Editorial
Another Look At PIB Provisions
Progress on the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) currently under careful considerations in the National
Assembly (NASS) may be stalled as two prominent groups in the Niger Delta region, the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) and the Niger Delta Dialogue (NDD), have outrightly rejected no fewer than 12 significant provisions in the Petroleum Host and Impacted Communities Development Bill (PHICDB).
Specifically, both groups are asking for the redrafting, rephrasing and restructuring of the observed provisions to accommodate the interests of the poor and neglected people of the oil and gas host and impacted communities in the Niger Delta or lose the peace and development sought by the PHICDB in the region.
PANDEF and NDD revealed their positions during the NDD’s Strategic Communication and Advocacy Training session for major stakeholders in PANDEF, NDD, and the various Policy Advocacy Committees (PACs) in Port Harcourt recently. The PHICDB is an essential part of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) currently before both chambers of the National Assembly.
The PHICDB seeks to promote sustainable mutual social and economic benefits from petroleum operations to host and impacted communities. It is equally designed to enhance peaceful and harmonious coexistence between settlers and host/impacted communities as well as create a framework to support their development process.
The objectionable provisions include the Interpretations Section, which the groups claim was vague in the use of words and terms such as “host and impacted communities” to describe oil-bearing communities in the region. They also faulted the silence of the bill on how the clusters should be formed and the trust fund shared. Similarly, they rejected the vague use of the term ‘Settlor(s)’ in Part 2, Section 2, Subsection 1 and 2 of the draft bill.
Additionally, the stakeholders wondered why “sabotage spill” was not clearly defined but its effects were highlighted in the draft bill. Further, they condemned the observed silence in the sharing formula of the accruing fund from the “Settlor(s)” between host and impacted communities, particularly given that there are more impacted settlements than host communities in available oil industry records.
Furthermore, the groups took a swipe at Part 3, Section 9, Subsection 1 and 2 of the draft bill for resting the creation and determination of the membership of the Board of Trustees (BoTs) for the trust funds on the International Oil Companies (IOCs). They also picked holes in Section 11, which splits the utilisation of the Endowment Fund to 70 per cent for capital expenditure; 20 per cent for the Reserve Fund; and 10 per cent for the settlor(s) special projects.
Expressing worry that the Presidency failed to specify how the operating expenditures of the settlor(s) would be verified to ascertain the accruing funds to the cluster trusts, the stakeholders objected to Section 22 that the settlors’ Operating Expenditure (OPEX) paid into the trust fund shall be subject to Petroleum Income Tax (PIT) and Companies Income Tax (CIT) deductibles.
Section 5 of the bill was queried for failing to give specific sanctions for underpayment, late payment or non-payment of agreed money into the cluster trust fund as and when due. They lamented the insufficient clarity on time frames for the incorporation of cluster trusts for host and impacted communities and the failure to stipulate penalties for reneging on implementation of agreed projects and programmes by the settlor(s) as contained in Section 3 of the bill.
First, it must be established that the broad objectives of the PHICDB are commendable, and that is to find an acceptable framework for an active company-community engagement mechanism structure. But it shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for the government’s responsibility to provide basic services and infrastructure for the host and impacted communities.
However, the flawed provisions identified by PANDEF and NDD are troubling. These principally relate to the power vested in the oil industry to determine crucial parameters connected to how funding will be allocated. We also need to know what constitutes a host community and how the BoTs to manage the funds will be set up.
If the purported purpose of the bill is to empower host communities to take charge of their development needs, why does it give the IOCs the sole power to appoint and determine the composition of the BoT, cutting communities out of the decision-making process? This way, investors can appoint non-indigenous persons as board members. This is a source of conflict and highly undesirable for a bill that aims to build trust.
Again, the issues regarding the lack of an enforceable time frame for project implementation must not be ignored because of its likely consequences. It will probably institutionalise the perception among communities that their concerns are marginal to those of industry, hence, generate serious grievance for many.
It is equally sad that the PHICDB makes settlors the sole authority for determining areas of operation. In effect, this is the power to determine which communities are impacted by the petroleum industry and as such benefit from the trust fund. This means communities that suffer environmental damage from the petroleum industry, but which, if not designated as a host community, will be denied compensations. This enables IOCs to fulfill their obligations in a way that suits their needs, not the communities’.
The PHICDB, as it stands, downplays the role of government in the development of host communities. Instead, it places that responsibility on the oil companies, with the only role for the government that of the Nigerian Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NPRC). NPRC is to mediate in disputes with the proviso that the decision of the Commission remains valid until overturned by the Federal High Court.
But being a creation of the government, it is believed that the NPRC may not be an impartial arbiter because the likely outcome in any such dispute will be favourable to industry, not the communities. And since historical antecedents of such litigations in court have tended to take years, if they are resolved at all, likely the NPRC decision will unduly last longer.
Clearly, the PHICDB vests too much power in the IOCs, particularly in terms of deciding how development projects are determined and implemented, as well as their beneficiaries. This may further alienate communities that already consider themselves cut out of decision-making. In consequence, the Federal Government and NASS should re-examine the PIB and accommodate the recommendations of the PACs to prevent another round of tension and agitations in the region.
Editorial
2027: Beyond IGP’s Billboards Protection Order
As Nigeria moves toward the 2027 general elections and campaign activities intensify, violence against opposition politicians has become an issue that can no longer be overlooked. What should be a season of competing ideas is increasingly turning into a test of intimidation, and early signs suggest that those challenging the ruling establishment are the primary targets.
It was, therefore, welcome news when the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, warned politicians, political thugs and others against destroying, defacing or removing campaign posters, banners and billboards. In a statement issued in Abuja by the Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Ani Iniedu, the police condemned such acts as political intolerance, directed Commissioners of Police in all 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory to take preventive measures, and warned that sponsors would also face prosecution. The police rightly described such vandalism as a criminal act that undermines parties’ and candidates’ freedom to canvass for votes.
