Opinion

Minimum Wage And The Revenue Debate (I1)

Published

15 years ago

June 29, 2011

The N18,000.00 minimum wage and revenue debate has assumed many colours and shapes following the delay in implementing the national wage law which has become binding on the public sector and private organisations employing 50 or more workers.

The state governors led by Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State have continued to argue that with the present revenue allocation formula in which the federal government takes 52.68 percent of the centrally-collected revenues in the distributable pool account leaving the states and local government councils with only 26.72 per cent and 20.60 per cent respectively, they would not be able to pay the N18,000.00 minimum wage and meet the critical developmental challenges of their states.

Thus they are asking for a review of the revenue allocation formula that would give the federal government, states, and local government councils 35 per cent, 42 per cent, and 23 per cent of the centrally-collected revenues respectively. They are also asking for the removal of fuel subsidy which reportedly consumes over N693 billion annually from the federation account.

On the other hand, the Nigeria Labour Congress argues that the states have enough resources to implement the Minimum Wage Act which was signed by President Goodluck Jonathan in March. To the labour union, if the state governments cut down on their huge and excessive expenses on governance, they would have enough money to pay the wage and fulfil their socio-economic obligations to the people. The union posits that payment of the minimum wage is not debatable considering that it was agreed by the government, the organised labour, and the other stakeholders. In fact the labour union has urged the state governments to pay the minimum wage which implementation date was April 1 without further delay in order not to accumulate too much arrears.

From media reports, some well-meaning Nigerians have also lent their voices to the debate. They include Professor Solomon Akinboye, Head of Department, Political Science, University of Lagos, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), and Alhaji Hamman Tukur, a former chairman of the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation, and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC). According to Prof. Akinboye, the problem with Nigeria is that of inability to manage its resources very well. He feels that the revenue allocated to the states from the federal distributable pool account should be increased to enable them (states) meet their financial needs.

Prof. Sagay, on his part, supports the labour union that the state governors must pay the N18,000 minimum wage. To him: “They (State governors) have no choice in this matter. It is high time Nigerians, particularly the political elite began to distinguish between when they have discretion, and when they are compelled. On this matter, they are compelled to pay. It is a legal issue and they must adhere to it.”

In his own contribution to the debate, Alhaji Tukur argues that in view of the money that comes into the Federation Account, the states can pay the N18,000.00 minimum wage without removing the subsidy on fuel. In his words: “The money they (governors) get from the Federation Account alone is enough to pay workers. It is unfortunate that the burden is being passed on to the ordinary man.

“There is enough resources in the country for all. The problem is that the federal and state laws clash. The federal law cannot impose on the state what to do with the money they get from the federation account. Also, the state cannot impose on the local government what to do with their money. The laws are there and the fact remains that the governors can pay the new wage”.

In the final analysis, the minimum wage and revenue debate shows the pervasive nature of the social, economic, and political problems of the country. Though compared with such old federations as the United States of America (USA), Australia, and Canada, Nigeria is still a fledgling federal nation, it is old enough to have settled its basic socio-economic and political framework.

Since 1946 when the problem of revenue allocation began in Nigeria following a change in the country’s constitution from unitary to a federal one several ad hoc commissions or committees on revenue allocation have been established. They include the Philipson Commission (1946), Hicks – Philipson Commission (1951), Chick Commission (1953), and Raisman Commission (1958). Others are Binns Commission (1964), Dina Interim Revenue Allocation Review Committee (1968), Aboyade Technical Committee on Revenue Allocation (1977), and the Okigbo Commission that was appointed in 1979 to review the existing system of revenue allocation with respect to such factors as national interest, derivation, population, even development and equitable distribution, and equality of state.

Nigeria has also had a long history of grants by which the national government remitted to the federating units funds outside their statutory allocations to assist them perform their social and economic functions. But because of the uncertainty surrounding these grants, the irregularity in their disbursements, the vagaries of their timing, and the frequency and sometimes the sudden change in the federal government’s priorities, the practice of grants has not been used as an effective system of rescuing the states from the problems of resource constraints in respect of meeting their constitutionally determined obligations.

Another problem associated with the minimum wage and revenue allocation quagmire is the over reliance of the states on the distributable pool. As B.O. Nwabueze noted in his book Federalism in Nigeria Under the Presidential Constitution, “Federally-collected revenue is the mainstay of the finances of the state governments, accounting for a little over 90 per cent of their total revenue. Upon this revenue, therefore depends the ability of the state governments to maintain their services; to pay their staff, pay for essential supplies and execute their capital projects. Their financial viabilities and credibility as autonomous government units hang upon it. As far as they are concerned, the motivation for its sharing is understandably one of self-survival.

For them, the sharing is almost like a matter of life and death, exciting their deepest concern and their strongest emotions. Hence the intensity of the question concerning it.”

