Lagos — The appointment of Mr. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has, yet again, raised questions on the sensitive nature of public appointments in Nigeria. Sanusi, a Fulani from Kano, was picked by President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua to replace Prof. Chukwuma Soludo, an Igbo from Anambra State. Many had expected Soludo to be given another term, having been celebrated locally and internationally in the last five years. When THISDAY reported the choice of Sanusi as Soludo's successor, I got phone calls and text messages from people who wondered why Yar'Adua was "hell-bent on Northernising federal appointments".

Quite a number of people, mostly Southerners and Middle Belters, kicked. They made their point quite passionately. Let's be clear about something: religion and ethnicity instigate the highest form of emotion in us. We tend to automatically queue up behind our own: Muslims behind Muslims, Christians behind Christians, Northerners behind Northerners, Southerners behind Southerners. If a Muslim breaks out of the mould, he gets accused of "playing to the gallery". But to the Christian, that Muslim is just being "objective". If a Yoruba fails to toe the Yoruba line, he is a "bastard"; but to the Igbo, the man is "detribalised".

I have keenly observed the pattern of reactions to the appointment of Sanusi. The South says it is unjust to put people from the Katsina-Kano axis in charge of the nation's economy in "absolute disregard" of the principle of Federal Character. The North says it doesn't matter because Southerners held those position in the last Administration. The exit of Soludo was also seen, either rightly or wrongly, as a punishment for "marginalising" the North with the consolidation policy and the removal of Arabic signs from some naira denominations.

In a newspaper interview last Friday, the Northern Patriotic Front (NPF), headed by one Alhaji Ali Abacha, said pressure was mounted on Yar'Adua by "formidable Northern groups and power brokers" to drop Soludo because his policies, especially on the foreign exchange, "were not favourable to the North". Hear Abacha: "Soludo introduced some policies that were too harsh for the North. If you take the foreign exchange which has a large number of Northerners involved in the business, he introduced a lot of stringent conditions and most of our people in the trade are not educated."

By implication, Sanusi is now expected to formulate policies that would favour the North. This, I dare say, is nonsense. It is an insult on Sanusi. I have followed Sanusi's career for quite a while and I have no doubt whatsoever that he merits his appointment. However, when you listen to all these Abachas, you cannot but be nauseated. It is an insult on the rest of Nigeria to say because a policy did not favour a particular zone, then Soludo had to go. This sort of mentality is what has bred animosity between the North and the South over the years and you do not want to go into that backward trend again.

Putting the Sanusi issue aside, however, I intend to pursue just two lines of argument on Federal Character today. One, we need to ask ourselves this basic question: is Federal Character to be applied on the basis of state of origin, ethnicity or geo-political zone? If we can address this properly, we may be getting nearer a well-moderated debate on Nigeria's nationhood. Two, I want to suggest that ultimately, we do not really bother where people come from as long as they would get the job done. Politicking in the name of politics usually blurs our reasoning, but merit should be the keyword in the final analysis.

The Federal Character emerged as a principle for public appointments a few years after the civil war. It was conceived to "unite" Nigeria, to foster "integration", to give everybody a "sense of belonging" and to promote "national loyalty". The biggest critics of this principle have been Southerners who feel that, along with "quota system", it was designed to favour the North. It was indeed interesting when Senator Ikechukwu Obiorah (Anambra South) wrote to Yar'Adua, advising him on the need to adhere to the principle of Federal Character in the appointment of a new CBN governor, noting that already, two key ministers "in the finance sector" are from Kano State. This time, the South favoured Federal Character too.

But, without prejudice to Sanusi's appointment, on what basis should Federal Character be applied? Is it by state, sectoral, ethnic or geopolitical configuration? By the 1999 Constitution, the principle is to be applied to only the 36 states at federal level. At the state level, senatorial districts and local governments are to be used as units. In other words, the constitution does not recognise Hausa, Igbo, etc, as units of the federation. The constitution does not recognise the six geopolitical zones. Hence, it says ministers must be picked from the 36 states, not from ethnic groups or geopolitical zones. However, the Federal Character Commission, the body constitutionally charged with enforcing the principle, came up with guidelines that recognise geopolitical zones but are silent on ethnic groups. Also, the constitution does not define Nigeria in sectors and sub-sectors - like finance, sports, education, etc.

Now, this is what I'm driving at: on what basis should we define the composition of the federation? Should Nigeria be a federation of states? Should it be a federation of geopolitical zones? Or should it be a federation of ethnic groups? These are questions we keep asking in different ways. In truth, we don't seem to know what we want. We still have things such as Northern Governors' Meeting, when in fact the North is not known to the constitution. We have South-south Governors Forum when the constitution does not recognise South-South. Practically, we are confused or just playing politics. That is why when Obiorah pointed out that key appointees were from Kano, a Northerner countered that under Obasanjo, Southerners occupied the positions. But look at it critically: one spoke of "Kano" (state), the other replied with "South" (region).

