Editorial

Beyond South Sudan’s Independence

Published

14 years ago

July 19, 2011

Before July 9, 2011, Sudan was regarded as the largest country in Africa with impressive potentials. However, after attaining its second independence, first in 1956, before South Sudan’s sovereign status, Sudan’s history, no doubt, has been re-written.

For historians, Sudan’s transmutation was not only a dream come true but an action whose time has come. From onset, they believed the crisis stage was set when the first Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on the promises of a federal system, leading to mutiny by Southern soldiers that sparked 17 years of civil war between 1955 and 1972.

Another failed promise in governance by the regime of Maj-Gen. Abrahim Abboud caused resentment which compelled the military to relinquish power in 1964. The same story continued between 1966 and 1969 when Sudan had governments that neither agreed on a permanent constitution nor coped with problems of factionalism, economic stagnation and ethnic dissidence. The second coup de’ tat of May 25, 1969 enthroned Col Gaafar Nimeiry as prime minister, who also suffered another coup arising from dispute between Marxist and non-Marxist elements in the military.

What was considered the second civil war was re-ignited in the South following Sudan’s Islamisation policy. Yet, another coup de’ tat occurred in 1989 that brought in Omar al-Bashir as the new leader who soon declared himself the president. Al-Bashir’s administration met with a new form of resistance in 2003 when Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) began in the Western region of Darfur. It took the intervention of Chad in 2004 to facilitate a humanitarian ceasefire even as the war continued.

The African Union had to step in and introduced a Cease-Fire Commission (CFC) to monitor its observance with 300 Rwandan and Nigerian troops. However, a final peace treaty between the North and Southern rebels was signed on January 9, 2005 in Nairobi promising that:The South will have authonomy for six years and a referendum on seccession; in case of negative result from the referendum, both sides would merge their armed forces; income from oil fields to be shared equally; Islamic law remains in the North while elected Assembly in the South would decide use of Sharia in the area; and jobs to be split accordingly in varying ratios, more in favour of government.

Incidentally, not a few political observers saw the January 2011 referendum as a forgone conclusion which it turned out to be. The people of South Sudan spoke with one voice as a prelude to the July 9, 2011 independence when they entered the biblical Promised Land, thus opening a new chapter in their chequered history.

Just after the Speaker of parliament, James Wani Igga declared South Sudan a sovereign nation, the first foreign dignitary to react was Kenya’s President, Mwai Kibaki, who said his country “fully recognises South Sudan.” Leader of the United States delegation, Susan Rice noted that “independence is not a gift you were given, but is a prize you won,” even as she saluted Dr. John Garang and others who could not make it to “Canaan.”

Also, United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon said that Africa’s 54th United Nations member’s sovereignty was, “both a right and great responsibility.” For Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi, his country was “welcoming you as a full member of IGAD”, the East African bloc. According to China’s Special Envoy, Hu Jintao, it was their expectation that the two Sudans would be “good neighbours, partners and brothers forever,” just as Robert Zoellick of the World Bank Group pledged to be “a strong partner as we help transform a day of independence into a decade of development.”

But for President Goodluck Jonathan, the occasion marked the beginning of a new dawn for the people of South Sudan, while pledging Nigeria’s continuous support in the task of building a new nation.

Indeed, the tasks are legion. The new government must ensure that Sudan’s inglorious historic past has no place in the new country. Leaders of South Sudan must eschew divisive actions and inactions.

Their new constitution should check internal conflicts and guarantee peace which would engender genuine development. Despite its oil, South Sudan remains one of the poorest nations of the world with 85 per cent wide-spread illiteracy, meager infrastructure and pervasive internal rebellion.

As the 196th country in the world and the 193rd member of the United Nations, South Sudan’s first President, Salva Kiir must embark on aggressive education of the citizenry who are expected to take up responsibilities in various aspects of the country’s development – locally and internationally – or they would remain isolated.

He must confront the evils of tribalism and pervasive corruption which overwhelmed the country for years. He should avoid any form of seclusion and run an all-inclusive government to retain the trust of other tribes in the union.

Also, Kiir should be wary of delicate issues of North and South and seek appropriate means of sharing oil proceeds as the South’s economy fully depends on it.

No doubt, the events in Sudan should interest the people of Nigeria as both countries have so many things in common. They share same diversity, population and natural endowment. Also, they are confronted with almost similar geographical disposition of North –South dichotomy, always playing up threatening religious and ethnic differences.

Nigerians should, therefore, know that the advantages of diversity could turn destructive if mismanaged just like in Sudan where more than three million people lost their lives and over four million were displaced because of irreconcilable differences which made it impossible to sustain one peaceful democratic nation.