So until Nigeria runs a true federal system in which the national and state governments stand to each other in a relation of meaningful independence and balanced division of powers and resources sufficient to support the structure, issues such as payment of minimum wage and revenue sharing will continue to generate national debate, political pressures and even inter-regional struggles for the national wealth.

As things stand now, the state governments, local government councils and other public and private organisations with 50 or more workers on their payroll must rise to the challenge of paying the N18,000.00 minimum wage for the law of the land must be respected.

Opinion

Monthly Environmental Sanitation Imperative

Published

4 days ago

May 18, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “A clean environment is not a government gift; it is a civic duty that protects our health, preserves our cities, and reflects our national character.”

For many Nigerians who grew up in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, the last Saturday of every month followed a familiar pattern. Roads were deserted, markets closed, and residents swept compounds, cleared gutters, cut overgrown weeds, and disposed off refuse. The monthly environmental sanitation exercise became a national ritual that promoted cleanliness, discipline, and civic responsibility. As an environment correspondent about two decades ago, I joined officials of the Rivers State Ministry of Environment on sanitation monitoring tours across Port Harcourt and surrounding communities. Although enforcement officers were sometimes accused of excesses, the exercise succeeded in creating public awareness about the importance of keeping our surroundings clean. Over time, however, the practice faded away in many states.

In its absence, indiscriminate dumping of refuse, blocked drainages and environmental neglect became increasingly common. Today, heaps of waste line roads, markets and motor parks, while gutters clogged with plastics contribute to perennial flooding. Given the mounting environmental challenges facing Nigerian cities, there is no better time to revive environmental sanitation. Its return is no longer a matter of nostalgia; it is a practical necessity for public health, environmental safety, and sustainable development. Poor sanitation remains a major cause of disease. Stagnant water and uncollected waste create breeding grounds for mosquitoes, flies and rodents, increasing the risk of malaria, cholera, typhoid and other infections. Floodwaters contaminated by refuse also expose communities to serious health hazards.

Rapid urbanisation has worsened the situation. Cities such as Lagos, Port Harcourt and Abuja are expanding faster than their waste management systems can cope. As populations grow, so does the volume of waste generated daily. Monthly sanitation exercises can help rebuild environmental consciousness. Beyond cleaning streets, they remind citizens that environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. They also offer an opportunity to educate children and young people about hygiene, public health and community participation. Critics argue that the old sanitation policy restricted movement and was sometimes abused by security personnel. Those concerns were valid, but they do not invalidate the concept itself. Rather than abandon it, governments should reform the programme to make it more humane, participatory and transparent.

That is why the recent decision by the Lagos State Government to reintroduce monthly sanitation deserves commendation. Even if participation is largely voluntary, the move sends a strong signal that environmental responsibility must be taken seriously. Other states should emulate this initiative. In Rivers State, the Rivers State Waste Management Agency has intensified efforts to improve waste collection and restore Port Harcourt’s reputation as the Garden City. Reintroducing monthly sanitation would complement these efforts and deepen public involvement. At the federal level, policies such as the Digital Waste Marketplace, the Plastic Waste Policy and the National Waste Management Network are commendable. However, environmental sanitation remains one of the most direct and visible ways to mobilise citizens toward cleaner communities.

The exercise, however, must be supported by efficient waste management infrastructure. Citizens cannot be expected to maintain clean surroundings if there are inadequate waste bins, irregular refuse collection, and limited recycling facilities. Governments at all levels should invest in modern waste management systems, properly fund sanitation agencies, and promote recycling programmes. Waste sorting should become standard practice to reduce the volume of refuse ending up in landfills and drainage channels. Countries such as Singapore, Sweden and South Korea have demonstrated that waste can become a valuable economic resource. Recycling industries in these countries create jobs while protecting the environment. Nigeria can adopt similar strategies and turn waste into wealth.

Environmental laws must also be enforced consistently. Regulations against illegal dumping exist in many states but are rarely implemented. Offenders should face penalties, but enforcement must be fair and free from extortion. Urban planning is another critical factor. Poor drainage systems, overcrowding and inadequate sewage infrastructure worsen sanitation problems. Governments must prioritise road construction, drainage maintenance and orderly urban development. Markets deserve particular attention. They generate enormous quantities of waste every day, yet many lack organised disposal systems. Local councils and market associations should work together to establish effective waste collection arrangements in commercial centres. Religious institutions, schools, traditional rulers and civil society groups also have important roles to play.

