Opinion

In Sympathy With Ribadu

Published

14 years ago

November 19, 2012

Commission (EFCC) and more recently Chairman of the Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force (PRSTF). It is often said that once beaten twice shy. That best describes the situation Ribadu found himself a week ago during the submission of his committee’s report to the president.

Nine months ago when the public awoke to the surprise appointment ofNuhu Ribadu to head the PRSTF, it set tongues wagging. Many Nigerians had questioned the wisdom in accepting the job.

The objection ranged from the fact that the committee was set up by the Minister of Petroleum Resources (who is deeply enmeshed in the controversy that dogs the oil sector) and not the president, to the fact that for an administration with a predilection for committees, this may just be another committee. The cynics had argued that it was an attempt to shore up the government’s integrity deficit and boost its anti-corruption credentials.

I was one of those who had some reservations about Ribadu’s appointment, but I did not make my feeling public. Even though I had worked with him closely at the EFCC and much later during his presidential campaign, I didn’t attempt to discuss his new job with him. I assumed that as a man of strong convictions, he had his reason for accepting the job.

I met Ribadu in late August. Prior to that meeting, we had not seen for eight months since the public presentation of my book, Time to Reclaim Nigeria, in Abuja, on December 15, 2011, which meant there was a lot of catching up to do. Part of our discussion centred on his committee’s work. He expressed his frustration and explained some of the problems his committee encountered. He hinted about the pecuniary influence from oil “stakeholders” and the possibility of divided allegiance of some members of the committee.

Listening to him, I got a feeling that his was a committee primed to fail. I saw a man tormented by betrayal, yet upbeat. What was of interest to him was what to do to curb the monumental fraud his committee had discovered in the oil industry. He sounded to me like someone who knew the inevitable outcome of the report, but wanted to give the administration the benefit of the doubt.

Looking back, I am not sure he knew or felt at the time of our meeting that the government was contemptuous enough to undermine the report of a committee it set up. I left him and looked forward to the submission of his committee’s report. The submission of the report turned into a fiasco, predictably so. So much has been written about the events surrounding the presentation of the PRSTF report to President Jonathan on November 2. What is missing in the narrative is the complicity of the Presidency, the Minister of Petroleum Resources and major oil multi-nationals in the effort to scuttle the work of the PRSTF.

For a man who promised to do things differently, President Jonathan is awfully predictable. Last week, as the nation waited patiently for the submission of the PRSTF report, I had noted that we would be treated to the same rhetoric that has become the hallmark ofthe Jonathan administration. It was exactly what happened; except that this time, the president conspired to embarrass himself and the entire nation.

When Reuters first put the PRSTF report in the public domain a little over two weeks ago, the Presidency promised that there was no attempt to “cover up” the findings of the committee.

Diezani Alison-Madueke, Minister of Petroleum Resources, said a committee had been given ten days to look at the report and make some “input”. The minister had received the report more than a month earlier, but decided to sit on it.

So what happened? Here is my take: I think the government was caught in a bind, it panicked and the result was the embarrassing situation that played itself out on November 2. The Presidency, it seemed, had been wondering what to do with the PRSTF report since August when it was submitted to the Minister of Petroleum Resources. A minority report by members who weren’t “comfortable” with the main report may have been an option. But once the report became public, it changed everything. Enter Steve Oronsaye and Bernard Otti.

It is instructive that the report the Minister of Petroleum Resources promised would be ready in ten days was not presented to the president as expected. Instead, Oronsaye and Otti made themselves available or were recruited to wreck the final report submitted to the president. Their only reason: “the process adopted by the committee in arriving at its report was flawed”.

Oronsaye’s verbal diarrhea at the submission of the PRSTF report could only have come from a man who had the backing of the Presidency. “What I am saying is that the President has said come and submit the report, so what, if we are not ready, we are not ready,” Oronsaye asserted confidently and condescendingly. “When I say so what, the President has spoken, we should be man enough to tell the President that we are not ready. That is the reason why you are handing over a report that is not process driven”.

