Editorial
2015: Checking Excessive Spending
The issue of spending at electioneering has
always been a challenge even in the ad
vanced democracies. This is more so because when the
electoral process is excessively monetised, not only would the ordinary man not be able to vote according to his conscience, but the entire system would be endangered.
All over the advanced democracies, great care is taken to regulate where donations to parties can come from, how much can be allowed from a single donor and how it is spent. Not only are there legislations backing them, the authorities take time to monitor the process.
Interestingly, Nigeria also has aspects of this legislation under the Electoral Act, but even when its enforcement has been a problem, some politicians are kicking against the ceiling on electoral spending. Sadly, even President Goodluck Jonathan says the sum allowed is too inadequate.
According to the Electoral Act, a presidential candidate can only spend a maximum of Nl billion naira, while a governorship candidate is to spend N200 million, a Senate candidate to spend N40m and a House of Representatives candidate should not spend more than N20 million.
Similarly, those aspiring for the State Houses of Assembly are allowed to spend Nl0 million, Local Government Chairman is to spend Nl0 million, while councillors are to spend Nl million. Of course, there are also sanctions for contravening the law ranging from fines to jail terms.
While these provisions have been flouted severally by nearly all the parties, even at the elections held recently, there is no record of any party or politician that has been sanctioned. But why the issue had to come up at the current review of the Electoral Act is what the average Nige- rian will need to know.
Perhaps, it should be put on record again that one of the reasons advanced for the advocacy for a one tenure term for the office of the President and State Governor was the scandalous cost of running elections every four years. To turn around to say that the ceiling stipulated by the Electoral Act was too small is capable of confusing the polity.
The truth of the matter is that elections are too expensive in Nigeria and should be condemned.
The situation clearly rules out persons who may be very equipped with character, fear of God and zeal to serve because they cannot afford the mil-
lions required. This, on its own, promotes the political godfather syndrome that had become the bane of governance of the country.
Often, the ones that can afford such sums are political business-men who invest any sum and get into office and take back their money with a self determined interest from the public purse.
Till date, nobody has been able to convince such political jobbers that what they are doing amounts to corruption, criminality and betrayal of public trust.
Clearly, if the system makes it look like the offices are for sale, not much can change for this country. Incidentally, the emphasis on money begins from the political parties that sell candidates form to as many persons as possible at such outrageous sums. Then the electorates openly demand to be paid to vote with the mindset that the candidate would go into office and steal any way.
The Tide thinks that it is high time the situation changed. According to a writer, it is only a mentally retarded fellow that would continue to do something the same way every time and expect different result. Nigerians must stop the emphasis on money in all spheres of our national life.
In the first place we cannot understand why Nigeria should continue to give electoral grants to political parties who have so much money to spend. It is no longer secret that Nigeria has about 60 registered political parties because of the huge sums paid to them every election year.
Meanwhile, only four parties are visible, while the rest fail to grab even a councillorship seat across the country.
We think that because too much money is brought to the scene, the old and time valued political campaigns are lost. Instead, what we have is a do or die approach that results in the arming of jobless youths to kill fellow Nigerians over political offices that are here today and gone tomorrow. Of course, the reason is that “I cannot spend all that money and fail.”
That is why the National Assembly must put the interest of the nation first as they review the Electoral Act. They must stop grants to parties and bring down the number of parties, reduce the ceiling on spending and insist on empowering INEC to sanction any and all defauters.
Editorial
Strike: Heeding ASUU’s Demands
Editorial
Making Rivers’ Seaports Work
When Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, received the Board and Management of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), led by its Chairman, Senator Adeyeye Adedayo Clement, his message was unmistakable: Rivers’ seaports remain underutilised, and Nigeria is poorer for it. The governor’s lament was a sad reminder of how neglect and centralisation continue to choke the nation’s economic arteries.
