Editorial

No To Pension Fund Borrowing

Published

6 years ago

February 18, 2020

Being a country most notorious for borrowings, it does not come across as a consternation that Nigeria would ask to take a N2 trillion loan from the dedicated Pension Fund. Expectedly, the proposal has raised the ire of labour unions, workers, groups and critical stakeholders who have vehemently repudiated the idea. Despite that, the federal government seems intent on going ahead with the planned action.
The Vice President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, confirmed the government’s position at the National Economic Council (NEC) meeting he presided lately where he revealed that plans had been perfected to take N2 trillion from the current N10 trillion domiciled in the pension till to finance the rejuvenation of decomposing infrastructure.
However, if the glitches that characterised the pension schemes prior to 2004 are anything to go by, then, this is a fatal move that must be halted. Our suspicion is deepened by the fact that at the moment, the government’s indebtedness to pensions in accrued rights, pension differentials, minimum pension guarantee, pension increase is well over N400 billion.
Government needs to be reminded that the Contributory Pension Scheme came into existence in 2004 to replace the moribund Defined Pension Scheme. It is fully funded by workers and employers and privately managed by Pension Fund Administrators. The monies are in the individual Retirement Savings Account (RSA). Therefore, it is significant that the consent of the workers is, at least, sought.
While infrastructure is a colossal asset around the world, and especially in most advanced countries in which private investors could invest Pension Fund and make high returns, here, infrastructure is yet to be an asset because Nigeria runs a dysfunctional economy, morbidly dependent on crude oil revenue. It is an economy that sustains enormous corruption and relies ponderously on the importation of goods and services that can effortlessly be generated here.
A recent Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) report indicated that the Federal Government registered N4.62 trillion deficit in 2019. That year, its highest expenditure went on recurrent at N4.05 trillion out of a budget of N8.9 trillion. This is certainly an unworkable economic exemplification. A country which keeps allocating more resources to consumption cannot guarantee that the funds its government seeks to borrow will not be frittered on politicians and civil servants.
We firmly believe that the government does not have to borrow to erect or maintain infrastructure if it can cut on its garish lifestyle. For example, besides the prodigious sums expended on federal lawmakers, fuel subsidy alone cost the nation N2.95 trillion in 2018. With this, we find it hard to comprehend why the four refineries that gulped about $400 million between 2013 and 2015 cannot be auctioned to private investors who can run them efficiently.
Again, a report by the Debt Management Office (DMO) stated that as of September 2019, Nigeria had a debt profile of N26.21 trillion or $85.3 billion while debt servicing alone costs N2 trillion annually on average. This has more severely compromised the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio. The obvious implication is that the current ratio cannot sustain a serious borrowing any longer. So, what is the repayment plan for the N2 trillion when debt servicing guzzles so much?
In a surprisingly bold statement, the Federal Government claims it needs the N2 trillion to plough into infrastructural upswings like the rails, roads and power. These are desirable projects, no doubt, but it will be harmful to divert pension capital to them. In the first place, it doesn’t make sense to keep plunging public funds into power when in the privatisation exercise of November 2013, N1.7 trillion was disbursed to stabilise the sector without the anticipated result. The way it is, if the entire N2 trillion is assigned to the sector, no improvement may be recorded.
During the 2008 economic crisis, the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria deployed N5 trillion to bail out some ailing firms. But because there is a consistent dearth of political will in the country, that large sum is yet to be recouped by various administrations till date. Why look elsewhere when this money is more than twice the N2 trillion being sought for? Furthermore, what happened to funds granted private organisations like the Aviation Fund and Textile Fund? Of course, they have gone down the drain and unaccounted for while the culprits walk unhindered.
It is a fact that pension depositories are used to construct infrastructure in developed countries, particularly those with a vast ratio of Pension Fund to GDP. However, with a Pension Fund to GDP ratio of 6.7 per cent, Nigeria cannot cut a slice of its pension reserves to invest in infrastructure without jeopardising workers’ fortune. To be suitable to do that, our infrastructure market must be developed and well regulated.
We express grave concern at the fate of Nigerian workers in the face of incessant borrowings by our governments without corresponding development. It is unthinkable to borrow from the Pension Fund when the citizens have not felt the impact of the mounting debts foisted on the country. What is paramount to contributors and other stakeholders alike is the safety of the Fund, which, unfortunately, government cannot guarantee. This action of government has the potential to threaten the scheme and erode contributors’ confidence.
Accordingly, we strongly apprise the federal government to think twice and desist from overstepping the Pension Reform Act 2004 to gratify its crave to build infrastructure. This was the issue with Argentina when its then President, Cristina Fernandez, manoeuvred the parliament and clutched the country’s $30 billion Pension Fund. Instantly, international investors’ confidence wiggled and the economy went into a free fall.
As the regulatory agency, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) should not subject pension revenue to undue hazard by granting political office holders access to the Fund. Like birds of passage, politicians have no stake in the pension money; as such, they have to be prevented by all means from intruding on the future of Nigerian workers. The government with their itchy fingers should maintain a distance from the pension proceeds to stave off Argentina’s ugly experience.