Editorial

Charge Before New Rivers Council Helmsmen

Published

3 days ago

September 29, 2025

The Tide

On the 30th of August, Rivers people trooped out to participate in local government elections conducted across the state. These elections, which produced new chairmen and councillors for the 23 local government areas (LGAs), were organised by the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC). The exercise has ushered in a new crop of grassroots leaders whose shoulders now bear the responsibility of steering the affairs of their respective councils. With the polls concluded and winners duly announced, the time has come for the newly elected officials to roll up their sleeves and begin the hard work of governance.

According to the results declared by RSIEC, the All Progressives Congress (APC) secured a dominant lead, winning chairmanship seats in 20 of the 23 local government councils, while the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) clinched the remaining three. This outcome not only reflects the current political dynamics in the state but also places a significant weight of expectation on the shoulders of the APC-led councils to justify the confidence reposed in them by the electorate. It is imperative that political rhetoric now gives way to tangible development, especially at the grassroots level where government is felt most directly.

Following the elections, the successful chairmen were officially sworn into office by the former Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral (rtd) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas. The solemn ceremony marked a transition from campaign promises to the reality of public service. With their inauguration complete, the time for celebration has ended; the time for delivery has commenced. The electorate now awaits meaningful action that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the voting public.

As helmsmen of their various LGAs, these leaders must quickly settle down to work. Their constituents expect them to provide direction, formulate policies, and execute programmes that will uplift communities long neglected. The local government tier is closest to the people and, as such, must rise above politicking to meet the everyday needs of the citizenry. It is not enough to occupy office; they must make their impact visibly and positively felt across their domains.

The Supreme Court ruling mandating direct allocation of funds to local governments—although not yet fully implemented—is a welcome development that underscores the autonomy of the third tier of government. Once this is operationalised, the excuses often cited for underperformance will no longer hold water. With funds directly accessed from the Federation Account, council administrations will be better empowered to meet the developmental needs of their localities, if only they manage resources judiciously and prioritise the right projects.

The onus is now on the chairmen to contribute meaningfully to the broader development of Rivers State. The state government cannot and should not be expected to do everything. Local government councils have defined responsibilities—ranging from rural infrastructure, primary healthcare, and basic education to waste management and local security—that must be adequately addressed. It is high time they stopped passing the buck and started acting as the elected leaders they are.

We extend our congratulations to all who emerged victorious in the elections. However, with this victory comes great responsibility. It is no longer about party affiliations or electoral campaigns; it is about governance. The chairmen must launch people-centred projects that will genuinely improve the lives of the rural populace—projects in water supply, road maintenance, school renovation, and youth empowerment, among others. Let their tenure be remembered for its impact, not its slogans.

Central to their mandate should be the welfare of workers. Council employees form the engine room of local governance, and their morale significantly affects service delivery. The new chairmen must ensure regular payment of salaries, staff training, and a conducive working environment. Neglecting this vital aspect will only hinder whatever grand plans they may have for their LGAs.

It is also essential to institute a robust peer review mechanism. The new LG officials should not operate in isolation; rather, they should learn from one another, share ideas, and compete constructively in a bid to outperform each other in service delivery. Healthy competition among council areas will drive innovation and foster accelerated development. Such a system will also help the public identify high-performing councils for emulation.

Given the typically short tenure of council administrations, it is crucial that they focus on projects that are realistic and impactful. Time and resources should not be wasted on white elephant ventures that are neither sustainable nor beneficial to the people. Instead, chairmen should pursue programmes that match their timelines and address immediate community needs.

Peace and security must remain a cardinal objective for all council steersmen. Regardless of who facilitated their election or what political loyalties they hold, they must ensure peace reigns in their areas. Development cannot thrive in an atmosphere of tension and distrust. These leaders must work closely with traditional rulers, youth groups, and civil society organisations to maintain law and order.

A critical understanding must also prevail—that chairmen are leaders of the people, not just leaders of political parties. They must conduct themselves as impartial administrators serving all constituents, irrespective of political affiliations. Additionally, they must work harmoniously with the state governor, who remains the leader of the state. Petty rivalries and political infighting serve no purpose in the development agenda.

Now that the elections are over and governance has begun, it is essential for these chairmen and councillors to adopt an inclusive approach. They must carry everyone along—party members and opposition alike—in their development plans. Creating division or playing favourites will only fracture communities and stall progress. Leadership at the grassroots demands fairness, equity, and a listening ear.

