Politics
That Bayelsa Lawmakers’ Pension Bill
One thing that is becoming very outstanding in Nigerian politics is the issue of insatiable lust for money which normally in sane societies will cost some people their jobs in elective offices.
If we take a look at the recent ignoble law passed by the Bayelsa State House of Assembly proposing life pension for members of the House or those who have been legislators since the creation of the state, the move does not only send a cold shiver down the spine but shows that there is sheer greed and accumulated grievances against the working class in the society.
How come that a group of legislators who probably have served for only four or eight years will arrogate to themselves the powers to fix pension for themselves without clearly thinking of the consequence. Are they also implying that those who served as commissioners and special advisers should also have life pensions in the scheme of things?
However, it was a cheering news that the state Governor, Seriake Dickson refused to assent to such a self-serving and anti-people bill. The request for such a law was not only nauseating but leaves a very bad odour in the political atmosphere in the country because, if that law had been signed into law, then, trust Nigerians with their copy-cat approach to issues of individual interest, other legislative assemblies nationwide would have started passing such laws. And even councillors at the local government level will have no alternative than to pass such laws too, making themselves and council chairmen to enjoy similar financial benefits.
When the 1999 Constitution was promulgated into law, it was only the office of the President and Vice President that were covered under this law but sadly, the first set of governors from 1999 to 2003 set a bad example by arm-twisting their legislative houses to pass favourable pension laws for them, and this is the genesis of what we are seeing today.
A House of Assembly is supposed to be a hallowed chamber where people-oriented laws are supposed to be made and it is also a place where problems that affect the people or even an individual can be addressed but today what we are experiencing is that it is a place to address only members’ welfare.
The legislators should note that their office is an elective one, they did not write a letter of application for the job and they don’t have any promotion examination to go to the next grade level. In short, they don’t have a retirement age limit but can re-contest for elections as they deem fit.
Please, someone should tell them that politics should not be left to jobless people or the idle minds but to those who have work experience and have something to do to earn a living before venturing into politics. If this notion of life pension…God forbid comes to stay in Nigeria with such huge sums of money approved, what signal then are we sending to the rest of Nigerians, … every Tom, Dick and Harry that is jobless and without any work experience will struggle either by hook or crook to venture into politics with the aim of contesting for the legislative assembly.
In the First and Second Republics, all the members of the legislative assembly including council chairmen and councillors were not lazy people but had well paid jobs before venturing into politics. The likes of Dr. Nwafor Orizu, the then President of the Senate, Rt. Hon Rosebury Briggs, Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly in the Second Republic was a successful lawyer in private practice for many years before he entered the murky waters of partisan politics.
All these people and their colleagues at no time advocated for free and easy money from government to take care of their youthful and productive age. If we take a careful look at the age bracket of members of most state houses of assembly, we will hardly see anyone that is above 60 years of age which is an indication that those who want to benefit from this largese are people mostly in either their 30s or 40s … what a tragedy.
Again, a cursory look at the productivity level of some members shows that they have not contributed anything meaningful by either initiating bills or intellectually debating issues affecting the state or their constituencies and sometimes even on television, we see some legislators dozing or sleeping while debates on serious matters affecting the society are going on, yet they want pension for life.
For democracy to grow, we need to elect into office people of substance, people with integrity, individuals who by their pedigree have something to offer society in the area of quality law making and selfless service that is worthy of emulation.
Why is it that when we as Nigerians borrow good ideas from foreign climes, our domestication of such ideas leaves a very bad example for future generations? If we say we are practising a presidential democracy modelled after the United States of America, what stops us from imitating the good sides of such democracy rather than making selfish laws that will only benefit us?
Even in America, legislative business cannot be compared to that of Nigeria. There, legislators pay house rent and do not live in staff quarters and are not chauffeured around in official cars but here in Nigeria, despite all the largese that is spread around such offices, they are still not satisfied but yearn for more. I think one of the solutions to such demands for life pension should be a review of the Constitution to make legislative duties part-time so as to make the offices less attractive to people who are not really cut out to serve the public.
It seems that the military interegnum between 1983 to 1999 really did a lot of damage to our psyche as a nation and that is why the quality of legislators the electorate have been sending to the houses of assembly especially in some states have been deteriorating every four years. The vibrancy and maturity we experienced between 1992 to 1993 and 1999 to 2003 are no longer there.
Our houses of assembly should sit up, look beyond members’ individual interest and learn once more to be honourable not just in name but also in their legislative duties. Nigeria or the various states are not an inexhaustible gold mine or crude oil field where free cash can be gotten to cushion the lavish lifestyle of an individual, what we need are people with ideas that can fashion out modalities of how to tackle the myriad of problems bedeviling our society like unemployment.
This is because if we keep quiet with the way things are going, our inactions will later turn to haunt us in future.
For rejecting that obnoxious bill on pension for legislators, the Bayelsa State Governor, Seriake Dickson has not only saved the people of the state from embarrassment but also people from other states from modern day financial recklessness.
Tonye Ikiroma-Owiye
A senator who represented Taraba Central, Mr Abubakar Yusuf, has declared that the economic policies of President Bola Tinubu are not yielding the expected results.
His comment is one of the strongest internal critiques yet from within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
The comment underscores the growing dissatisfaction within sections of the ruling party over the direction and impact of the administration’s economic reforms amid rising living costs and fiscal pressures across the country.
Mr Yusuf, who served in the Senate between 2015 and 2023 under the platform of the APC, made the remarks during an appearance on national television.
