Editorial

World Bank Presidency: Matters Arising

Published

14 years ago

April 20, 2012

Contrary to expectations that the selection of the World Bank President would be transparent and merit-based, the election, last Monday, of the United States of America (USA) nominee, Mr. Jim Yong Kim as new President, clearly showed that the preference of the super powers in the selection process still prevails.

The entire process appeared tilted more towards politics rather than a search for a position as sensitive as the best candidate for the World Bank top job. This, in our view, is a negation of the agreement reached by all of the bank’s 187 member countries, last year, to adopt a transparent and merit-based process for the position.

The election was precisely a re-enactment of the tradition where US would always produce the Bank President for the singular reason that she is the largest shareholder in the bank.

The World Bank, a family of five international organisations that offers loans, generally to poor countries, came into formal existence on December 27, 1945, following international ratification of the Bretton Woods agreements.

Recently, the Bank has focused its activities on developing countries, in fields such as human, agricultural and rural development, environmental protection, infrastructure and indeed governance.

Loans are accordingly given at preferential rates to the poor countries with the most needs.

But we think it expedient for the US and her allies to review their policies concerning the administration of the World Bank to make for more liberal and transparent and democratic process, particularly now that, for the first time, member nations have come to take keen interest in the bank.

It should no longer be business as usual where European becomes Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund(IMF) and the United States of America will produce the President of the World Bank. This old order does not help the emerging economies.

But defenders of the World Bank contend that no country is under any form of conpulsion to go aborrowing. The Bank provides both loans and grants which are given to countries that have no access to international capital markets. This is why emerging economies ought to look inwards and be more proactive in economic development and good governance.

Be that as it may, The Tide believes that such a flawed selection process of the presidency of the bank, is capable of strengthening the fears of the developing nations and puts a question mark on the sincerity of America and Europe on claims to champion merit-based appointments in democratic systems.

The development has also raised a moral question on the integrity of US and other advanced democracies who refer to those who promote undemocratic ideals in other parts of the world as despots.

We urge emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil, and others in Africa to be challenged by this show of naked power, and in sustained unity intensify pressure on the United States and Europe to throw open the selection process for both the bank and the IMF.

This, we believe, can be achieved when developing and emerging economies are able to develop their economies to the extent that they can no longer be ignored when global financial issues are discussed.

While we join the rest of the world in congratulating the new President of the World Bank, Mr. Jim Yong Kim, he should see his new position beyond his area of specialisation and move the World Bank forward.

Editorial

Certificate Forgery, Loss Of Public Trust

Published

5 days ago

November 10, 2025

The Tide

Nigeria has found itself once more in an uncomfortable global spotlight after the abrupt resignation of Geoffrey Uche Nnaji, the former Minister of Innovation, Science, and Technology. The circumstances surrounding his exit were neither dignifying nor reassuring. Instead, they have brought about a profound sense of national embarrassment and institutional opprobrium.

The allegations that Nnaji forged his university degree and National Youth Service Corps certificate have raised serious questions about integrity in public office. The University of Nigeria, Nsukka, (UNN) expressly denied awarding him a degree, stating unequivocally that he did not complete his studies. Such a revelation is not only scandalous but deeply unsettling for a nation already battling credibility deficit.

Even more troubling is the fact that the former Minister, under intense scrutiny, reportedly conceded that he was never issued a certificate by the university. This revelation begs the most fundamental question. Where then did he secure the UNN decree certificate he allegedly tendered upon his appointment? That inquiry alone unravels layers of possible complicity and systematic failure.

This matter has opened a can of worms. It is a sad commentary on a nation struggling to project an image of responsibility and moral uprightness. Instead of inspiring confidence, such cases reinforce the perception that Nigeria suffers from chronic ethical erosion in leadership recruitment processes.

It is particularly depressing that individuals who commit crimes of this nature can simply resign and walk away unscathed, as if public office was a revolving door of impunity. A mere resignation does not absolve one of accountability. It is imperative that those who defraud the nation must be held to legal consequences, not treated as though they merely committed a social faux pas.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Nigeria is grappling with such an ignoble scandal. A former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Salisu Buhari, was once enmeshed in a forgery controversy over a fake degree and age falsification. Former Finance Minister Kemi Adeosun resigned after being found with a forged NYSC exemption certificate. Such shameful precedents have become almost predictable.

When high-profile officials indulge in such fraudulent practices and face little to no consequence, it sends a dangerous message. It tells ordinary citizens that integrity is negotiable and that laws are flexible privileges reserved for the powerful.

It is unconscionable that the law eagerly pursues the poor for petty infractions while turning a blind eye when the wealthy and politically connected commit more grievous offences. This selective justice is a tragic indictment of our system and values as a nation.

Our leaders, by virtue of the trust placed in them, should be punished doubly when they violate the law. The law must not merely exist on paper. If leaders continue to evade accountability, then what exists is not a legal system but a symbolic facade.