·
· · ·

Editorial

A Fair Wage for Difficult Times

Published

4 days ago

July 3, 2026

The Tide

The latest demand by the Federal Workers Forum (FWF) for an upward review of the national minimum wage from N70,000 to N300,000 should not be dismissed as another routine labour agitation. Rather, it should be seen as a reflection of the deep economic pain confronting millions of Nigerian workers whose purchasing power has been severely eroded by inflation, rising living costs, and a struggling economy. Whether or not the figure being demanded is attainable, the message behind it cannot be ignored.

The decision of the Forum to proceed with a nationwide protest also underscores the growing frustration among federal workers who believe that repeated appeals have produced little meaningful action. Their complaints over unpaid entitlements, wage awards, promotion arrears, and other outstanding benefits deserve prompt attention from the authorities. A government that expects dedication and productivity from its workforce must also fulfil its obligations to them.

It is significant that the Chief of Staff to the President recently acknowledged that federal workers are poorly remunerated. Such an admission is welcome because it confirms what workers have consistently argued for years. However, acknowledgement alone is insufficient. Nigerians expect practical measures that will improve workers’ welfare rather than statements that only recognise the obvious.

The economic realities confronting workers are doubtlessly harsh. Food prices have climbed beyond the reach of many families, transportation costs have risen sharply, rents continue to increase, and the cost of healthcare and education has become unbearable for many households. Salaries that appeared modest a few years ago have become grossly inadequate in today’s economic environment.

Compounding the hardship is the persistent challenge of insecurity across the country. Many workers travel daily under difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions to earn incomes that barely sustain their families. The emotional and financial burden of this situation has created widespread frustration and anxiety, contributing to the tense atmosphere that now pervades the nation.

Against this background, the call for a living wage is both reasonable and urgent. The purpose of a minimum wage is not just to keep workers employed but to enable them to live with dignity. When full-time workers cannot adequately feed their families, pay school fees, access healthcare, or meet basic living expenses, it becomes clear that existing wage structures require serious review.

The Federal Government should, therefore, approach this matter with the seriousness it deserves. It should immediately commence purposeful discussions with organised labour and representatives of the Federal Workers Forum to examine realistic options for improving workers’ welfare. Delaying action or relying on promises will only deepen public dissatisfaction and erode confidence in the government.

Equally important is the need for the government to honour existing commitments. Reports of outstanding wage awards, unpaid allowances, and promotion arrears should be independently verified and settled without unnecessary delay. Keeping faith with agreements already reached would demonstrate sincerity and rebuild trust between the authorities and their employees.

That said, the workers must also appreciate the importance of sustained dialogue. While peaceful protest remains a constitutional right, industrial disputes are more productively resolved through negotiation than confrontation. Every effort should be made to avoid actions capable of disrupting essential public services or escalating national tension.

The leadership of organised labour also has a crucial role to play. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) must rise and provide united, responsible, and strategic leadership. Workers need strong representation that combines firmness with wisdom and places national interest alongside legitimate labour demands.

There is no doubt that the government faces enormous fiscal challenges. Declining revenues, mounting debt obligations, and competing development needs make public finance increasingly difficult. Nevertheless, these realities cannot become excuses for allowing civil servants to sink deeper into poverty. Sound economic management must ultimately translate into improved living conditions for citizens.

In truth, paying workers a fair and sustainable wage is not only a social obligation; it is an economic necessity. Better-paid workers stimulate consumer spending, enhance productivity, reduce corruption arising from financial desperation, and contribute to greater national stability. Investment in workers is an investment in economic growth.

Nigeria can ill afford another prolonged confrontation between government and labour at a time when insecurity, inflation, and public discontent already threaten social cohesion. Both sides should exercise restraint, avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and demonstrate genuine commitment to finding common ground. Nigerians expect solutions, not endless disputes.

