Editorial

Military’s Claim And Fight Against Terrorists

Published

5 years ago

January 19, 2022

A new assertion by the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) that soldiers on counter-insurgency and other internal security operations across the country killed 1,910 terrorists, bandits and other criminals between May 20, 2021, and January 6, 2022, may have broached more questions than answers. The DHQ further affirmed that soldiers arrested over 700 terrorists, bandits and other criminals and released 729 kidnapped victims from their abductors.
The Acting Director of the Defence Media Organisation (DMO), Major-General Bernard Onyeuko, made this clear in a briefing. He maintained that 24,059 terrorists and their families comprising 5,326 males, 7,550 females and 11,183 children gave in to troops in the North-East within the period under review.
Onyeuko revealed this while providing an update on military operations over the last nine months. He said the blitz against terrorists, bandits, kidnappers and other criminal groups had led to the annihilation of several hide-outs of the criminals, retrieval of copious arms, ammunition, weapons together with gun trucks and devastation of several unlawful refineries in the South-South part of the country.
While it is not in question that the military is doing its best in the anti-insurgency war, the impact of the presumed achievements is yet to be felt by Nigerians. If the military has done so much, why do we still have all kinds of occupied territories? Why are killings and kidnappings by terrorists, bandits and other criminals on the upward turn? Why does the military consistently trumpet their ostensible triumphs against these criminals but stoutly deny reports of army fatalities in incursions?
If the Nigerian government’s rehearsed claims of military conquests over criminal elements, especially insurgents are anything to go by, why does violence persevere in the country’s North-East and North-West? Why have abductions, ambushes, and deadly suicide bombings continued unabated in large proportions? Although military operations have discomfited terrorists’ capacity to hold territories to an extent, Nigerian security forces are drawing back from securing the region’s enormous rural areas from attacks.
In the areas surrounding Lake Chad, the Islamic State of West Africa Province (ISWAP) — which split from Boko Haram in 2016 — seems to have acquired a stronger basis. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are still forced out and living in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps and neighbouring host communities, unable to access their land or return to their villages in diverse parts of the country including Benue State.
President Muhammadu Buhari was first voted into office in 2015 primarily because of the past administration’s inability to defeat the Boko Haram insurgency and end insecurity in the land. Sadly, more than six years into his administration, Nigerians have perceived more attacks from insurgents in more states outside the North-East. Also, banditry, other forms of crime and violence remain humongous challenges in the country.
Recall that seven months into its first term in 2015, Buhari’s administration had invented the phrase that Nigerian militant group, Boko Haram had been “technically defeated” and said Borno was in a “post-conflict stabilisation phase”, in defiance of the continued attacks. This statement rang increasingly hollow for a reasonable length of time. But the group and its by-products have never gone away to date.
Similarly, the immediate past Chief of Army Staff, Tukur Buratai, had said that the Boko Haram terrorist group had since been worsted but the Nigerian military was fighting an international criminal gang known as ISWAP. According to him, Boko Haram had been chased out of the North-East, and the band of international criminal gangs operating under the guise of ISWAP would also be pursued and hunted down. As can be seen, ISWAP and Boko Haram have metamorphosed into even more potent force.
Last year, there had been nearly 100 attacks, according to one estimate. Some military bases and towns, including Geidam and Damasak, a hub for aid workers, were overrun. Hundreds had been killed and weapons carted away, while food and medicines were looted. These and many other happenings confirm that the disparate pronouncements of successes by the military in the anti-insurgency war could be simulated, after all.
That does not, however, suggest that the nation’s military has not been recording victories in the war. Indeed, the armed forces have largely restricted the terror groups to three North-Eastern states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe. But the terrorists are still able to assail civilian and military targets, killing hundreds of people. A recent spike in lethal violence has led many to wonder what is at the root of the authorities’ failures.
An over-reliance on a military strategy to tackle insurgents is at the essence of the nation’s inability to deal with the danger. That is why, regrettably, almost 11 or 12 years into the counter-insurgency undertaking, we are not observing major attainments. With the latest declaration of bandits as terrorists, Nigerians expect to see reinvigorated actions in that line.
Recently, the Borno State Governor, Professor Babagana Zulum, alerted Nigerians that two local government councils in his state were under the full control of terrorists. This must be viewed seriously. The fact is that to crush insurgency or terrorism, our nation needs more than a military operation. Its root causes have to be recognised and addressed. Lack of good governance that leaves the population poverty-stricken, embittered and uneducated is one extensive root cause.
There are outstanding government initiatives that are meant to speed up development in the North-East, but little advancement has been made. There is also the National Counter-Terrorism Strategy which entails economic development and counter-radicalisation, in addition to the utilisation of troops. But it seems that the strategy is not being fully carried through.
Experts say the endemic hand-to-mouth existence in the country, particularly in the North-East, and the insurgents’ violent approach facilitate the continued recruitment of generation after generation of combatants. People are willingly ready for enlistment just to remain alive. Along with de-radicalisation, there should be a tremendous surge in military action similar to what was seen in Iraq and Syria when the Islamic State group’s so-called caliphate was dismantled.