The governor, in his remarks at Government House, Port Harcourt, expressed concern that the twin seaports — the NPA in Port Harcourt and the Onne Seaport — have not been operating at their full potential. He underscored that seaports are vital engines of national development, pointing out that no prosperous nation thrives without efficient ports and airports. His position aligns with global realities that maritime trade remains the backbone of industrial expansion and international commerce.
Indeed, the case of Rivers State is peculiar. It hosts two major ports strategically located along the Bonny River axis, yet cargo throughput has remained dismally low compared to Lagos. According to NPA’s 2023 statistics, Lagos ports (Apapa and Tin Can Island) handled over 75 per cent of Nigeria’s container traffic, while Onne managed less than 10 per cent. Such a lopsided distribution is neither efficient nor sustainable.
Governor Fubara rightly observed that the full capacity operation of Onne Port would be transformative. The area’s vast land mass and industrial potential make it ideal for ancillary businesses — warehousing, logistics, ship repair, and manufacturing. A revitalised Onne would attract investors, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth, not only in Rivers State but across the Niger Delta.
The multiplier effect cannot be overstated. The port’s expansion would boost clearing and forwarding services, strengthen local transport networks, and revitalise the moribund manufacturing sector. It would also expand opportunities for youth employment — a pressing concern in a state where unemployment reportedly hovers around 32 per cent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Yet, the challenge lies not in capacity but in policy. For years, Nigeria’s maritime economy has been suffocated by excessive centralisation. Successive governments have prioritised Lagos at the expense of other viable ports, creating a traffic nightmare and logistical bottlenecks that cost importers and exporters billions annually. The governor’s call, therefore, is a plea for fairness and pragmatism.
Making Lagos the exclusive maritime gateway is counter productive. Congestion at Tin Can Island and Apapa has become legendary — ships often wait weeks to berth, while truck queues stretch for kilometres. The result is avoidable demurrage, product delays, and business frustration. A more decentralised port system would spread economic opportunities and reduce the burden on Lagos’ overstretched infrastructure.
Importers continue to face severe difficulties clearing goods in Lagos, with bureaucratic delays and poor road networks compounding their woes. The World Bank’s Doing Business Report estimates that Nigerian ports experience average clearance times of 20 days — compared to just 5 days in neighbouring Ghana. Such inefficiency undermines competitiveness and discourages foreign investment.
Worse still, goods transported from Lagos to other regions are often lost to accidents or criminal attacks along the nation’s perilous highways. Reports from the Federal Road Safety Corps indicate that over 5,000 road crashes involving heavy-duty trucks occurred in 2023, many en route from Lagos. By contrast, activating seaports in Rivers, Warri, and Calabar would shorten cargo routes and save lives.
The economic rationale is clear: making all seaports operational will create jobs, enhance trade efficiency, and boost national revenue. It will also help diversify economic activity away from the overburdened South West, spreading prosperity more evenly across the federation.
Decentralisation is both an economic strategy and an act of national renewal. When Onne, Warri, and Calabar ports operate optimally, hinterland states benefit through increased trade and infrastructure development. The federal purse, too, gains through taxes, duties, and improved productivity.
Tin Can Island, already bursting at the seams, exemplifies the perils of over-centralisation. Ships face berthing delays, containers stack up, and port users lose valuable hours navigating chaos. The result is higher operational costs and lower competitiveness. Allowing states like Rivers to fully harness their maritime assets would reverse this trend.
Compelling all importers to use Lagos ports is an anachronistic policy that stifles innovation and local enterprise. Nigeria cannot achieve its industrial ambitions by chaining its logistics system to one congested city. The path to prosperity lies in empowering every state to develop and utilise its natural advantages — and for Rivers, that means functional seaports.
Fubara’s call should not go unheeded. The Federal Government must embrace decentralisation as a strategic necessity for national growth. Making Rivers’ seaports work is not just about reviving dormant infrastructure; it is about unlocking the full maritime potential of a nation yearning for balance, productivity, and shared prosperity.
Editorial
Addressing The State Of Roads In PH