Environmental responsibility should be taught and reinforced as a social value. Community leaders can help change attitudes by consistently promoting cleaner habits. This issue is even more urgent in an era of climate change. Flooding, erosion and extreme weather events are already threatening many Nigerian communities. Poor waste disposal worsens these challenges by blocking waterways and reducing urban resilience. A clean environment also offers economic benefits. Well-maintained cities attract investors, tourists and businesses. Reduced disease outbreaks lower healthcare costs and improve productivity among workers and students. More importantly, cleanliness reflects national values. A nation that allows public spaces to deteriorate projects an image of disorder and neglect. Nigerians deserve cleaner streets, healthier neighbourhoods and safer communities.

Reviving environmental sanitation will not solve all environmental problems overnight, but it can serve as a powerful starting point. Combined with effective waste management, public education and stronger infrastructure, it can restore environmental consciousness across the country. Ultimately, environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. Government must provide leadership, infrastructure and enforcement, while citizens must demonstrate discipline and civic commitment. From disposing of household waste properly to keeping drains free of obstruction, every Nigerian has a role to play. If Nigeria is serious about protecting public health, reducing flooding and building livable cities, the return of monthly environmental sanitation is a step whose time has come.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

God’s Intentionality in Ecological System

Published

4 days ago

May 18, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole”.

From the very first chapter of Scripture, the Bible presents a profound truth: creation was not accidental, random, or without meaning. The universe emerged from the deliberate counsel of an all-wise God who fashioned every aspect of life with purpose and precision. The heavens were stretched out by His command, the earth was carefully positioned, the seas were bounded, and every living creature was assigned a distinct role within a perfectly coordinated ecological system. When God surveyed His completed work, He pronounced it “very good,” affirming that creation was whole, harmonious, and exactly as He intended. The natural world remains a visible testimony to God’s intentionality. The sun provides warmth and energy at the right intensity to sustain life. The moon governs tides and seasons. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

Rivers irrigate the land and quench thirst. Bees and butterflies pollinate crops. Birds disperse seeds. Animals maintain biodiversity. Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole. Nothing was made without significance, and nothing was left to chance. Among all created beings, humanity occupies a unique and privileged position. Unlike plants and animals, man was created in the image and likeness of God. This divine imprint endowed human beings with intelligence, moral consciousness, creativity, and the capacity for relationship with their maker. It also established mankind as the steward of creation. God granted humanity dominion over the earth, not as a license for reckless exploitation, but as a sacred trust to cultivate, protect, and preserve the world He had declared good.

Dominion, in God’s original intention, was to be exercised with wisdom, compassion, and responsibility. Human beings were meant to care for the land, use natural resources judiciously, and ensure that all forms of life flourished in accordance with divine order. The earth was to be managed as a trust from God, not plundered for selfish gain. Unfortunately, this divine mandate has been grossly misunderstood and widely abused. It is deeply regrettable that man has deviated so drastically from God’s original intention. Instead of stewardship, humanity has too often embraced greed. Instead of preservation, there has been exploitation. Instead of gratitude to the Creator, there has been reckless consumption and abuse of the environment. Across the world, forests are felled indiscriminately, rivers are contaminated, and fertile lands are stripped of their productivity.

Species disappear as habitats are destroyed. Air pollution threatens public health, and climate change disrupts weather patterns and livelihoods. What God created as a life-supporting ecosystem is increasingly treated as a disposable commodity. In Nigeria, the consequences are especially painful. Oil spills in the Niger Delta have devastated farmlands, poisoned rivers, and destroyed fishing communities. Poor waste management clogs drains and contributes to flooding. Erosion eats away homes and roads. Illegal mining and logging scar the landscape. In many cases, communities suffer while those responsible evade justice. At the root of much of this destruction is corruption. Funds earmarked for environmental protection, sanitation, and erosion control are often diverted for personal enrichment. Regulatory agencies are compromised through bribery.

Powerful individuals and corporations place profit above human welfare. Corruption thus becomes not only a moral failure but an assault on God’s creation. This environmental abuse is also a tragic expression of man’s inhumanity to man. When water is polluted, children fall sick. When farmlands are destroyed, farmers lose their means of survival. When rivers are contaminated, fishermen are plunged into poverty. When floods and erosion displace families, communities are torn apart. The burden of environmental degradation falls most heavily on the poor and vulnerable, while future generations inherit a diminished world. Yet, despite humanity’s failures, there remains hope for restoration. God’s purpose for creation has not changed. He still calls His people to responsible stewardship and righteous living. When individuals and nations return to God’s principles, they begin to view the earth not as an object to exploit, but as a sacred trust to preserve.

Responsible stewardship means protecting natural resources, planting trees, reducing pollution, disposing of waste properly, enforcing environmental laws, rejecting corruption, and treating others with justice and compassion. It requires governments to act with integrity, businesses to operate ethically, faith communities to teach creation care, and citizens to take personal responsibility for the environment. Creation care is therefore more than an environmental concern; it is a spiritual obligation. Our treatment of the earth and of one another reflects the sincerity of our reverence for God. To exploit nature, oppress the vulnerable, and enrich ourselves through corruption is to rebel against His purpose. To protect creation and uphold justice is to honor the Creator and participate in His original design. The world God made was declared “very good.” It is our solemn duty to ensure that our actions preserve rather than destroy that goodness.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

Confronting National Development In Chinese Style

Published

1 week ago

May 13, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “China’s rise was not a miracle. It was the result of deliberate planning, disciplined execution, and a national determination to make poverty reduction the foundation of national development.”

A short TikTok video by @ancientchinaforever recently offered a compelling summary of China’s remarkable transformation from one of the world’s poorest nations to a global economic powerhouse. In just a few minutes, it captured a lesson that developing countries like Nigeria cannot afford to ignore: meaningful development does not happen by chance. It is the product of vision, consistency, and a deliberate commitment to confronting poverty. In 1981, according to the World Bank, nearly 88 percent of China’s population lived in extreme poverty. The country was overwhelmingly rural, industrially weak, and lacking in modern infrastructure. Millions of people had limited access to quality healthcare, education, and basic social services. Yet China refused to accept poverty as its destiny. Its leaders made a strategic decision to treat poverty reduction as the starting point of national development.

Rather than relying on slogans or isolated welfare programmes, they created a coordinated system that mobilised government institutions at every level toward one overriding goal: improving the living conditions of ordinary citizens.

This was the turning point in China’s history. Poverty alleviation became a national mission. Clear targets were established, responsibilities were assigned to provincial and local governments, and officials were evaluated based on measurable results. Data was used to identify poor households, monitor progress, and adjust strategies where necessary.In effect, China built what may be described as a national development machine.The first major reforms focused on agriculture. Through the household responsibility system, farmers were given greater control over their land and allowed to sell surplus produce after meeting government quotas.

This policy created incentives for productivity and innovation. The results were dramatic. Agricultural output rose significantly, rural incomes increased, and millions were lifted out of poverty.With food security improving, China turned to industrialisation. The government established Special Economic Zones, most notably in Shenzhen, to attract foreign investment and promote export-driven manufacturing. What was once a small fishing community quickly transformed into one of the world’s leading industrial and technology hubs. Factories created millions of jobs, drawing workers from rural areas into expanding urban centres. China soon became the manufacturing capital of the world, producing electronics, textiles, machinery, and consumer goods for global markets.The revenue generated from industrial growth was reinvested in infrastructure and human development.

China understood that development requires more than factories. It demands modern infrastructure that connects people, goods, and markets. Massive investments were made in roads, railways, airports, seaports, electricity, and telecommunications.

Today, China’s high-speed rail system, modern cities, and efficient logistics networks stand as visible proof of decades of purposeful investment. Equally important was China’s commitment to education and healthcare.Schools were expanded, literacy improved, and vocational training equipped workers with the skills needed in a modern economy. Healthcare reforms reduced preventable diseases and protected families from being pushed deeper into poverty by medical costs.These investments ensured that economic growth translated into tangible improvements in living standards.

Another defining feature of China’s development model was policy continuity. Through successive Five-Year Plans, national priorities were clearly outlined and pursued over decades. While leaders changed, the core development agenda remained consistent. This stability encouraged investment, strengthened institutions, and allowed long-term projects to be completed. Unlike countries where each administration abandons the policies of its predecessor, China sustained a clear sense of direction.The results have been extraordinary. According to the World Bank, China has lifted more than 800 million people out of extreme poverty—the largest poverty reduction effort in human history. A broad middle class has emerged, and the country has become the world’s second-largest economy. Chinese companies such as Huawei Technologies and Alibaba Group now compete at the forefront of global innovation.

China’s journey has not been without challenges. Rapid industrialisation has contributed to environmental degradation, regional disparities, and demographic pressures. However, these challenges do not diminish the scale of its achievement. They underscore the complexity of transforming a nation of over one billion people. For Nigeria, China’s experience offers valuable lessons. First, poverty reduction must be treated as a strategic national priority rather than a campaign promise. Second, development requires long-term planning and policy continuity. Third, sustained investment in agriculture, infrastructure, education, and healthcare is essential. Fourth, institutions must be strengthened to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes. Finally, leadership must combine vision with disciplined execution. Nigeria is richly endowed with natural resources, entrepreneurial talent, and a youthful population.

What remains missing is a coherent and consistent development strategy that places national interest above politics. China’s transformation demonstrates that development is not a matter of luck. It is the outcome of clear priorities, effective institutions, and unwavering commitment. For countries still grappling with poverty and underdevelopment, China stands as compelling proof that when a nation confronts its challenges with strategic intent and collective discipline, extraordinary progress is possible.

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi