A fresh controversy has erupted over the cost and integrity of political appointments in Nigeria following comments attributed to Alwan Hassan, a spokesperson for the All Progressives Congress (APC) Presidential Campaign Council.
During an interview on Arise News, Hassan alleged that some ministers pay “billions and billions” to secure appointments and, after getting into office, focus on recovering the money they allegedly spent to obtain their positions.
The statement has generated intense reactions, particularly because it touches on one of Nigeria’s most persistent concerns: whether public appointments are made primarily on the basis of competence and public interest or whether political and financial considerations sometimes influence who gets appointed.
Hassan, while defending President Bola Tinubu’s hands-on approach to government expenditure, argued that some ministers have historically been among the officials most vulnerable to corruption. He further maintained that the alleged practice was not peculiar to the APC government and had existed under previous administrations.
However, the remarks have raised a much bigger question among Nigerians: if individuals allegedly spend billions to obtain public office, what happens when they eventually assume responsibility for managing public resources?
That question forms the basis of much of the public anger.
One reaction circulating online argues that anyone who allegedly “buys” a government appointment may regard the position as an investment rather than a responsibility. The concern is that such an individual could become more interested in recovering the money allegedly spent to obtain the appointment—potentially with additional benefits—than in delivering quality services to ordinary Nigerians.
Another commentator questioned the logic behind a system in which ministers would allegedly have to pay huge sums to obtain appointments in the first place.
The argument is straightforward: how can someone who allegedly bought a public appointment genuinely be expected to serve the public interest?
If such a practice exists, critics argue, it creates a dangerous incentive structure in government. Public office could become something to be acquired financially and subsequently exploited for personal gain.
The controversy has also reopened debate about the relationship between the President, ministers and the federal budget.
Hassan questioned why ministers should be given control over budgetary allocations when, in his view, President Tinubu has personally overseen significant areas of government expenditure. He praised the President for being “hands-on” with government revenue and spending.
Critics, however, say that argument raises another uncomfortable question: if the President must personally supervise virtually everything because ministers cannot be trusted, why appoint ministers in the first place?
The constitutional structure of Nigeria's federal government is designed around different offices and responsibilities. Ministers are appointed to head ministries and assist the President in administering government. Therefore, any suggestion that ministers cannot be trusted with their responsibilities because they may be trying to recover alleged financial investments in their appointments inevitably raises questions about institutional accountability.
The comments have also triggered calls for investigation.
One of the strongest reactions asks why the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) should not investigate the allegation if there is credible evidence that billions of naira are being exchanged for ministerial appointments.
Another reaction expressed disbelief that such an allegation could be made publicly without immediately producing names, evidence and explanations.
Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar has also challenged President Tinubu to identify the ministers allegedly involved and disclose who received the money. He argued that Nigerians deserve answers concerning the identities of those allegedly involved.
For many Nigerians, the issue is therefore bigger than Alwan Hassan himself. It is about whether public office has become an investment opportunity for the politically connected.
The anger is understandable in a country where citizens continue to struggle with rising living costs, unemployment, insecurity and difficulty meeting basic household needs. To many people, the idea that billions could allegedly be spent securing political appointments while ordinary citizens struggle to afford three square meals is deeply troubling.
There is also a growing frustration that political controversies often generate outrage for a few days before disappearing from public attention.
As one reaction put it, politicians may feel increasingly emboldened because they understand that Nigerians can become distracted quickly: outrage today, silence tomorrow and business as usual shortly afterwards.
That sentiment reflects a broader fear that accountability will remain weak unless citizens, the media, civil society and relevant institutions continue demanding answers.
It is important to stress, however, that Hassan’s statement remains an allegation, not proof that every minister—or any particular minister—paid money for an appointment. Reports of the interview indicate that he did not name the ministers involved or provide evidence identifying alleged payments. He also said his comments were about a longstanding practice and were not specifically directed at ministers serving under the current APC administration.
Nevertheless, the allegation is serious enough to warrant public clarification.
If billions were actually paid for government appointments, Nigerians deserve to know who paid, who received the money, how the transactions occurred, who authorised them and whether any institution intends to investigate the claims.
Ultimately, the central issue is simple: public office should be a responsibility, not an investment to be recovered.
And if the allegation is false, those who made it should explain themselves.
But if it is true, then the matter goes far beyond political campaign rhetoric. It becomes a serious question about the integrity of Nigeria’s system of governance—and one that Nigerians should not simply forget after the latest controversy fades from the headlines.
0 Comments