Editorial

That Call to End Girl-Child Marriage

Published

3 days ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria joined the world in commemorating the International Day of the Girl-Child on 11 March 2026, an observance dedicated to advancing girls’ rights and amplifying their voices. This year’s theme, “End Child Marriage and Invest in Girls’ Rights,” confronts a deep-rooted injustice and demands an end to sacrificing girls’ futures to prejudice and expediency.

The focus is child marriage, not as an unavoidable misfortune but as a preventable injustice. Though prevalent in many societies, the practice remains particularly troubling in parts of northern Nigeria, where it has become normalised. Reports of girls aged 10 to 13 being married off are disturbing. The controversy surrounding a Nigerian senator and former governor who married a 13-year-old girl further exposed the practice to global scrutiny, yet accountability at home appeared limited. When lawmakers disregard the law, society’s moral compass is compromised.

UNICEF’s statistics reveal the scale of the crisis. Globally, an estimated 650 million women and girls alive today were married before turning 18, while more than 12 million girls enter marriage annually before adulthood. In Nigeria, about 33 per cent of girls marry before 18 and 11 per cent before 15. The prevalence reportedly reaches 63 per cent in Jigawa and Zamfara States and 61 per cent in Sokoto and Katsina. These figures represent millions of childhoods interrupted and futures imperilled.

These statistics explain why the United Nations continues to campaign against child marriage and advocate investment in girls. The consequences are devastating. Girls whose bodies are not fully developed face increased risks of maternal death, obstetric fistula, sexually transmitted infections and psychological trauma. The economic cost is equally significant. A 2017 World Bank and International Centre for Research on Women Study estimated that ending child marriage could generate an additional $7.6 billion in earnings and productivity for Nigeria, as early marriage deprives girls of education, skills, and opportunities to contribute to national development.

Educating a woman benefits the entire society. As a mother, she often becomes her children’s first teacher and a vital influence on their character. An educated mother helps raise enlightened children, just as one candle can light many others without losing its flame. Denying women education undermines families and communities. To expect wisdom while deliberately withholding knowledge is to demand the impossible.

Several reasons are offered for marrying off young girls, including economic hardship, cultural practices and religious beliefs. In some households, daughters are treated as commodities, married early so that their bride price can finance their brothers’ education. While boys enter classrooms, their sisters are sent to matrimonial homes. This discriminatory practice is shortsighted, depriving the nation of half its human potential. A country cannot expect to run effectively after deliberately crippling one side of its capacity.

Beyond these justifications lies the entrenched belief that women ultimately belong in the kitchen, regardless of their education. This outdated notion is demonstrably false. Countries where women lead governments, businesses, research institutions and other sectors show what investment in female talent can achieve. Rwanda’s substantial female parliamentary representation is one example. Confining women to domestic roles limits not only their ambitions but also the nation’s progress.

A girl-child must not surrender her childhood to poverty or prejudice. Some traditions discourage women from attaining educational heights comparable to or greater than those of men, driven by the baseless fear that educated women will disrespect their husbands. Such thinking equates enlightenment with insubordination and empowerment with threat. This patriarchal mindset perpetuates inequality and keeps society trapped in backwardness.

Consequently, some parents consider educating their daughters a waste of resources, likening it to watering another man’s garden. This attitude is deeply misguided. Every girl deserves the opportunity to learn, grow and pursue her dreams. Early marriage mortgages her future, stifles her potential and traps her in circumstances she might otherwise overcome. No society can justify sacrificing a child’s prospects to outdated customs or immediate financial gain.

Ending child marriage must, therefore, go hand in hand with investing in girls’ education, safety and rights. Every girl should have the opportunity to realise her potential. This requires more than annual declarations, billboards, posters and seminars held in air-conditioned halls. Awareness without action is like a cloud without rain: promising, yet incapable of nourishing the ground.

The campaign must move beyond tokenism to practical intervention, particularly at the state level, where the problem is acute. Governments should formulate policies that protect girls and make education accessible. Scholarships, bursaries, conditional cash transfers, school feeding programmes and other incentives can help keep girls in school. When education is affordable and adequately supported, more girls can choose the classroom over the bridal chamber.

Civil society organisations, faith-based groups, and traditional institutions must intensify efforts to challenge child marriage and dismantle harmful beliefs disguised as religious or cultural obligations. Parents must also uphold their responsibility to protect and educate their daughters, despite economic pressures. A society that educates its girls invests in its future; one that marries them off in childhood mortgages that future at an incalculable cost.

