It is hypocritical and duplicitous to support the quota system, which sacrifices competence and quality, in employment and admissions, but call for the abolition of zoning/rotation in politics because, according to you, it sacrifices competence.
This is my issue with many Northerners, not just el-Rufai. They rail against zoning, a quota system in politics, but praise and/or will not utter a word against zoning/quota in employment and admissions in federal institutions.
Their concern about competence is either fake or conveniently situational.
If you want to do political zoning/rotation, constitutionalize it and expand it to include ALL elective positions (governorship, house of reps, senate, house of assembly, local government chairmanship etc). And then be consistent and keep your federal character laws and institutions.
Or simply abolish political zoning/rotation along with federal character quota/zoning laws and institutions that enforce it in recruitment and admissions.
You are either for national inclusion at the expense of competence in all situations or for competence at the expense of national inclusion in all situations. You can’t pick and choose where to demonstrate your commitment to either of these principles.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t oppose zoning where you feel you have an advantage and support it where you feel you’re at at a disadvantage. That’s political arrogance and Machiavellian trickery.