The Nigerian Presidency has shed light on the reasoning behind President Bola Tinubu’s recent directive for ministers to hold periodic press briefings.
According to the Presidency, the move was prompted by the failure of some ministers to render accounts of their stewardship.
It can be recalled that the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, recently disclosed that President Tinubu had mandated all ministers to engage with the public regularly to promote transparency and accountability. This directive, Idris said, is set to take effect next week, with ministers expected to provide updates on government policies and activities.
Idris added that the briefings will serve as a platform for ministers to highlight key developments in their respective ministries, address public concerns, and combat misinformation.
However, the minister’s announcement led to speculation that the directive may be a precursor to a cabinet reshuffle ahead of Tinubu’s second anniversary in office.
In October, President Tinubu reshuffled his cabinet, sacking five ministers and reassigning 10 others to new portfolios. This came after an assessment of their performances.
Meanwhile, Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser on Information and Strategy to the President, dismissed speculation about an impending cabinet reshuffle. Onanuga stated that the directive simply reinforces the President’s long-standing demand for accountability.
“The President has always insisted that ministers should render accounts. People want to know what they have been doing, but not all of them have been doing so.
“By asking them now to come forward and speak, the Information minister is merely implementing what the President has consistently emphasised—that the public deserves to know what each minister is doing. This has nothing to do with a reassessment or a cabinet reshuffle.
“It is simply about ensuring that all ministers provide periodic updates on their activities,” Onanuga said.
This stance was also admitted by a source close to the President.
“I don’t believe it’s about assessment. This is nothing new. They have been doing it before, and this is just a reiteration. What I can tell you is that it cannot serve as a basis for assessment because the evaluation parameters are entirely different,” the source said.
