing almost the same thing, or doing nothing at all.

Also, Monday Ikpe, a lawyer, who shares similar views with others, said that the president is legally empowered to appoint as many ministers as he wants for the running of the government, from where he could designate any of them as minister or minister of state.

He argued that there is, therefore, nothing illegal about appointing ministers of state both in the context of administration and law, stating that the minister of state sometimes helps the senior minister in administrative duties.

For another lawyer, Mike Ochogwu, the constitution does not limit the president when it comes to making appointments of either a minister of state, or a senior minister. He noted that the president could even appoint three ministers from a state if he so desired, for the smooth running of his administration.

On Keyamo’s earlier stands, the lawyer stated that he (Keyamo) should be more loyal to the constitution than the government, adding that if the appointment of a junior minister is unconstitutional as he earlier posited, he ought to have challenged it now that the president has made similar appointments instead of staying unconcerned as a senior minister in the current government.