Rivers people have played their part by coming out to vote. The baton has now been passed to the new council helmsmen. They must seize the opportunity to leave lasting legacies in their communities. History will not judge them by the number of rallies they held or the speeches they gave, but by the quality of life they brought to their people. Let them not squander this moment.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

1 week ago

September 22, 2025

The Tide

Nigeria’s Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) has unveiled a gratuitous proposal to increase the salaries of political and public office holders in the country. This plan seeks to fatten the pay packets of the president, vice-president, governors, deputy governors, and members of the National and State Assemblies. At a time when the nation is struggling to steady its economy, the suggestion that political leaders should be rewarded with more money is not only misplaced but insulting to the sensibilities of the ordinary Nigerian.

What makes the proposal even more opprobrious is the dire economic condition under which citizens currently live. The cost of living crisis has worsened, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of workers, and the naira continues to tumble against foreign currencies. The majority of Nigerians are living hand to mouth, with many unable to afford basic foodstuffs, medical care, and education. Against this backdrop, political office holders, who already enjoy obscene allowances, perks, and privileges, should not even contemplate a salary increase.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has stepped in to challenge this development. SERAP has filed a lawsuit against the RMAFC to halt the implementation of this salary increment. This resolute move represents a voice of reason and accountability at a time when public anger against political insensitivity is palpable. The group is rightly insisting that the law must serve as a bulwark against impunity.

According to a statement issued by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the commission has been dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja. Although a hearing date remains unconfirmed, the momentous step of seeking judicial redress reflects a determination to hold those in power accountable. SERAP has once again positioned itself as a guardian of public interest by challenging an elite-centric policy.

The case, registered as suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1834/2025, specifically asks the court to determine “whether RMAFC’s proposed salary hike for the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers in Nigeria is not unlawful, unconstitutional and inconsistent with the rule of law.” This formidable question goes to the very heart of democratic governance: can those entrusted with public resources decide their own pay rises without violating the constitution and moral order?

In its pleadings, SERAP argues that the proposed hike runs foul of both the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and the RMAFC Act. By seeking a judicial declaration that such a move is unlawful, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the rule of law, the group has placed a spotlight on the tension between self-serving leadership and constitutionalism. To trivialise such an issue would be harum-scarum, for the constitution remains the supreme authority guiding governance.

We wholeheartedly commend SERAP for standing firm, while we roundly condemn RMAFC’s selfish proposal. Political office should never be an avenue for financial aggrandisement. Since our leaders often pontificate sacrifice to citizens, urging them to tighten their belts in the face of economic turbulence, the same leaders must embody sacrifice themselves. Anything short of this amounts to double standards and betrayal of trust.

The Nigerian economy is not buoyant enough to shoulder the additional cost of a salary increase for political leaders. Already, lawmakers and executives enjoy allowances that are grossly disproportionate to the national average income. These earnings are sufficient not only for their needs but also their unchecked greed. To even consider further increments under present circumstances is egregious, a slap in the face of ordinary workers whose minimum wage remains grossly insufficient.

Resources earmarked for such frivolities should instead be channelled towards alleviating the suffering of citizens and improving the nation’s productive capacity. According to United Nations statistics, about 62.9 per cent of Nigerians were living in multidimensional poverty in 2021, compared to 53.7 per cent in 2017. Similarly, nearly 30.9 per cent of the population lives below the international poverty line of US$2.15 per day. These figures paint a stark picture: Nigeria is a poor country by all measurable standards, and any extra naira diverted to elite pockets deepens this misery.

Besides, the timing of this proposal could not be more inappropriate. At a period when unemployment is soaring, inflation is crippling households, and insecurity continues to devastate communities, the RMAFC has chosen to pursue elite enrichment. It is widely known that Nigeria’s economy is in a parlous state, and public resources should be conserved and wisely invested. Political leaders must show prudence, not profligacy.

Another critical dimension is the national debt profile. According to the Debt Management Office, Nigeria’s total public debt as of March 2025 stood at a staggering N149.39 trillion. External debt obligations also remain heavy, with about US$43 billion outstanding by September 2024. In such a climate of debt-servicing and borrowing to fund budgets, it is irresponsible for political leaders to even table the idea of inflating their salaries further. Debt repayment, not self-reward, should occupy their minds.

This ignoble proposal is insensitive, unnecessary, and profoundly reckless. It should be discarded without further delay. Public office is a trust, not an entitlement to wealth accumulation. Nigerians deserve leaders who will share in their suffering, lead by example, and prioritise the common good over self-indulgence. Anything less represents betrayal of the social contract and undermines the fragile democracy we are striving to build.