Time has come for the authorities to demonstrate that all Nigerians are indeed equal before the law. That principle, which is the bedrock of every functioning democratic society, must be evident not only in rhetoric but in action.

While it is commendable that Nnaji resigned, resignation alone cannot suffice as closure. We insist that he be properly investigated and prosecuted where found culpable. Likewise, previous offenders should also be recalled to face justice. National healing requires consequences, not concealment.

This scandal exposes the rottenness of our political selection process. It signals that trust has been replaced with convenience and accountability substituted with nonchalance. Nigeria cannot move forward if leadership continues to be riddled with fraudulent representation.

The Department of State Services (DSS) must be held accountable for clearing an appointee whose records were allegedly not thoroughly verified. Screening is not a ceremonial exercise. It is supposed to involve critical background checks and authentication of claims.

Similarly, the National Assembly must put an end to the hollow practice of asking nominees to “take a bow and go.” Ministerial screenings are not social receptions. They are constitutionally mandated checks intended to protect national interest. When legislators fail in this role, the entire country suffers the consequences.

Both the DSS and the National Assembly must reform their processes immediately. The continued casual, wishy-washy scrutiny of appointees is not only an indictment of leadership but a disservice to Nigerians. If Nigeria must rebuild trust and respect, it begins with ensuring that only individuals of proven integrity occupy public office. Accountability must prevail, and the era of impunity must be brought to an end.

Editorial

In Support of Ogoni 9 Pardon

Published

2 weeks ago

November 3, 2025

The Tide

The posthumous pardon granted to the Ogoni 9 on the 1st of October, along with the national honours conferred on the Ogoni 4 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is commendable. It is a bold and humane initiative that signals a readiness to confront the difficult truths of Nigeria’s past. It also speaks to a willingness to mend fractured relationships and begin the process of national healing. This decision, though long overdue, has been widely welcomed and recognised as a considerable gesture of reconciliation.

For the Ogoni people, the development holds profound emotional meaning. Many families lost loved ones to the crisis that engulfed Ogoniland in the 1990s. To see the Nigerian state finally acknowledge that these individuals were wronged is a source of solace. This act affirms that the nation remembers the pain and sacrifices of its citizens, even when they are long gone.

It is widely accepted that the crisis divided the Ogoni people considerably. The internal fractures that emerged during the struggle for environmental justice prevented the area from realising its developmental aspirations. Communities were split, brothers turned against one another, and the collective strength of the Ogoni nation weakened. Despite various interventions from government, non-governmental organisations and international agencies, the deep wounds remained largely unhealed.

Past administrations, particularly at the federal level, failed to demonstrate the political will required to meaningfully address the grievances of the Ogoni people. While statements of sympathy were made and committees were set up, concrete steps were too often absent. The sense of abandonment festered and deepened. In contrast, President Tinubu’s action represents a recognition that a grave error was committed, one that cost lives and damaged a people’s connection to the Nigerian state.

The concerns of the Ogonis, especially regarding environmental pollution and land degradation, remain pressing. The establishment of Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) was intended to address these concerns, yet progress has been slow and uneven. It is time to ensure that the clean-up and environmental restoration are treated as matters of urgency. In equal measure, the Ogoni people must also give peace a fair chance. They have suffered greatly and lost many illustrious sons. A cycle of distrust cannot be allowed to define their future.

Reconciliation requires both justice and forward-looking commitment. Therefore, the Ogoni people must embrace unity and abandon practices that perpetuate division. They must consider the development opportunities available when they work together with the government. For Ogoniland to thrive, both sides must show willingness to move forward.

Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, deserves acclaim for his contributions toward restoring peace among the Ogonis. His efforts to encourage dialogue and his support for the newly established Federal university in the area reflect a practical commitment to development. We urge him to sustain this approach and continue to stand as a bridge between the state and the Ogonis.

The pardon and the posthumous honours must now create avenues for deeper engagement between Ogoni leaders and the Nigerian state. The proposed return of oil exploration in Ogoniland must be approached inclusively and transparently, ensuring that the people benefit meaningfully from their resources. Economic development must not come at the expense of dignity or community welfare.

However, unity among the Ogoni people themselves is an essential condition for progress. It is disheartening that some have rejected the President’s gesture. This moment should serve as a rallying point rather than a trigger for further division. If Ogoniland is to progress, it must speak with one voice on matters of collective interest.

It is worth noting that several Presidents have come and gone since the execution of the Ogoni 9. Yet it is President Tinubu who chose to take this courageous step. In doing so, he has attempted to correct one of Nigeria’s darkest and most shameful episodes. He has also sent a clear message that the state can, indeed, admit when it has erred.

The pardon signals a broader preparedness to redress past injustices. For too long, Nigeria has professed the intention to build equity while failing to address historical grievances. If national unity is to be genuine, it must be grounded in accountability. President Tinubu’s gesture marks a momentous shift in that direction.

