Opinion

NDDC Can Do Better

Published

7 years ago

August 28, 2019

NDDC has become a political institution…” These were the exact words of Chief Nyesom Wike, the governor of Rivers State, when the Professor Nelson Brambaifa-led board of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) paid him a courtesy visit at the Government House in Port Harcourt, recently. On a similar visit to Professor Ben Ayade, the governor of Cross River State, by the NDDC management, Ayade slammed the commission for treating his state “unfairly”. According to him, the story of NDDC and Cross River State has been that of “melancholy”. He lamented that the people of Cross River State “have been reduced to want in body, soul and spirit”.
The experience of Rivers and Cross River States, put together, will not equate the disservice of NDDC to Abia State. Even before the Brambaifa-led board was appointed, Abia State had been victim of the dual misfortunes of “unfairness” and “melancholy”. At least, Rivers and Cross River States have had the honour of a courtesy visit! Abia State, on the other hand, has neither received “courtesy”, talk less of a “visit” ! Indeed, there is scarcely any significant evidence of NDDC’s presence in Abia State, but for some subpar projects located in few communities within the State.
Agreed that the collegiality needed in the management of the NDDC is lacking in most of the States, however, the Abia story, in all ramification, is a sorry state that should be addressed with dispatch.
For benefit of hindsight, NDDC is a creation of an Act of the National Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of Section 58 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Act, cited as the Niger Delta Development Commission Act 2000, repealed the Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission Decree 1998. Among other things, the NDDC Act 2000, is established to ensure an effective use of the sums received from the allocation of the Federal account. The fund is meant to tackle both the ecological and the infrastructural problems arising from oil explorations in Niger Delta areas and for “connected purposes”.
By virtue of section 2(1) (b) (i) of the Act, Abia State, as well as Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo and Rivers States are members of the NDDC. It was for this Act that Abia State was privileged to have the pioneer chairmanship of the Governing Board, in the person of Chief Onyema Ugochukwu, in line with the rotational clause of Section 4 (a), going by alphabetical order.
Also provided in the Act, 11(1) (a) is that an Advisory Committee, which shall consist of the governors of the member states of the Commission and two other persons as may be determined from time to time, shall be formed by the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. According to the Act, the primary functions of the Advisory Committee are to advise the board and monitor the activities of the commission and make rules regulating its own proceedings.
It is pathetic that many years down the line, the governors have not been allowed to either perform their statutory advisory functions to the board, or monitor the projects allocated to their respective states. In most cases, the governors are denied fore-knowledge of the projects earmarked for execution in their states until such projects are awarded and the contractors mobilised to the site! Most often, some of these projects are either abandoned or poorly executed for lack of proper monitoring.
Professor Brambaifa-led NDDC board should prove that his board means well. Let him convince Nigerians that the non-constitution of the statutory advisory committee , which ordinarily should consist of the governors of the NDDC states, is not pre-meditated to sideline majority of the PDP-controlled South South-States, as alleged by Gov. Wike. He should not only make haste to advise the president to do the needful, he and his board should also be seen to have done the needful.
As an intervention agency, the primary duty of the NDDC is to assist the state governors develop the states. As such, the programs and projects of the commission should be seen to compliment, rather than, contradict the good intentions of the states who albeit strenuously, are doing their best to alleviate the sufferings of people. Any attempt, therefore, by the authorities of NDDC, to portray the commission as political or partisan will be counter productive and could be seen as an attempt to circumvent the spirit and the letter of the Act institutionalising NDDC. On that note, Governor Ayade’s caveat will be applicable: “As governor, I have the superintending and overriding power over the land in Cross River, which I hold in trust for the people. Therefore, by the provisions of the law, I have the powers to stop any project in the state. It is part of the constitutional provisions under the NDDC Act that the NDDC will have regular meetings with the various stakeholders including the governors that form part of the governing board”.
There is no gainsaying that the states making up the NDDC are in dire need of accelerated development in various facets of their economies, hence, there ought to be a concerted effort, by the Ag. Managing Director and CEO of NDDC, Professor Brambaifa and his board, to urgently reach out to the governors to discuss terms and modalities needed to stimulate growth and stability in the region.
Given that the states are also critical stakeholders of NDDC, the current board should look inwards and identify some key projects and programs of the states that are in line with the visions of the Commission. Projects that are meant to bequeath long lasting legacies should be supported. Uppermost in mind are projects on human capital development, road infrastructure, industrialisation and Power.
Abia, like many other states, is indeed ripe for this collaboration. The Governor Okezie Ikpeazu’s administration has set the framework for a prosperous economy. He is working his talk of transforming Aba into the economic hub of Eastern Nigeria as well as the China of Africa. Considering where Aba was, prior to his assumption of office in 2015, one can attest to the fact that remarkable progress has been made in Abia State and Aba, in particular. No wonder Vice President Yemi Osinbajo branded Aba as the SME capital of Nigeria.
Indeed, states like Rivers and Abia are already making reasonable progress. The least the present NDDC board can do is to support them.
Given an equitable distribution of the resources available to the commission, coupled with robust synergy among its key stakeholders, greater success in the economic development of the states, is surely imminent.
By collaborating with the Niger Delta governors, regardless of party affiliations, the NDDC will have another opportunity to right her wrongs and possibly redress the distrust and despondency arising from long years of inaction and neglect by the commission.
Onyenma, a public relations practitioner, wrote in from PH.

Kennedy Onyenma

Opinion

Checking Voter Apathy In Nigeria’s Electoral Process

Published

1 day 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

1 day 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