In a development that has ignited significant debate within Nigeria’s political landscape, Nentawe Yilwatda continues to hold two prominent positions simultaneously, serving as both the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction. This unprecedented situation has raised questions about conflicts of interest, constitutional violations, and the potential implications for the ruling party’s credibility and governance in Nigeria. The controversy surrounding Yilwatda’s dual roles has drawn attention from political analysts, legal experts, and party stakeholders, with many warning that the situation could have far-reaching consequences for both the APC and the country’s democratic institutions.
Background of Yilwatda’s Appointment
Nentawe Yilwatda, a seasoned administrator and former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), was appointed as the National Chairman of the APC on July 24, 2025. His appointment came following the resignation of his predecessor, Abdullahi Ganduje, who stepped down citing health concerns. Ganduje’s exit marked the end of a turbulent tenure, and Yilwatda was seen as a stabilizing figure capable of steering the party through its internal challenges and preparing it for future electoral contests.
Yilwatda’s ascension to the APC chairmanship was initially met with optimism, given his experience in electoral administration and his reputation as a technocrat with a deep understanding of Nigeria’s political dynamics. However, his continued retention of the ministerial portfolio in the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction has sparked widespread concern. Unlike the standard practice in Nigerian politics, where ministers assuming partisan leadership roles typically resign from their cabinet positions to avoid conflicts of interest, Yilwatda has shown no indication of stepping down from his ministerial role.
The Dual Role Controversy
The decision by Yilwatda to hold both positions has raised eyebrows, as it appears to contravene established norms and potentially violates constitutional provisions. According to party insiders, there has been significant lobbying by key stakeholders within the APC for Yilwatda to relinquish his ministerial position. These stakeholders argue that combining the roles of a cabinet minister and the national chairman of a political party creates a conflict of interest that could undermine the integrity of both the government and the party.
Despite this pressure, Yilwatda has remained resolute in maintaining both positions. Sources within the APC suggest that he views his dual roles as complementary, allowing him to leverage his ministerial influence to advance the party’s agenda while continuing to oversee critical humanitarian and poverty alleviation programs. However, this stance has not been without criticism. Political observers and legal experts have warned that Yilwatda’s refusal to resign from the ministry could expose the APC to legal challenges and erode public trust in the party’s commitment to good governance.
Constitutional and Legal Implications
The controversy surrounding Yilwatda’s dual roles has brought to the forefront questions about the compatibility of his positions with Nigeria’s legal and constitutional framework. Sections 147 and 192 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) explicitly state that ministers are appointed to serve the federation and must prioritize national interests over partisan affiliations. By holding the position of APC National Chairman, Yilwatda is seen by many as occupying a role that inherently prioritizes the interests of the ruling party, which could conflict with his responsibilities as a minister.
Furthermore, Section 1 of the APC’s constitution prohibits officeholders from occupying overlapping executive roles that could lead to conflicts of interest. Legal experts argue that Yilwatda’s dual roles violate this principle, as his position as APC chairman requires him to advance the party’s political objectives, which may not always align with the broader interests of the Nigerian state. This situation has led to concerns that Yilwatda’s actions could set a dangerous precedent, weakening the separation between party administration and public office.
A political scientist at the University of Abuja, quoted by Daily Independent, described the situation as a “dangerous game” for the APC. The academic warned that leaving the issue unresolved could expose the party to legal battles, particularly in cases where electoral outcomes are challenged in court. Given Yilwatda’s background as a former REC with INEC, his dual roles could also raise questions about the impartiality of electoral processes, especially if the APC faces litigation over election results.
Historical Precedent: The Mai Mala Buni Case
The current controversy is not without precedent. In 2020, Governor Mai Mala Buni of Yobe State sparked a similar debate when he served as the APC Caretaker Committee Chairman while retaining his position as governor. Buni’s dual roles were widely criticized, with opponents arguing that they violated constitutional provisions and undermined the credibility of the APC’s leadership. The Supreme Court later ruled in a related case that Buni’s position as caretaker chairman while serving as governor was legally questionable, although the ruling did not directly invalidate the actions taken by the caretaker committee.