The message from the current agitation is unmistakable. The Federal Government must heed the legitimate demands of workers by urgently pursuing a new living wage that reflects present economic realities and restores hope to millions of households. At the same time, workers should keep engaging the government through peaceful dialogue, mutual respect, and responsible negotiation. At this critical moment in our country’s history, compromise, compassion, and decisive leadership offer the surest path to industrial harmony and national progress.

Editorial

Getting State Police Right

Published

1 week ago

June 29, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria appears closer than ever to embracing state police, a transformative reform that has dominated national security discourse for years. Such a move, however, requires constitutional amendment to eliminate existing legal obstacles. The National Assembly deserves commendation for expediting work on the necessary legislation to amend Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, which currently provides for a single, centralised national police force. Having secured passage in both chambers, the amendment bills should now be transmitted without delay to the state Houses of Assembly for prompt consideration.

The urgency of this reform is indisputable. Nigeria has been grappling with terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence, and organised crime, all of which have overstretched the existing security architecture. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Nigerians paid an estimated N2.23 trillion in ransom between May 2023 and April 2024, while about 51.9 million crime incidents affected households during the same period. These disturbing figures underline the necessity of strengthening policing through a more pragmatic and responsive system.

State police could remarkably complement the efforts of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), bringing law enforcement closer to local communities. Officers recruited from within their areas are often better acquainted with the terrain, languages, and cultural dynamics that shape criminal activity. Such local knowledge could produce a more perspicacious approach to crime prevention, intelligence gathering, and rapid emergency response.

Critics rightly fear that state police could become instruments of political persecution if left unchecked. Unscrupulous governors may be tempted to intimidate opponents, suppress dissent, or influence elections through the misuse of security agencies. Any constitutional amendment must, therefore, establish firm precautions that guarantee operational independence and prevent such capricious abuse of authority.

Another serious concern is finance. Running a modern police organisation requires sustained investment in personnel, equipment, technology, training, and welfare. Many states already struggle to pay salaries and pensions promptly. Without reliable funding, state police could deteriorate into poorly equipped institutions that weaken rather than strengthen public safety. Fiscal prudence must accompany political ambition.

Nigeria’s ethnic and religious diversity also demands careful reflection. Minority communities in several states have legitimate concerns that locally controlled police could be manipulated against them during periods of political or communal tension. Recruitment based on ethnicity, family ties, or political loyalty would further undermine professionalism. Only transparent procedures founded on merit can cultivate an equitable policing culture.

Equally important is the need for a comprehensive legal framework to regulate state police operations. Clear provisions are required to define jurisdiction, disciplinary procedures, civilian complaints, accountability mechanisms, and the limits of operational authority. Without such legal clarity, disputes and uncertainty could quickly overwhelm the new institutions.

The relationship between state police and the Nigeria Police Force also deserves meticulous attention. Cross-border crimes, insurgency, and organised criminal networks rarely respect state boundaries. Unless command structures, operational responsibilities, and emergency coordination are carefully defined, jurisdictional rivalry could produce dangerous ambiguity at critical moments.

A fragmented security system presents another risk. Thirty-six separate police commands operating under different priorities and standards may complicate coordinated national responses to terrorism, banditry, and other transnational threats. Intelligence sharing between federal and state agencies must be seamless, timely, and cohesive, leaving no room for avoidable security gaps.

Human rights protection should occupy a central place in the reform agenda. Nigeria’s experience during the #EndSARS protests exposed deep concerns about police brutality, impunity, and excessive force. Establishing additional police formations may merely multiply opportunities for abuse. Independent complaint commissions, judicial oversight, and regular human rights training are indispensable guarantees.

Political transitions pose another challenge. Changes in state administrations should never trigger wholesale dismissals of police leadership or politically motivated appointments. Professional continuity, rather than partisan loyalty, must define career progression. Uniform training standards, ethical codes, and promotion procedures will help preserve the integrity of the institution regardless of who occupies government office.

History also offers a critical lesson. Nigeria operated regional police forces before 1966, but their widespread political misuse contributed to their eventual abolition. That experience should not automatically condemn present reforms, yet neither should it be ignored. Policymakers must undertake a judicious assessment of past failures and design institutions capable of preventing their recurrence.

Ultimately, state police represent an opportunity to strengthen security, but only if reform is pursued with wisdom rather than haste. Constitutional amendment alone will not guarantee success. Strong oversight institutions, transparent recruitment, sustainable funding, effective intelligence sharing, respect for human rights, and genuine accountability must accompany decentralisation. If these essential conditions are fulfilled, state police could become a valuable pillar of national security instead of another source of instability.