Editorial

Restructure the UN Power Arrangement

Published

1 week ago

October 19, 2026

The Tide

When Vice-President Kashim Shettima rose in New York on behalf of President Bola Tinubu to address the general debate of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, he carried a message that Africa has whispered, petitioned and pleaded for far too long: the world’s highest table of peace and security must make room for the continent. Nigeria’s demand is unambiguous: at least two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, with full rights, including the veto, alongside five non-permanent seats. It is a demand that deserves a fair hearing and a decisive response.

The President’s argument rests on a simple proposition: the architecture erected in 1945 cannot credibly govern the world of 2026. Reform of the United Nations, he insisted, must begin with the Security Council, where African representation remains grossly inadequate. Nigeria’s position, he reminded delegates, is anchored in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, which together articulate the African Union’s common position on Security Council reform. His most compelling point was also his simplest: Africa cannot continue to dominate the Council’s agenda while remaining absent from its permanent membership.

Consider how exclusive the club remains. Since the organisation’s founding, only five countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union’s seat, and China—have held permanent membership, with the privilege of the veto. When the UN Charter entered into force, the United Nations had 51 member states; today, it has 193. The organisation’s membership has nearly quadrupled, yet its inner sanctum has admitted no new permanent member in eight decades. A body that refuses to evolve invites the charge that it remains a monument to the victors of a long-concluded war.

The imbalance becomes even more striking when viewed through the lens of geography. Europe has two permanent seats held by European states, while Asia has one held by China. The United States holds another, and Russia, whose territory spans Europe and Asia, occupies the fifth. Africa, home to 54 countries and more than a quarter of the General Assembly’s membership, has none. We are entitled to ask why the historical circumstances of 1945 should continue to determine who sits permanently at the head of the table in the third decade of the twenty-first century.

The irony is bitter. According to Security Council Report, an independent monitoring organisation, Africa accounts for a substantial share of the Council’s formal meetings, while many of its peacekeeping and Chapter VII enforcement mandates concern African states. The Council, in effect, helps determine the fate of African nations without a permanent African voice in its deliberations. To make decisions with far-reaching consequences for a continent while excluding it from permanent decision-making is unjust, outdated and corrosive of the very legitimacy the Council claims.

Nor does the existing arrangement for African participation offer much consolation. Three non-permanent seats are allocated to Africa, but their occupants serve two-year terms, have no veto and enjoy no guaranteed continuity. The so-called A3 must repeatedly learn the corridors of power just as their tenure expires, while the permanent five enjoy continuity, influence and the power to block decisions. How can the United Nations credibly claim to represent the world equitably when an entire continent is excluded from permanent membership? If it is truly a global institution, Africa must have a seat at the table as of right, not at the discretion of others.

Demography reinforces the case. Africa is home to about 1.5 billion people, roughly a fifth of humanity, and its share of the global population is projected to rise. Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country, has an estimated population of more than 230 million and a long record of contributing to peacekeeping and regional stabilisation. Africa’s permanent representatives must be chosen through a process that reflects the continent’s collective interests, and Nigeria, by virtue of its population, diplomatic standing and record of service, is well placed to be considered for one of the two seats. We, therefore, endorse the Federal Government’s position that Africa should have at least two permanent seats on the Security Council.

The vexed question of the veto deserves equal candour. Our considered view is that the veto should be abolished. Where four members agree, a single dissenting voice should not be allowed to frustrate the will of the majority. Time and again, the veto has paralysed the Council in the face of atrocities and aggression, turning deliberation into deadlock and undermining collective action.

The African Union’s formal position is pragmatic: if the veto is abolished for all, so be it; but for as long as it survives, Africa must not be saddled with second-class membership without the same privilege. This is a logical and defensible position, even if the complete abolition of the veto remains the more desirable goal.

The lopsided composition of the Council helps explain why the international community has struggled to make meaningful progress on some of the world’s gravest conflicts. A chamber in which a handful of powers pursue their strategic interests, with limited accountability to the regions most affected by its decisions, can hardly be described as democratic. Legitimacy is the currency of any international institution. When that legitimacy is squandered, confidence in the Council’s decisions weakens, and the cause of multilateralism suffers.

Several practical steps should follow. First, Abuja and the African Union must speak with one voice, agreeing on the criteria for selecting Africa’s representatives and establishing a credible process for identifying candidates for the two seats. This would prevent internal divisions from being exploited by opponents of reform. Second, Nigeria should build alliances beyond the continent, notably with Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, as well as Caribbean and Pacific states that share an interest in reforming the international system. Third, Nigeria must continue to strengthen its credentials through sustained contributions to peacekeeping, sound democratic governance, and timely financial contributions to international institutions.

The Security Council was fashioned for a world that has long since vanished. To pretend otherwise is to court irrelevance. Africa is asking not for charity but for representation commensurate with its population, its responsibilities and its potential. Reform is long overdue, and the international community can no longer afford to ignore the issue. President Tinubu has set out Nigeria’s case with clarity; it is now incumbent on the major powers to demonstrate that the United Nations is a community of nations, not a private club reserved for the victors of a bygone era. History will judge them by how seriously and swiftly they respond.

Editorial

Time To Resolve The Pension Crisis In Rivers

Published

2 weeks ago

October 12, 2026

The Tide

The prolonged suffering of Rivers State pensioners who have remained unpaid since retiring in July 2025 demands urgent executive and legislative intervention. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has rightly put its finger on the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) as the root cause of this crisis. The state government must now bite the bullet, dismantle this failed experiment, and bring the pensioners’ protracted ordeal to an end.

Since July 2025, the affected retirees have been left high and dry, their monthly pensions unpaid, and their dignity worn away. The NLC, under the leadership of Comrade Alex Agwuanwon, has also linked this deplorable situation to the political storm that engulfed the state, while expressing cautious optimism that the prevailing calm will pave the way for the payment of outstanding arrears. The Tide shares that optimism. However, optimism alone will not put food on the table for men and women who gave the best years of their lives to the service of the state.

The genesis of this crisis is not shrouded in mystery. The CPS was introduced in Rivers State in 2012 under the administration of former Governor Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, pursuant to the Rivers State Pension Reform Law of that year. The scheme was ostensibly designed to bring the state into line with the federal Pension Reform Act of 2004, which had established a contributory framework for retirement benefits across the country. What was sold as a progressive reform has, in truth, become a millstone round the neck of the very workers it was meant to protect.

The CPS has failed in the state, and it has failed spectacularly. Its fundamental flaw lies in the government’s chronic inability, or unwillingness, to honour its counterpart funding obligations. The arrangement was meant to be a joint endeavour: employees contribute a portion of their salaries, and the employer matches it. But the state has consistently failed to keep its side of the bargain, leaving the pension fund anaemic and unable to meet its obligations. The result is as predictable as it is unconscionable. Retirees are left with only their own contributions to fall back on, a mere pittance that cannot see them through their twilight years.

The human cost of this institutional failure is staggering. Men and women who devoted decades to the civil service now find themselves cast adrift, their legitimate expectation of a secure retirement shattered. The psychological toll of such betrayal is beyond measure. A pension is not an act of charity. It is a contractual obligation, a deferred wage for services already rendered. To withhold it is to break a sacred trust. The authorities must understand that every delay in resolving this crisis costs lives, both in the literal sense as elderly retirees struggle to pay for healthcare and sustenance, and in the figurative sense as the social contract between the state and its workforce wears thinner with each passing month.

This development does not show the government in a favourable light. For a state to allow people who served it with dedication and integrity to languish in penury after retirement is morally indefensible. It sends a chilling message to serving civil servants that loyalty will be repaid with abandonment. This is precisely why organised labour must not rest on its oars. The NLC’s call for the termination of the CPS is not mere grandstanding. It is a necessary corrective. The scheme, as presently administered, is irredeemably broken and must be done away with.

The most damning indictment of the CPS since its inception is its one-sidedness. The government has failed to pay its counterpart funding, reducing the scheme to a hollow shell. Of what use is a contributory arrangement when only one party contributes? Retirees cannot be expected to live on the meagre sums they themselves set aside, sums which have been steadily eroded by inflation and administrative charges. Workers have been short-changed, left to carry the can while the government looked the other way. It is a quiet expropriation of their future.

The time to put this right is now in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness. The NLC should push harder for the swift implementation of its committee’s report to Governor Siminalayi Fubara. That report contains a sensible and pragmatic recommendation: that the CPS should apply only to those employed in the year it was enacted, thereby allowing existing civil servants to remain under the Defined Benefit Scheme (DBS) to which they were originally entitled. This is not a radical proposal. It is a reasonable compromise that recognises the legitimate expectations of long-serving workers and rights the wrongs of the past.

The authorities must act with dispatch. Governor Fubara should, without further ado, send a draft amendment of the Pension Law to the House of Assembly for passage into law. With such legislative intervention, those who retired from July 2025 to date would be returned to the DBS, receiving pensions calculated on their terminal salaries and years of service rather than the paltry sums available under the failed contributory arrangement. The NLC, for its part, should keep its foot on the pedal through dialogue, advocacy, and, if necessary, peaceful protest. Pensioners deserve not just fine words but concrete action.

Rivers State cannot lay claim to be progressive while its retirees are forced to go cap in hand for their rightful entitlements. The measure of any civilised society is how it treats its elderly. By that yardstick, the present situation is a blot on the state’s escutcheon. The government must clear the backlog of arrears, scrap the CPS for the category of workers it should never have applied to, and restore the DBS in full. Nothing less will suffice.