Two things are at play here. One, only a man that is incredibly reckless would speak the way Oronsaye spoke before the president. I don’t think Oronsaye is a reckless man considering he is a career civil servant who rose to become the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation. The only other thing is that his comments were carefully scripted and contrived. This was evident when he offered the coup-de-grace in these words: “I don’t know what the report contains. Therefore, in my view, I do not think the report should be accepted at this time, I challenge any member of this

committee to take me on”.

Expectedly, Ribadu, the chairman of the committee, took him on. As it turned out, Oronsaye and Otti, barely participated in the committee’s work. According to Ribadu, “He (Oronsaye) was not

at the inauguration and he never participated in the deliberations of the committee. The only time he came was when we wanted to start deliberations on recovery and he came on behalf of one

company, Addax Petroleum, which is owing $1.5 billion. That was the only time he came. In fact, he scuttled the payment of the $1.5 billion”.

Whether it was for financial gains or compensation for their appointments while serving as members of the PRSTF — Oronsaye became a member of the board of the NNPC and Otti

became a director in NNPC — both Oronsaye and Otti have written their name in infamy. So long as their sense of propriety did not detect a conflict of interest and instruct resignation from the

committee so long will they remain on the wrong side of history. They sold their conscience and mortgaged the future of their children for lucre.

President Jonathan, in his characteristic tepid response to official sleaze, “urged Nigerians not to be distracted by the small disagreement, but to focus on the subject matter of the committee

which is the sanitisation of the Petroleum Sector for the benefit of Nigeria and Nigerians”. The president said he was “not surprised there are disagreement between the members of the committee on the Petroleum Revenue Task Force. It is about money.

Onumah wrote from Port Harcourt.

Chidi Onumah

Opinion

Checking Voter Apathy In Nigeria’s Electoral Process

Published

2 days ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Quote:“Apathy may express frustration, but surrendering our votes only gives others greater power to determine our future. Nigeria needs credible elections, accountable leaders and citizens who refuse to abandon their democratic rights.”

“I actually don’t know what is wrong with this country called Nigeria. Nothing will ever make me go out under the scorching sun to vote for anybody again. After all, my vote doesn’t count. “We go out and vote, but in the end, they announce whatever result they want and tell the opponents to go to court. Is this the Nigeria we all want?” These are the frustrations of many Nigerians who have lost faith in the electoral process. For them, elections have become a cycle of high expectations, alleged irregularities and disappointing outcomes. Consequently, many are becoming indifferent to how political leaders emerge and what they do after assuming office. This growing voter apathy poses a serious threat to Nigeria’s democracy and must be addressed before the 2027 general election.

Some politicians, including councillors, local government chairmen, members of the House of Representatives, senators and governors, have disappointed the people they were elected to represent. Constituents who expect their representatives to address pressing community needs often complain of neglect, poor performance and limited engagement after elections.bAs Chinua Achebe’s celebrated novel, “Things Fall Apart”, suggests, things appear to be falling apart in Nigeria’s electoral system. Yet, withdrawing from the electoral process is not the solution. Rather, it could worsen the situation by allowing a relatively small proportion of voters to determine the country’s political future. Recently, the National Orientation Agency (NOA) launched a nationwide grassroots mobilisation campaign to address voter apathy, vote buying and electoral violence ahead of the 2027 general election.

The campaign, themed “Your Vote, Your Voice, Our Future: Say No to Apathy, Vote Buying and Violence. Let’s Build a United Nigeria in 2027,” was inaugurated in Abuja. Speaking at the event, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, commended the agency for the initiative, emphasizing that citizens must recognize the importance of their votes in determining the country’s political leadership and future. He warned that voter apathy, vote buying and electoral violence threatened democratic development, calling for stronger collaboration among government institutions, electoral authorities, security agencies, community leaders and citizens. The Director-General of the NOA, Mallam Lanre Issa-Onilu, explained that the agency would deploy its state directorates across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory to promote responsible electoral participation.

The campaign will use local languages, radio programmes, town hall meetings, community dialogues, drama and digital platforms to reach Nigerians in both urban and rural communities. The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, also reaffirmed the commission’s commitment to conducting free, fair, transparent, inclusive and credible elections in 2027. He stressed the importance of early preparation, stakeholder collaboration and active citizen participation. These initiatives are commendable. However, their success will depend on sustained implementation rather than public announcements alone. Voter education must continue beyond election periods, while electoral institutions must demonstrate through their conduct that citizens’ votes deserve protection.