For the Ogoni people, the pardon provides a measure of comfort. It affirms that voices long stifled can still be heard. It also offers hope to other marginalised communities still waiting for justice. Nigeria’s diversity will only become a strength if all groups are assured that they matter.

To ensure that this gesture is not dismissed as mere political theatre, the Federal Government must make good its commitment to the Ogoni clean-up exercise. Words must translate into sustained action. The Ogoni environment must be restored, livelihoods must be rebuilt, and trust must be re-established. Only then will the pardon and posthumous national awards become a true foundation for peace and renewal.

Editorial

Strike: Heeding ASUU’s Demands

Published

3 weeks ago

October 27, 2025

The Tide

The recent warning strike declared by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) on October 13, though short-lived, has once again drawn national attention to the lingering crisis in Nigeria’s tertiary education sector. The strike was intended to last two weeks, but was suspended after appeals by eminent Nigerians. However, ASUU has warned that if the Federal Government fails to take concrete steps in addressing the issues, the union may have no option but to embark on an indefinite strike. This is a fearful prospect.

At the heart of this recurring crisis is the non-implementation of the 2009 agreement that the Federal Government willingly signed with the union. It is disheartening and embarrassing that more than a decade after that pact was reached, it remains a subject of dispute. The failure to uphold the terms of the agreement reflects a deeper malaise in the country’s governance culture: the inability to honour commitments.

That students and parents had begun to believe that ASUU strikes were gradually becoming a relic of the past makes the situation more regrettable. There was a general sense of relief after previous strikes ended, with many hoping that meaningful progress had been made. Unfortunately, the old cycle appears to be repeating itself. This latest action represents a huge setback for the education sector.

Historical records show that ASUU strikes have seldom benefited anyone. For students, the consequences are painful and lasting. Academic calendars are disrupted; graduation timelines become uncertain; careers are stalled before they even begin. Research activities, many of which are time-sensitive and tied to grants or international collaborations, are abruptly halted.

It is all the more lamentable that this impasse concerns a long-concluded agreement on the welfare of lecturers and the funding of universities. That successive governments have failed to honour commitments they voluntarily undertook raises questions about the seriousness of Nigeria’s leadership regarding education. Why should an agreement take over a decade to fully implement?

The constant resort to industrial action also highlights the plight of students, who remain the innocent casualties in this tussle. Many of them come from struggling homes, and their futures hang precariously in the balance each time universities are shut down. The insensitivity displayed by authorities in allowing matters to deteriorate to this level is deeply troubling.

Indeed, this development raises broader concerns about the Federal Government’s crisis management capability. The perception is that government officials are unbothered because their children are not affected by strikes; many school abroad or attend expensive private universities locally. This is a sad reflection of the decline in confidence in public institutions.

University lecturers should ideally be devoting their time to research, mentorship, publications and innovation. Instead, many are forced to expend creative energy on survival. It is no secret that some lecturers, faced with poor remuneration and harsh economic conditions, resort to unethical means such as demanding payment from students. When the system fails, moral decay becomes inevitable.

The salary disparity between Nigerian lecturers and their counterparts in other African countries is glaring. A Nigerian lecturer reportedly earns the equivalent of between $300 and $600 per month depending on rank, while a lecturer in Ghana earns about $1,200 on average. In Kenya, salaries range around $1,000 monthly, and in South Africa, they are higher, with lecturers earning between $2,000 and $3,500 monthly. Such disparities contribute to brain drain and low morale among Nigerian academics.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has continued to expend enormous sums on non-essential ventures. Billions have been spent on luxury vehicles for political office holders, frequent foreign trips, inflated contracts and poorly managed subsidy schemes. These funds, if redirected, could strengthen university infrastructure, boost research grants and improve staff welfare.

It is therefore crucial for the government to adopt a more proactive approach. The usual threat of “no work, no pay” will not resolve the crisis; rather, it deepens mistrust. ASUU has demonstrated time and again that it cannot be cowed into submission. Genuine dialogue, not intimidation, is the only path forward.

The union’s persistence is fuelled by the government’s perceived insincerity. ASUU is not asking for anything new; it is simply requesting that promises already made be fulfilled. This scenario mirrors the broader challenge of governance in Nigeria, where stakeholders grow tired of endless promises and little delivery.

If this situation is allowed to escalate, the consequences could be dire. Students forced out of academic activity for long periods may become vulnerable to crime, drug abuse and social vices. The nation can ill afford another contributing factor to youth restiveness at this delicate time.

The Minister of Education must handle this matter with urgency and diplomacy. Nigeria is already grappling with economic distress, insecurity and political tension. A full-scale ASUU strike would only deepen national instability. The authorities must act now—honour agreements, restore trust, and place education where it truly belongs: at the centre of national development priorities.