Editorial

June 12: The Faltering Democratic Journey

Published

4 weeks ago

June 12, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria today marks Democracy Day, an occasion set aside to celebrate the country’s democratic journey and reflect on the sacrifices made by citizens in the struggle for representative government. The day is both a celebration and a reminder that democracy is not merely about periodic elections. It is also about freedom, justice, accountability, security, and the welfare of the people.

June 12 occupies a special place in Nigeria’s political history because it commemorates the presidential election of June 12, 1993, widely regarded as the freest, fairest, and most credible election ever conducted in the country. The election was won by late Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, but the military government of General Ibrahim Babangida annulled the results, plunging the nation into political turmoil and a prolonged struggle for democratic rule.

For many years, Nigeria celebrated Democracy Day on May 29 because that was the date when military rule ended and power was handed over to a democratically elected government in 1999. However, in 2018, the administration of late President Muhammadu Buhari officially moved Democracy Day from May 29 to June 12. The change was intended to honour the sacrifices of those who fought against military dictatorship and to recognise the importance of the annulled 1993 election.

More than two decades after the return to civilian rule, Nigeria’s democratic record presents a mixture of progress and disappointment. The country has maintained uninterrupted civilian government since 1999, making it the longest democratic period in its post-independence history. Yet, the quality of governance and democratic institutions remains a matter of concern.

On political rights, Nigeria has made modest gains. Citizens have the constitutional right to vote and contest elections, and political parties operate freely. However, concerns have always been about voter apathy, political violence, and the influence of money in politics. In the 2023 general election, fewer than 30 per cent of registered voters cast their ballots, highlighting declining public confidence in the electoral process.

Civil liberties have improved compared with the military era, but challenges persist. Citizens enjoy greater freedom to express opinions, organise groups, and participate in public debates. Nevertheless, reports of unlawful arrests, harassment of activists, and restrictions on peaceful protests raise questions about the full protection of civil freedoms.

Electoral integrity has shown some improvement through the deployment of technology by the Independent National Electoral Commission. Yet disputes over election management, vote buying, rigging, logistical failures, and prolonged litigation undermine public trust. Many Nigerians still believe electoral reforms have not gone far enough to guarantee completely transparent elections.

Freedom of expression and association are relatively vibrant. Traditional and social media platforms provide citizens with avenues to criticise government policies and mobilise public opinion. However, journalists, activists, and media organisations occasionally face intimidation, legal pressures, and threats that create concerns about press freedom and democratic openness.

Security is one of Nigeria’s weakest democratic indicators. Insurgency in the North East, banditry in the North West, farmer-herder conflicts in parts of the Middle Belt, separatist tensions in the South-East, and widespread kidnapping have created a climate of fear. Thousands of lives have been lost in violent attacks over the past decade, while many communities live under constant security threats.

The rule of law and judicial independence present a mixed picture. Nigerian courts have delivered landmark judgments that have strengthened democracy and resolved electoral disputes peacefully. Yet allegations of political interference, delays in the justice system, and concerns over selective application of the law affect public confidence in the judiciary.

Protection of individual rights and checks on executive power are among areas requiring improvement. Although constitutional safeguards exist, enforcement is often inconsistent. Institutions responsible for oversight, including the legislature and anti-corruption agencies, sometimes face accusations of weakness or partisanship. Strong democratic systems require institutions that can operate independently of political influence.

On accountability and transparency, Nigeria has made some progress through public procurement reforms, digital financial systems, and increased access to information. Yet corruption remains a major obstacle. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has consistently ranked Nigeria among countries facing serious corruption challenges. The misuse of public resources undermines development and public trust.

Citizen participation in governance has expanded through civil society organisations, community groups, and digital engagement. However, many citizens still feel disconnected from decision-making processes. Economically, democracy has not delivered the level of prosperity many expected. Despite being Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria has been struggling with high inflation, unemployment, poverty, and a rising cost of living. Effective and responsive government remains a challenge as many Nigerians demand better public services, infrastructure, healthcare, and education.

As Nigeria marks Democracy Day, the path forward is clear. Electoral reforms must be strengthened to improve transparency and public confidence. Security agencies must be better equipped and held accountable. Judicial independence should be protected, while anti-corruption institutions must be empowered to act without fear or favour. Governments at all levels should embrace transparency, respect human rights, and prioritise economic policies that create jobs and improve living standards.

Above all, citizens must actively engage in governance. Democracy flourishes not only through elections but also through continuous participation, vigilance, and accountability. The promise of June 12 will be fully realised only when democratic governance delivers freedom, justice, security, and prosperity to all Nigerians.