The government, political parties, electoral authorities and civil society organisations (CSOs) all have important roles to play. First, governments must demonstrate genuine commitment to credible elections by rejecting electoral manipulation, vote buying and the use of thugs to intimidate voters. Electoral offences must be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the law. Security agencies must also remain professional and impartial throughout the electoral process. Beyond elections, elected officials must deliver the dividends of democracy. Reliable electricity, accessible healthcare, quality education, good roads and employment opportunities can help restore public confidence in governance. Citizens are more likely to participate when they see that democracy can improve their lives.

Political officeholders must also change their attitude towards their constituencies. Representatives should maintain regular contact with their constituents, explain their activities and demonstrate how they address local concerns. Representation should not end with election campaigns, nor should elected officials remember their constituents only when another election approaches. CSOs and political parties must intensify voter education, helping citizens understand that voting is a fundamental democratic right and an important means of holding leaders accountable. Voters should also learn to verify electoral information, report irregularities through appropriate channels and reject inducements that compromise their choices.

The electorate, too, has responsibilities. Voters must resist the temptation to sell their votes for money, food or other temporary benefits. Although economic hardship makes such inducements attractive to some, selling a vote undermines the opportunity to demand accountable leadership. Equally important is the rejection of electoral violence and misinformation. Nigerians must learn to disagree politically without becoming enemies. Citizens should verify claims before sharing them, particularly on social media, and report suspected electoral malpractice to the appropriate authorities. Participation also extends beyond voting. Citizens can attend community meetings, question elected representatives, monitor public projects and demand transparency between elections.

Nevertheless, citizens cannot be expected to sustain enthusiasm when credible complaints are ignored or electoral processes lack public confidence. INEC must therefore strengthen transparency, improve election logistics, communicate promptly and ensure that electoral complaints are handled in accordance with the law. Where disputes arise, the courts must provide lawful remedies. Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive when eligible voters surrender their voices out of frustration. Restoring participation requires more than urging people to turn out on election day. It demands credible elections, responsible leadership, effective civic education and accountability. The 2027 general election presents an opportunity to rebuild public trust.

The NOA campaign is a welcome step, but all stakeholders must translate its message into action. Every eligible Nigerian should understand that a vote is not merely a mark on a ballot paper; it is an opportunity to influence the country’s future. Apathy may express frustration, but active and responsible participation offers a better chance of achieving change. The time to restore confidence in Nigeria’s electoral process is now. The earlier we act, the better for our democracy and future generations.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Oil Exploration Mustn’t Cost Lives

Published

2 days ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “No oil vessel, commercial contract or operational deadline is worth the loss of innocent lives; where environmental grievances are ignored and dialogue gives way to confrontation, the entire society pays a price that no compensation can adequately erase.”

The recent boat tragedy in Kula Kingdom, Akuku-Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State, has highlighted the troubling relationship between petroleum operations, environmental grievances and the safety of oil-producing communities. The reported loss of lives during a confrontation over an oil vessel is a painful reminder that commercial interests must never overshadow human life. The incident occurred on October 20, 2026, along the Robertkiri waterways of Kula, when a community boat capsized amid tensions surrounding the movement of the ANAMBRA BASIN Floating Storage and Offloading (FSO) vessel. Community members were reportedly protesting unresolved concerns over an alleged oil spill, environmental remediation and other outstanding obligations. Reports initially indicated that 10 people were feared dead. However, TheCable reported on October 23 that seven people had died, with five bodies recovered and two others missing. Investigations are needed to establish the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The tragedy raises fundamental questions about how disputes between oil-related businesses and host communities are managed. Why should disagreements over environmental concerns and contractual obligations escalate into situations involving loss of lives? What mechanisms exist to address grievances before they develop into dangerous confrontations? These questions demand urgent and impartial answers. For decades, communities across the Niger Delta have complained about oil pollution, damaged fishing grounds, declining livelihoods and inadequate environmental remediation. In riverine settlements such as Kula, fishing sustains many households. Pollution therefore threatens not only the environment but also food security, family income and children’s welfare.

