Opinion
Psychiatric Test For Public Office Holders
Psychiatry is the part of medicine that studies and treats mental illness. Psychiatric test’ for public office holders means the examination of the heads of public office holders to ensure that they are sound mentally before entrusting public offices to them. Meanwhile, pointing a way out of corruption by public office holders, the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mrs Farida Waziri, called for psychiatric test for aspiring public office holders. She says this is the way out of corruption in public offices. Mrs Waziri emphasised that some aspiring leaders were mentally and psychologically unsuitable for public office because of the way they amassed public wealth. The chairman said this while delivering a keynote address at a workshop in Kaduna recently on transparency and accountability in public service. She pointed out that the extent of aggrandisement and gluttonous accumulation of wealth that she had observed among public office holders suggested to her that some of them were mentally and psychologically ill and therefore not suitable for public office. According to her, we have observed public office holders amassing public wealth to a point suggesting madness or some form of obsessive-compulsive psychiatric disorder.
Indeed, the chairman is not far -from the truth. Many aspiring public office holders in Nigeria have only one objective in mind and that is to amass wealth as much as they can while in public office. In fact, one of the endemic and pandemic ills of this country is political corruption. This socio-political disease dates back to early post-independence period when politically active people were accused of one financial malfeasance or the other. The conduct of some of them fell far short of the expectation of honest and responsible people. Corruption among public office holders has been one of the common reasons given by coup leaders for taking over government. Usually it takes the form of diverting public funds into private pockets or the enrichment of public office holders through illicit deals in the award of contract.
In the Second Republic (1979-83) corruption went to such a level as to warrant a commentator to point out that a situation in which a few top political or military leaders lived in great affluence while the bulk of the population lived in abject poverty must be regarded as intolerable. It will be recalled that billions of naira was squandered in Abuja the new capital territory. The amount squandered in Abuja in this period was as a result of inflation of award of contract, systematic upward recosting of projects and award of scholarships to ghost students. For instance, the National Assembly Complex in Abuja was costed at 267 million naira on April 28, 1981. The same project was quoted in February 1982, ten months later at 472 million naira. That is a difference of 205 million naira. In 1983 alone, the Federal Government of Nigeria was losing about fifty million naira monthly as salaries to ghost workers. This on annual basis adds up to several millions. And this corrupt behaviour could still be seen in several of our public institutions in Nigeria. Public funds are usually stashed away in foreign banks at the expense of the nation.
In the current democratic dispensation cases of corruption abound. Not long ago, the Rivers State Governor, Mr Rotimi Amaechi described some politicians in Nigeria as murderers because of their penchant for corruption. He made the observation during a retreat on due process for chairmen and deputy chairmen of House Committees which took place at Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja. He said, some modern day politicians were men and women without conscience because of the manner they had been converting public funds into private use through contracts without following due process. The governor pointed out that some politicians in Nigeria aspired to get into various public offices not because they had the interest to serve but because they wanted to gain immediate access to wealth at the expense of the helpless people of the country. The Governor is right. As already pointed out, the objective of many people aspiring to be in public office is to amass wealth as much as they can. This behaviour should be condemned. Public office is not for gangsters. It is for decent, well-meaning people who have the interest of the people at heart and to serve them sincerely and honestly without diverting the common good into private pockets or other mysterious uses.
Meanwhile, three members of the House of Representatives who allegedly diverted six billion naira of public funds into their private pockets surrendered to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The money was diverted from the coffers of the Rural Electrification Agency. Those involved are the chairman, House Committee on Power, Ndudi Godwin Elumelu, his deputy, Muhammed Jibo and chairman, House Committee on Rural Development, Paulinus Igwe. Also accused were the chairman, Senate Committee on Power, Nicholas Yahaya Ugbane and a permanent secretary Aliyu Abdullah. Following this, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission charged them with 156 – count fraud. The fraud was said to have been committed between November and December 2008. They were alleged to have awarded a fake contract involving the said amount.
All these are disturbing. Public office holders should realise that they are not appointed or elected into political offices to steal public funds. Public funds are meant for the development and betterment of the society in general so that Nigeria can move forward. At this stage, we should give thought to the suggestion of the EFCC chairman, Mrs Farida Waziri on psychiatric test for aspiring public office holders.
Man Tolofari is Fellow, Institute of Corporate Administration Nigeria, Abuja.
Dr Mann Tolofari
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo