By Cliff Stanley
The reported appointment of Zach Adedeji, Executive Chairman of Nigeria’s revenue authority, to a fundraising role in President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s re-election campaign raises a fundamental question of public ethics: where does the boundary between public office and partisan politics begin and end?
The concern is not merely political; it is institutional. A chief revenue official occupies a position that demands public trust, neutrality and strict separation between the machinery of government and the interests of a political campaign. When the same official is publicly associated with mobilising resources for the re-election of the government he serves, it creates an appearance of conflict of interest that can seriously undermine confidence in Nigeria’s fiscal institutions.
This is particularly troubling in an economy where citizens are being asked to endure higher taxes, increased revenue mobilisation and difficult economic reforms. Public revenue is not the property of a president, political party or government official. It belongs to the Nigerian people and must be administered solely for the public good.
From the standpoint of Christian public theology, Romans 13:6–7 reminds rulers that taxation carries a moral obligation of responsible stewardship. Revenue collection therefore cannot become an instrument for partisan patronage.
The deeper issue is institutional integrity. Nigeria does not need a revenue system that citizens perceive as serving political ambitions; it needs one that commands confidence across party lines.
President Tinubu’s administration must therefore provide clear transparency concerning the appointment, funding arrangements and safeguards separating public revenue administration from campaign financing.
Democracy is not strengthened when public institutions become extensions of political campaigns. It is strengthened when public office remains a trust, not a political asset.
Cliff Stanley
Political Scientist | Public Theologian
Cliffstanley3@gmail.com