Allegations of oil spills must not be dismissed as routine complaints or obstacles to petroleum operations. They require prompt investigation, independent environmental assessment and appropriate remediation wherever pollution is established. Disputes over compensation or contractual obligations should be resolved transparently, using verifiable records rather than confrontation. The incident also highlights the need to clarify responsibilities among vessel owners, contractors, petroleum operators and other parties. Max Shipping Services Limited, owner of the ANAMBRA BASIN vessel, has denied responsibility for the underlying oilfield operations and explained that the vessel was hired to Menal Technical Services Limited. These claims must be examined alongside community allegations and available evidence. No company should be condemned without proof, but contractual arrangements must not shield anyone from established responsibility.

Equally important is the reported involvement of armed security personnel in the confrontation. Security agencies have a legitimate duty to maintain law and order and protect lives. However, their operations require professionalism, restraint and sound judgement, especially in tense communities. Armed personnel deployed to manage disputes should help de-escalate tensions, protect civilians and facilitate peaceful resolution. Investigators must establish the circumstances surrounding their deployment, the sequence of events leading to the boat’s capsizing and whether reasonable precautions were taken. All parties deserve a fair hearing, and anyone found culpable should face appropriate legal consequences. The Rivers State Government must not treat the incident merely as a marine accident without examining its underlying grievances.

Beyond expressing sympathy, government should support a credible investigation, assist affected families and facilitate engagement among the community, companies and regulatory agencies. Every necessary effort should also be made to locate the missing persons. Environmental and petroleum regulators must independently investigate the alleged spill and determine whether remediation is necessary. Where pollution is confirmed, responsible parties must fulfil their legal obligations. The Petroleum Industry Act provides a framework for host-community development and environmental responsibilities; these provisions must deliver practical protection for affected communities. Community leaders and youths must equally pursue legitimate demands through peaceful and lawful channels. This does not require silence in the face of pollution or alleged breaches of agreements. Rather, petitions, negotiations, peaceful protests and legal remedies can advance accountability without exposing residents to avoidable danger.

Companies and contractors must maintain effective communication with host communities and address complaints promptly, rather than engage only when disputes threaten operations. Government must intervene early, not wait until tensions erupt. Transparent agreements, independent assessments and accessible grievance mechanisms can prevent misunderstandings from escalating into deadly confrontations. The Niger Delta has endured decades of environmental concerns and disputes over the benefits and burdens of petroleum extraction. Its people should not have to risk their lives to secure attention to legitimate grievances. Oil revenue cannot justify preventable deaths or the neglect of communities where extraction takes place.

The Kula tragedy must become a turning point. Authorities must establish the truth, determine responsibility based on evidence, support bereaved families and ensure legitimate environmental concerns receive attention. Ultimately, petroleum operations should be judged not only by revenue generated or crude oil transported, but also by whether host communities enjoy environmental protection, economic opportunity and personal safety. Oil profits must never cost lives. Kula deserves justice, transparency and lasting solutions. The deaths on its waterways must not become another statistic in the Niger Delta’s troubled history. They must remind every responsible institution that no commercial interest is more valuable than human life.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

Gift Or Will: Why Wait Until Death To Give?

Published

1 week ago

October 19, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”The value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?”

Will and gifts are subjects that many people, particularly in this part of the world, are reluctant to discuss. This may be due to the misconception that they are matters reserved for the dying and that talking about them could somehow invite death. Yet, both are important subjects that everyone, young and old alike, should understand. Every property owner should ask a fundamental question: Why wait until death before allowing the people we love to enjoy the fruits of our labour? Many parents spend their productive years acquiring houses, land, businesses and other valuable assets, yet postpone sharing these blessings with their children and loved ones until they are no longer alive. They prepare Wills, appoint executors and hope their wishes will eventually be fulfilled. But is there a case for giving more generously during one’s lifetime?