Responding to a question on whether the administration’s economic direction, often referred to as Tinubunomics, was working, Mr Yusuf answered in the contrary.
“For me, it is not working. I am a member of the APC. I would be the last person to hide the facts”, he said.
He said while the government might be operating diligently within its policy structure, the framework itself is ill-suited to Nigeria’s current realities
“Within the policy framework, yes, they are doing their best, but it is not the framework that is suitable for Nigeria at the point in time that President Asiwaju came into power,” he said.
Mr Yusuf criticised the immediate removal of fuel subsidy on the day the president was sworn in, arguing that the decision lacked sufficient consultation and planning.
“I am one of those who say President Asiwaju ought to have waited. Not on the day he was sworn in to say subsidy is gone. On what basis?”, he asked.
He urged broader engagement before major fiscal decisions are taken.
“Sit down with your cabinet, sit down with your ministers, sit down with your advisers,” he said, dismissing the argument that subsidy removal was justified solely on grounds of corruption.
The former lawmaker identified “structural flaws” in the country’s budgeting system, particularly the envelope budgeting model.
“One of the basic problems is that before you budget, you should have a plan. The envelope system we have been operating has been you budget before you plan. That has been a major issue”, he said.
He argued that allocating spending ceilings without aligning them to concrete development strategies inevitably weakens implementation and delivery.
“If you give me an envelope which is contrary to my plan, whether it is plus or minus, there is no way I am going to implement my plan. It is bound to fail,” he said.
Mr Yusuf called for the scrapping of the envelope budgeting system, noting that he had consistently opposed it even during his years in the National Assembly.
“It is not good for us. It is not going to work well for us,” he said.
He further blamed poor capital releases and persistent deficit financing for undermining budget performance over the years.
“We could not meet 60 percent of our capital budget in all these years. No releases. If you make a budget and the release is very poor, there is no way the budget will be executed”, he stated.
According to him, weak fund disbursement mechanisms and reliance on deficit financing have entrenched a cycle of underperformance.
“Our budget ought to have been a surplus budget, but all our budgets have always been deficit financing budgets,” Mr Yusuf added.
The Nigerian House of Representatives has resolved to reconvene for an emergency session tomorrow February 17, 2026, to deliberate on issues arising from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) release of the timetable for the 2027 general elections.
The decision was disclosed in a statement issued by the House Spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi, who described the electoral body’s announcement as one of “constitutional and national significance.”
INEC had fixed February 20, 2027, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections.
According to the statement, members of the Green Chamber were notified of the emergency sitting through an internal memorandum from the Speaker’s office.
The session is expected to focus on legislative matters connected to the newly released timetable, reflecting the House’s resolve to act promptly on issues affecting the nation’s democratic process.
Rep. Rotimi noted that all related businesses would be treated with urgency and urged lawmakers to prioritise attendance in view of the importance of the deliberations.
INEC had on Friday formally unveiled the comprehensive schedule for the 2027 polls, including timelines for party primaries slated for July to September 2026, as well as the commencement of Continuous Voter Registration in April 2026.
The development comes amid ongoing consultations and proposed amendments to the Electoral Act ahead of the 2027 general elections.
As the controversy over the transmission of election results continues across the country, the Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), a pro democracy organisation in the country, has criticised the National Assembly for not giving express approval to real time transmission of elections results.
To this end, the group is calling on all civil society organisations in the country to mobilise and push for a better Electoral Reform in the country.
This was contained in a press statement titled, “Defence For Human Rights and Democracy Demands Real Time Election Transmission of Result”, a copy of which was made available to newsmen in Port Harcourt.
The group described the refusal of compulsory real time transmission of result results by the Senate as undemocratic, adding that the situation will give room for election manipulation, rigging and voters apathy.
It said that the provision of mandatory real time transmission of election results would have significant improvement on the nation’s democracy.
According to the statement, “Since the return of democracy in 1999 to date, it is 27 years, so our Democracy has metamorphosed from being nascent and as such significant improvement should have been recorded.
“Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is really disappointed at the National Assembly, especially the upper chamber (Senate) for not approving ‘Real Time Electronic Transmission of Election Result’.
“This undemocratic act of theirs, if not tamed, will give room for election manipulation and rigging’”.
Signed by Comrade Clifford Christopher Solomon on behalf of the organisation, the statement further said, “The Defence For Human Rights and Democracy unequivocally supports real time transmission of election result”, stressing that his group will resist any act by the National Assembly to undermine the nation’s democracy.
“DHRD,unequivocally supports ‘True Democracy’, which is Government of the people, by the people and for the people.
“Therefore, anything that will crash the hope of Nigerians to Freely, Fairly and Transparently elect candidates of their choice in any given election should and will be vehemently resisted because good governance begins with leaders elected through credible process. By so doing, leaders have entered a social contract with the citizens to equitably manage their affairs and abundant resources”, the statement added.
It urged the National Assembly to revisit the issue in order to avoid civil unrest.
According to the DHRD, “To avoid civil unrest,voters apathy, election rigging and manipulation, rather to promote citizens participation, advancing our Democracy and entrenching free, fair, credible and acceptable electoral outcome, the National Assembly should amend the electoral act in a manner that will deepen our democracy and boost citizens confidence.
“On this note, The Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is calling on all other civil society organisations (CSOs) to mobilise, organise and push for a better electoral act amendment by the National Assembly”.
By: John Bibor