Dispute Erupts in NASC Over Clerk, Secretary Appointments

Tensions are rising within the National Assembly Service Commission (NASC) following allegations that recent appointments were handled without transparency, prompting concerns about favoritism  and regional imbalance.

The controversy follows a letter jointly signed by two commissioners representing the South West Zone, Hon. Afeez Ipesa Balogun and Hon. Olukemi Oluga. In the letter, the commissioners questioned the process used in appointing Clerks and Secretaries of the National Assembly, calling for a clear, merit based review.

They expressed dissatisfaction over what they described as the continued marginalisation of the South West in key appointments, stressing that NASC, as a national institution, must reflect fairness, openness, and equitable representation across all geopolitical zones.

According to the commissioners, credibility in the commission can only be sustained if appointments are guided by clearly defined criteria, seniority, competence, and established principles of zonal balance. They urged the commission to publish a summary detailing the qualifications considered, the shortlisting process, and how final decisions were reached.

Sources familiar with internal workings of the commission say the disagreement has exposed deeper divisions among commissioners. Allegations have emerged that the commission’s leadership, particularly the chairman and the chairman of the establishment committee, is accused of taking unilateral decisions without adequate consultation.

There are also claims that some key committee appointments were made without regard to relevant experience in civil service administration, raising further questions about internal governance and decision making standards.

Observers warn that if these concerns are not addressed, they could weaken confidence in the commission and entrench perceptions of favouritism. The situation, they say, underscores the need for urgent corrective steps to protect the integrity of NASC.

The commissioners’ demand for transparency is seen as a broader call for institutional accountability. Stakeholders argue that a prompt and open review of the appointment process is necessary to restore trust and ensure that future appointments are driven by merit, professionalism, and balanced representation.