A Will is an important legal instrument, and nobody should be discouraged from making one. However, lifetime gifts deserve greater attention because they allow property owners to witness the benefits of their generosity and, where properly completed, transfer ownership before death. One practical difficulty with inheritance is that writing a Will does not automatically make the property available to beneficiaries upon the testator’s death. Ordinarily, executors must obtain a grant of probate from the appropriate Probate Registry before administering the estate under the Will. The process may involve producing the original Will and death certificate, identifying executors and beneficiaries, preparing an inventory and valuation of assets, completing prescribed forms, paying applicable fees and satisfying other registry requirements. Procedures vary across jurisdictions in the country and depend on the circumstances of each estate.

Where documentation is incomplete, the estate is complex or questions arise about the Will, administration may be delayed. Matters become more difficult when a relative or beneficiary challenges the Will, enters a caveat or commences litigation. Legal expenses accumulate, family relationships deteriorate, and intended beneficiaries may wait for years before receiving their inheritance. A child expecting to inherit a house may be unable to deal freely with the property while administration remains outstanding. Similarly, a beneficiary hoping to use inherited funds to establish a business may be frustrated by delays. Across Nigeria, families have experienced difficulties accessing their late parents’ estates because of disputes over Wills and prolonged legal proceedings. See Dan Jumbo v Dan Jumbo. Where a court declares a Will invalid, those named as beneficiaries may lose their entitlement under that document, and the estate may instead be distributed under the applicable intestacy rules. Consequently, people the deceased deliberately intended to benefit may receive nothing under the disputed Will. Ajibaiye v Ajibaiye

This does not mean every challenge will succeed or that all beneficiaries will necessarily be excluded. It nevertheless highlights a risk in postponing every act of generosity until death: the intended beneficiaries may have to establish their entitlement through a process whose outcome is uncertain. A lifetime gift, commonly called a gift inter vivos, is a gift intended to take effect during the donor’s lifetime. Where validly completed, ownership of the transferred interest generally passes to the beneficiary, and the property ordinarily ceases to form part of the donor’s estate.This distinction is significant. A beneficiary who acquires valid ownership of property during the donor’s lifetime does not ordinarily have to establish entitlement to that property through the donor’s Will. The claim rests on the completed transfer rather than a testamentary promise. For instance, a parent with several properties may transfer a house to a child who needs accommodation or give land to another who wishes to build a home. A business owner may transfer an interest in a business to a child already involved in its management. These arrangements provide practical support while allowing the giver to witness the benefits.

Properly completed lifetime gifts may also reduce the assets that must subsequently pass through probate, potentially simplifying the administration of the remaining estate. However, such transfers must comply with applicable law. A mere declaration or unfulfilled promise to give land may not be sufficient. Depending on the circumstances, a gift may require an appropriate deed, acceptance, execution, registration and any necessary consent. Sections 21 and 22 of the Land Use Act 1978 regulate certain dealings involving statutory and customary rights of occupancy. Lifetime gifts are not immune from disputes though. Transfers may be challenged on grounds such as fraud, undue influence, incapacity or failure to comply with legal formalities. Proper legal advice and documentation are therefore essential. Encouraging lifetime gifts does not mean abandoning Wills. A Will remains useful for assets an owner wishes to retain throughout life, property acquired later and assets not transferred before death. It also allows the testator to appoint executors and give instructions for distributing the remaining estate.

Property owners must also avoid giving away assets indiscriminately. Adequate provision should be made for personal upkeep, accommodation, healthcare and other financial responsibilities. Parents should never be pressured into transferring their entire estates or surrendering their financial independence. Where a donor wishes to retain the right to occupy a gifted house, that arrangement should be properly structured and documented. Ultimately, the value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. A gift of land may enable a child to build a home; financial assistance may help a young person establish a business; and a properly transferred property may provide security while the donor is still alive to share in the beneficiary’s joy. Probate is a necessary safeguard, not a reason to dismiss Wills. Nevertheless, where appropriate, lifetime gifts can reduce the property left for administration and help beneficiaries avoid waiting for assets that could have been transferred earlier.

My appeal is simple: let us cultivate a culture of thoughtful giving. Make a Will, but also consider what you can responsibly give today. Seek legal advice, document your intentions and ensure every transfer is properly completed. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?

By: Calista Ezeaku