Let me stretch this a bit. Kwara and Kogi are classified as North, even though there is a significant Yoruba presence in both states. If, for instance, ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo had handed over to a Biodun Adeniyi from Kogi or a Lanre Issa-Onilu from Kwara, would it have been treated as return of power to the North? The argument would change, I think, because it would now be seen as Yoruba handing over to Yoruba. The fact that they are from the North-central would not matter. Also, if a position is given to an Igbo from the South-south, would the South-east count it as theirs? Mike Okiro, the Inspector-General of Police, is an Igboman from Rivers, but, in reality, the Igbo strongly believe they have never occupied the position of IGP. That is part of the puzzle of our federalism which must be resolved.

We are really unsure of the structure to apply in our debates. I think we like to judge every case by the political points we intend to score. In the South, for instance, I heard a lot of Yoruba complain that Obasanjo favoured Igbos in his "kitchen appointments" - namely Oby Ezekwesili, Soludo, Okonjo-Iweala, Andy Uba. This automatically nullifies the Northern argument which seeks to see Nigeria as just North and South. While the North may see itself as essentially an indivisible unit no matter the number of states it is broken into, the South does not see itself as one. The Yoruba/Igbo rivalry is permanently there, while the South-south, which is trying to lay claim to some solidarity, is a region of many countries, as it were. It is very intriguing.

We know the North is not one, in the real sense of it, as we saw when Obasanjo appointed his service chiefs from the Middle Belt (Kwara-Kogi-Benue axis) in 1999. The uproar up North was deafening. Wada Nas, reflecting the views of many people, said "the core North" (Hausa/Fulani) had been marginalised. This provoked a response from the Middle Belt which promptly revived its solidarity as a counterforce, reminding the North of its own delicate ethno-religious balance. It took the intervention of Northern elders to calm frayed nerves in the Middle Belt, but the damage had been done.

I, therefore, ask again: how should we relate politically in Nigeria? As states, ethnic groups or geopolitical zones? Something tells me that the way we answer this question will be critical to the political cohesion of the country. The rules of engagement and platform for interaction need to be properly constructed. The tendency to drift into state, ethnic, and regional solidarity based on the issues at hand, and not on established principles, is at the heart of constant bickering on appointments and location of federal projects.

Finally, I would like to say one thing very clearly: at the end of the day, Nigerians do not really care who is in charge as long as he or she can deliver the goods. If we enjoy 24-hour electricity, who cares if the Minister of Power is an Idoma? If all our roads are in good condition, who is going to ask if it is a Kaje woman or an Ora man that is the Minister of Works? If Nigeria beats Kenya 1-0, who cares if the goal was scored by an Ikwerre midfielder? I pick my mobile phone and make a call and it goes through smoothly. Do I care if the MD of the mobile company is from Iwo? It's mainly because Nigeria is not working that we pay so much attention to these details.

Yet, every part of Nigeria has a blame for our underdevelopment. We hardly put our best foot forward. We always allow selfish considerations to determine who we appoint or vote into public office. That is part of our problem. In the application of the Federal Character principle, we must never forget the place of merit. Nominate the best. The principle behind Federal Character is good - it is applied in one form or the other even in advanced countries such as US ("affirmative action") and UK ("ethnic equality"). Yar'Adua must strive to maintain Nigeria's delicate balance without being seen to be favouring one part above the other, and we must also insist on merit.

Of course, one day, we would come to realise that it is best to judge people by, to quote Martin Luther King Jnr, the "content of their character" - and not the design of tribal marks on their faces or the rhythm of their accents.

A Scholar and a Gentleman:

Waziri Adio. That's his name. I call him "Wazy". When he told me last year he was going for a Master's degree in Public Administration at the revered Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, United States, I asked him: why not a PhD? He joked: "You know I'm an old man now!" Wazy, who also holds a Master's in Journalism from the prestigious University of Columbia, US (1999), proudly graduated from Harvard last Thursday with two certificates - one an MPA and the other for his Edward S. Mason fellowship in Public Policy and Management. He often shared his lecture notes with me. They were awesome. In a sense, I also took classes with him! And just you know, he was in the same class with Mallam Nasir el-Rufai. But, no, Wazy did not write his term paper on President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua.

Wazy, who was my classmate at the University of Lagos, has always distinguished himself as an intellectual. He was by far the best student in our undergraduate class, missing First Class by a horrendous 0.05 point! When the Senate refused to upgrade him, he calmly told me: "That's okay. All my life, I would have had to live with the burden of having to prove I hold a First Class." But, really, who does not know he's a first-class brain? I'm very proud to be associated with Wazy, who has clearly had the biggest impact on my intellectual development in the last 20 years. Congrats, boy!