A leadership dispute has emerged at the Border Communities Development Agency (BCDA) following allegations that President Bola Tinubu’s appointee, Dr. Abdulrazak Namdas, has yet to receive his formal appointment letter more than three weeks after his appointment was announced.
The BCDA appointment controversy has left the agency in an uncertain position, with the immediate past chief executive, Dr. Dakorinama George, reportedly continuing to oversee official activities despite the Presidency’s announcement that Namdas would replace him.
On June 26, the Presidency announced Namdas’ appointment as Director-General of the BCDA through a statement issued by the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga. The statement explained that Namdas was appointed to succeed George, who had resigned to pursue an elective position in Rivers State. It also stated that the appointment took immediate effect.
However, sources familiar with developments at the agency said Namdas has been unable to assume office because the formal appointment letter has not been released. Meanwhile, George has reportedly continued to preside over official engagements and represent the agency at high-level government meetings.
One of George’s recent public engagements reportedly took place on July 9 when he met with the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, in Abuja to discuss the release of funds for BCDA projects.
According to reports, George also informed the minister about plans involving a proposed $2 billion Chinese investment in a livestock processing hub in Jigawa State and efforts to establish a Border Communities Intelligence Corps in collaboration with security agencies. The developments have raised questions over who currently exercises lawful authority at the agency.
APC chieftain Hamman Yero alleged that the delay resulted from the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) failing to issue Namdas’ appointment letter.
He argued that once a presidential appointment has been approved, the process of communicating and implementing the decision should proceed without unnecessary delays. Yero also questioned whether the Chief of Staff to the President was aware that the appointment had yet to be formalised, maintaining that such situations raise constitutional and administrative concerns.
Reacting to the controversy, presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga insisted that President Tinubu had not reversed the appointment. He maintained that Namdas remains the duly appointed head of the BCDA, adding that responsibility for issuing the formal appointment letter rests with the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation.
Onanuga, however, declined to explain why the letter had not yet been issued. When contacted, officials in the SGF’s office said they would only respond after receiving a formal written inquiry, while George declined to comment on the matter.
Legal and governance experts said the BCDA appointment controversy highlights the importance of clear procedures for implementing presidential appointments. Constitutional lawyer Suraj Bamidele noted that while the President has the authority to appoint and remove heads of federal agencies, delays in implementing such decisions can create uncertainty over the legality of actions taken during the transition.
Public affairs analysts Sunday Awosika and Abdulrasaq Rasheed also described the situation as evidence of coordination challenges within government, warning that unresolved leadership disputes could undermine public confidence in public institutions.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) said the dispute reflects broader concerns over executive coordination and questioned whether presidential directives were being effectively implemented. In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party argued that recurring controversies surrounding federal appointments suggest growing confusion within the Presidency.
The opposition party called on the National Assembly to exercise its oversight responsibilities and determine whether constitutional procedures governing presidential appointments are being properly followed. According to the ADC, the latest dispute goes beyond a single appointment and raises wider questions about executive authority and administrative coordination within the Federal Government.
