Editorial

FG , NJC And Salami’s Re-Instatement

Published

13 years ago

June 1, 2012

A culture of impunity and lawlessness is gradually taking root in the nation’s body politic, which, if not checked could threaten her own democracy. It is the politicisation of virtually every issue of genuine public concern, with no longer a common ground that ought to be fostered by genuine statesmanship and patriotism.

Sadly, in no area is the trend more destructively manifest than when, it involves the judiciary, the supposed sacred institution upon which rests the power over life and death.

Once again, various interests are busy heating-up the polity over what should ordinarily be a preserve of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Presidency. It concerns the re-instatement or otherwise of the former President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Ayo Salami, who was suspended from office, about a year ago.

Interestingly, it was based upon advice of the NJC last year, that President Goodluck Jonathan approved the suspension of Justice Salami, an executive action that later attracted criticisms from a cross-section of the judicial community, especially the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA). Since then, several court actions remain pending, some of them challenging the constitutionality of the president’s action.

Strangely, it was in the middle of all that, that the NJC recently decided to reverse itself and recommended the immediate re-instatement of Justice Salami, a request that met with presidential reluctance. For not being hasty, many, particularly opposition politicians have continued to vilify the government, particularly, Mr President, insisting that Salami’s re-instatement should be instantly ordered by the presidency and without any pre-conditions.

It is not yet clear what politicians stand to lose or gain by the re-instatement or otherwise of an Appeal Court President. But not a day passes without one opposition politician ‘badmouthing’ President Jonathan for not implementing, immediately, the NJC’s new recommendation.

This is in spite of the fact that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN) had explained that such hasty implementation of the latest NJC advice would be prejudicial to cases still pending in various courts. But the NBA leadership continues to insist that since Salami’s suspension was ordered even in the pendency of similar suits, his re-call should follow same path. The very path countless jurists described as subjudice, a year ago.

That, in our view, offends natural logic because it inadvertently lends credence to the fallacy of two wrongs amounting to one right. If President Jonathan indeed erred in endorsing the earlier NJC recommendation to suspend Salami, a year ago, is it proper to expect him to repeat the same mistake under same circumstances? Will that make the two wrongs, a right?

The Tide thinks otherwise. What happens if any of the courts still hearing on-going cases orders the suspension or otherwise of Salami, barely after President Jonathan had hurriedly re-instated Salami, as the NBA, other jurists and indeed opposition politicians will the presidency to do? Should the sacred position of President of Court of Appeal be subjected to such ridicule and political odium?

Besides, Section 153 (1): of the 1999 Constitution which establishes among other federal institutions, the NJC, also spells out the composition and powers of the body in its Third Schedule Part I (i). But section 154, sub-section 3 specifically lists the NJC among few establishments where, in the exercise of his constitutional powers, the president must (shall) consult widely. “In exercising his powers to appoint any person as chairman or member of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), National Judicial Commission (NJC), or the National Population Commission (NPC), the President shall consult the Council of State,” so says section 154 sub-section 3. Doesn’t this portend a responsibility bigger than the President?

We believe that the distinguished jurists and indeed the respected Bar ought to appreciate this demand on the Presidency and its resolve to protect the high judicial office from avoidable ridicule which wanton suspension and recall amount to. They must see themselves as defenders of the sacred status of the judiciary and not play to the gallery as some politicians are wont to do.

This is why The Tide holds the view that the propriety or otherwise of Justice Salami’s re-instatement should await the outcome of pending litigations, the vicious politicisation of the issue notwithstanding. The presidency should not again, allow itself to be pressured into another illegality just to satisfy political exigency or achieve cheap political popularity.

The only way of discouraging the near frequent resentment to virtually every government action or politicisation of every, otherwise germaine, issue of national interest, is for government to be firm, fair and steadfast in defence of the Constitution and the sacred judicial institution. Rushing to re-instate Salami in the face of cases still pending in courts amounts to a panic measure which is neither desirable nor presidential.

Instead, all stakeholders must keep the peace and let the litigations go their full circle. Thereafter, let those not satisfied with the outcome, consider appeals, which indeed is the legal process to follow. And not play politics with a purely constitutional issue.

Editorial

Charge Before New Rivers Council Helmsmen

Published

13 hours 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

7 days 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.