But billboards are replaceable; human lives are not. While applauding the IGP’s stance, we urge him to extend the same stern warning and enforcement zeal to thugs who assault opposition members during campaigns. A police force that punishes the tearing of a poster but ignores the breaking of a skull will have its priorities questioned. Allowing such attacks to continue could erode the foundations of our democracy.
Consider the African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential campaign flag-off in Sokoto State on November 4, 2026. The party alleged that the State Government denied it access to public facilities, sealed its campaign venue and pressured hotels to reject its delegates, forcing it to hold the rally at its secretariat. The Sokoto authorities, however, denied instructing hotels to turn guests away. More seriously, two suspected ADC supporters were reportedly shot along the Sokoto–Wurno Road while travelling to the venue, allegedly by operatives of the Sokoto State Community Guards.
Whatever the truth of these competing accounts, a shooting demands more than press statements. It requires a transparent, independent investigation and prosecution where warranted. Sokoto was not an isolated incident. The following day in Birnin Kebbi, the ADC presidential campaign convoy was reportedly attacked by armed gangs. Amnesty International said vehicles were vandalised, people assaulted with cutlasses and roads blocked, while the party’s Kebbi governorship candidate, Abubakar Malami, alleged that media equipment was destroyed and tear gas deployed. His convoy had suffered a similar attack in the city in September 2025.
The Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) has suffered similar attacks. On November 4, hoodlums stoned the motorcade of its presidential candidate, Peter Obi, and running mate, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, at Watt Market roundabout in Calabar, Cross River State. Police reported arresting a 27-year-old suspect, Victor Edet, although it remains unclear whether he has been arraigned. The State Government has denied suggestions that ruling-party supporters were responsible. Worse, in Asaba, Delta State, one person was killed and five injured when suspected thugs attacked an NDC rally. A death at a political rally is no longer a warning; it is a damning indictment of the prevailing political climate.
Even critics of the establishment who are not frontrunners have not been spared. Omoyele Sowore, presidential candidate of the African Action Congress (AAC), was attacked by suspected thugs at a restaurant in Ado-Ekiti on October 30. He alleged that the assailants were linked to the Ekiti State Government House and that the Department of State Services leaked his location. Both the State Government and the security service denied involvement, while the police reported a minor injury and a discreet investigation. These conflicting accounts make an independent, publicly reported inquiry indispensable.
What deepens the concern is the Federal Government’s apparent silence. We are unaware of any specific, forceful condemnation of these assaults, even as All Progressives Congress (APC) rallies appear to proceed nationwide without incident. Such silence can easily be misconstrued as complicity, regardless of intent.
According to the Centre for Democracy and Development, 109 election-related deaths were recorded in the build-up to the 2023 polls. The Kimpact Development Initiative separately documented 238 incidents and 24 deaths during the general elections. Beyond Nigeria, Kenya’s 2007–08 post-election violence claimed more than 1,000 lives, according to the Waki Commission. Ghana, by contrast, enacted the Vigilantism and Related Offences Act in 2019 to curb party vigilante groups, a model worth studying.
The remedies are neither exotic nor expensive. The IGP should extend his directive to cover assaults on individuals and disruptions of rallies, while establishing a dedicated investigative unit to probe the Sokoto shooting and the attacks in Kebbi, Calabar, Asaba and Ado-Ekiti. It should publish the status of each case within a fixed period. Suspects must be prosecuted and their sponsors, regardless of party or position, brought to justice. State-backed security outfits, including the Community Guards, should be audited and barred from partisan duties.
The Federal Government must speak and act unequivocally. President Tinubu should specifically condemn attacks on opposition candidates and direct all security agencies to guarantee equal protection for every party. Governors must ensure equal access to public facilities for registered parties. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which has warned of fines and imprisonment under the Electoral Act 2026 for inflammatory campaign conduct, should enforce the Code of Conduct for Political Parties. Working with the Inter-Agency Consultative Committee on Election Security, it should publish a joint security plan covering campaigns, polling, and collation. Parties must discipline their supporters, courts expedite electoral-violence trials, and civil society and the media maintain a public record of incidents and their outcomes.
The credibility of the 2027 elections is at stake. An election is credible only when every contender can campaign, travel, assemble and speak freely, without fear. Without a free opposition, there can be no meaningful democracy. Nigeria is not a one-party State, and law enforcement agencies must demonstrate their neutrality through action, not communiqués. The campaign atmosphere is too tense to be left to chance. Billboards deserve protection, certainly, but citizens deserve it far more.
Editorial
Champions At Last: Well Done, Flamingos
Editorial
Kula Tragedy, Needless Loss Of Lives
-
Politics4 days agoLG CITY BOY COORDINATOR HAILS WIKE’S SUPPORT FOR ONYESOH, TINUBU
-
Politics4 days ago
DIRI INAUGURATES APC CAMPAIGN COUNCIL, SETS MILLION VOTES TARGET FOR TINUBU
-
Politics4 days agoNDC Candidate Urges Oborevwori To Probe Asaba Political Violence
-
News4 days agoArmy Recovers X Account After Hack Attempt
-
Business11 hours ago
‘NUJ, NPA’s Partnership Would Boost Port Producrivity, Economic Growth’
-
News8 hours ago
RSG Reaffirms Commitment To STEM Education, Technological Advancement
-
News8 hours agoIGP Warns Police Officers Against Partisanship …Directs Regular Engagement With Journalists
-
Politics4 days ago
2027: Oborevwori Tasks Media On Fair, Accurate Reporting