The Buni case serves as a cautionary tale for the APC, as it highlights the potential legal and political risks of allowing a single individual to hold multiple high-profile positions. Critics of Yilwatda’s dual roles argue that the APC has failed to learn from this experience and risks repeating the same mistakes. The fact that neither the presidency nor the APC leadership has addressed Yilwatda’s ministerial status has further fueled speculation that the party is either unwilling or unable to resolve the issue.
Silence from the Presidency and APC Leadership
One of the most striking aspects of the controversy is the apparent silence from both the presidency and the APC leadership regarding Yilwatda’s status. Official records continue to list him as the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction, even as he actively presides over the APC as its national chairman. President Bola Tinubu, who has the authority to appoint and remove ministers, has not named a successor for the Humanitarian Affairs Ministry since Yilwatda’s appointment as APC chairman.
This lack of action has led to speculation about the president’s stance on the matter. Some analysts suggest that Tinubu may be tacitly endorsing Yilwatda’s dual roles, possibly as a strategic move to consolidate power within the APC ahead of future elections. Others argue that the president’s silence reflects a reluctance to wade into a potentially divisive issue within the party, especially given the ongoing lobbying by stakeholders for a replacement minister.
The APC leadership, for its part, has also refrained from making public statements about the controversy. This silence has been interpreted by some as an indication of internal divisions within the party, with different factions holding competing views on how to address the situation. The lack of clarity has only deepened the uncertainty surrounding Yilwatda’s dual roles and their implications for the party’s future.
Implications for Governance and Public Trust
The controversy surrounding Yilwatda’s dual roles has broader implications for governance and public trust in Nigeria. The Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Reduction is a critical portfolio responsible for overseeing programs aimed at addressing poverty, providing disaster relief, and supporting vulnerable populations. The minister’s role requires impartiality and a focus on national interests, which could be compromised if the officeholder is simultaneously tasked with advancing the political agenda of the ruling party.
Public perception of Yilwatda’s dual roles is likely to be shaped by Nigeria’s history of political controversies and allegations of misuse of power. Critics argue that allowing a minister to serve as the national chairman of a political party sends a message that partisan interests take precedence over the public good. This perception could further erode trust in the APC and the Tinubu administration, particularly at a time when the government is grappling with economic challenges and public discontent.
Moreover, the controversy could have electoral implications for the APC. With the 2027 general elections on the horizon, the party’s handling of the situation could influence its ability to mobilize support and maintain its dominance in Nigerian politics. Legal challenges arising from Yilwatda’s dual roles could also weaken the APC’s position in court, particularly in cases involving electoral disputes.
Calls for Resolution and Reform
As the controversy continues to unfold, there have been growing calls for Yilwatda to resign from his ministerial position to focus on his role as APC chairman. Political analysts argue that this would not only align with constitutional requirements but also demonstrate the party’s commitment to ethical governance. Others have called for President Tinubu to take decisive action by appointing a new minister to replace Yilwatda, thereby resolving the conflict of interest.
Beyond the immediate issue of Yilwatda’s dual roles, the controversy has sparked broader discussions about the need for reforms to prevent similar situations in the future. Some analysts have proposed amendments to the APC’s constitution to explicitly prohibit party leaders from holding public office, while others have called for stricter enforcement of existing constitutional provisions governing the conduct of ministers.
The Path Forward
The ongoing debate over Nentawe Yilwatda’s dual roles underscores the complex interplay between politics, governance, and the law in Nigeria. As the APC navigates this controversy, its leadership will need to balance the competing demands of party unity, legal compliance, and public perception. For Yilwatda, the decision to continue holding both positions will likely define his legacy as both a party leader and a public servant.
The silence from the presidency and the APC leadership suggests that the issue may remain unresolved in the short term, potentially prolonging the controversy and its attendant risks. However, the growing scrutiny from legal experts, political analysts, and the public may force the party and the government to address the situation sooner rather than later.
In the meantime, Yilwatda’s dual roles will continue to serve as a lightning rod for criticism, raising fundamental questions about the separation of powers, the role of political parties in governance, and the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. How the APC and the Tinubu administration respond to this challenge will have significant implications for the party’s future and the broader political landscape in Nigeria.
