Politics
Theresa May: ‘Nigerian Women Limited By Own Thinking’
On Wednesday, July 13, Theresa May assumed office as Prime Minister of Britain, the second woman to take the position in the history of that country. In this interview with Opaka Dokubo, lawyer and women’s rights activist, Debora Effiong talks on the significance of this development and other contemporary issues in the Nigerian polity.
Excerpts:
How did you feel when you heard about Theresa May becoming British Prime Minister?
For me, it was really a welcome development when I heard the announcement of Theresa May as the new Prime Minister of Britain. Like you mentioned earlier, history is repeating itself and considering the global momentum addressing the increase in female participation in governance.
So, for us it was more like a green light … it spoke volume to our work, it lend credence to what we’re doing because we’ve been trying to see how we can get those global examples which we can bring home here in Nigeria. The question is, if it’s in the UK, why not Nigeria? If it’s in the US, why not Nigeria? Remember when the Liberian president, Elen Johnson Sirleaf emerged as the first female president of Liberia, we went on with advocacy and we said ‘if Liberia why not Nigeria?
So, for me, it’s a welcome development. It’s a huge one for the women’s rights movement. It’s a giant stride. I think it’s a development that will impact globally, regionally and also nationally. For us as a country nationally, for Africa regionally and for the entire international space because there’s been a lot of clamouring, a lot of advocacy, a lot of demand … We have several instruments, guaranteeing women’s right, several instruments promoting women’s inclusion in the political space but a lot of those instruments have not been adequately addressed or enforced within the context of our laws and legislation.
I think that providence also has something to do with this. There’s a kind of paradigm shift right now and I believe there’s a god who has a hand in the current global affairs. I feel strongly that our prayers are getting answered.
What do you consider the singular most important hindrance to women’s participation in politics?
I will say it’s the society because embedded in the society discourse itself is culture and also embedded in the culture discourse patriarchy. Others come behind, whether women or men or whatever, it’s a cultural thing. There’s a stereotyping mindset and thinking here in this part of the world: Women are supposed to be seen and not heard. So, it becomes a cultural issue where a woman takes up a leadership position.
Even in the house, the traits are so evident. If the woman has more money and is more asserting than the husband, the husband feels this threat and becomes obsessed. Transporting that to the larger society is there. I’ve met many men who will tell you they can’t work under a woman. It’s more of a cultural issue to me and that’s why the political space has not been opened up to encourage as many women as possible.
Are women not part of the culture?
Yes women are part of it but you should understand the way the system works. The cultural setting is that men are the gatekeepers, they’re the custodians, they’re the molders of the norms and customs of the people. The traditional gatekeepers are the men, not women. Traditional and ancestral stools are dominated by men in this part of the world, I have crises-crossed the Niger Delta and there’s a recurrent issue: Women are not part of community governance structure. And it starts at that level. And coming to the outer space, we come with that mind set, we think that way, even the women unconsciously are limited by their own thinking. Women accept the stereotyping. It is believed that there are certain professions that are exclusive preserve of the male. A woman is interpreted along her care giving roles.
So who should really champion the cause of women?
The government is key because the instruments that enforce and ensure that the issues equality and equity are addressed are within the preserve of the government. The government makes the policing; they make the laws so they’re expected to enforce legislation in that regard: For example, we’ve been clamourning for 35% affirmative action. Recently, after the International Women’s Day Celebration, the clamouring has risen to 50-50. We’re looking at planet 50-50. We’re calling for parity now.
So if there’s enforcement of that legislation, deliberately, 35% of positions, including elective positions will be left for women. It’s an affirmative measure. The NDDC is an affirmative action measure that was taken by the government. When there was this cry that the Niger Delta states were being neglected in terms of development, the NDDC came as a response to that to address the development needs of the region. Today we have the quota system for educationally disadvantaged states. We have the Federal Character Commission.
It’s an affirmative action, so if the women are demanding for an affirmation action measure, we’re asking for a bridge in the gap, the gap is too wide. Today, in states like Rivers State, we’re still battling with one or two women in the House of Assembly. It is ridiculous yet how many states are able to achieve that? We have 360 honourable members in the House of Representatives, go and count whether you will have 50 to 60 women out 360. You can’t get. So, the issue of affirmative action is a must do by the government.
We see the government as a strategic voice in this advocacy. Of course, the women have tried and after the government comes the men. We should also have some male champions. Most times men see women issues as an affront to masculinity. It’s a perception, it’s wrong. It’s a very wrong perception so men need to be sensitized. They need to understand that what the women are actually asking is partnership. Women don’t want to take over, women just want to partner with men. There is really nothing to take over. All that we want is carry us along. The real essence of equality is not equality in terms of status, position, prestige. We want equality in terms of opportunities and outcome.
Look at Rivers State, the judiciary is handled by women but you have 23 LG caretaker committees chairmen without a woman.
Those are some of the concerns. I’m not making case for the governor, I don’t know his mind set around the appointments but you know that Rivers is plagued with a lot of security issues. May be they’re thinking that the issues of security is what can be adequately…. You know men are seen as protectors they’re masculine, they’re strong, they’re capable of certain actions. Or may be he is also feeling that the judiciary has had a fair share of women.
And really, I said something about the men being the gatekeepers, the boys who did the whole lot of electioneering work have to be rewarded in one way or the other. We didn’t have many women coming out to do some of those things that are required in politics. You understand how politics works in this part of the world it’s compensatory.
We have the concluding re-run elections coming up July 30, do you have any concerns?
Seriously I do have security concerns and we’re hoping that things will be in place. You know Rivers State has been in the news for a very long time. The political big wigs, the contenders, the power tussle, the assassinations, the killings, the violence, it’s been in the news for a long time. The best thing that happened to us was the Supreme Court pronouncement. That helped to douse some tension in the state but we know it’s not yet over because the rerun is at the corner. And we’re all concerned. We can only keep praying and being hopeful that the prayers of the saints will be heard and answered.
Sometimes when things go beyond human handling, I think you have to involve God at some point. Some of us we’ve decided that the situation in Rivers State requires more of prayers than even action because we don’t know which action will be right and which will not be right. There are insinuations and comments all over that if care is not taken a state of emergency could be declared in Rivers. Nobody wants all of that. So there are really concerns. I have concerns.
I have no political side. I just want the best. This is a state where I live. I want the peace and prosperity of the state so that we can all continue to dwell and exist in peace, We cannot in the name of elections or in the name of winning or whatever you call it, destroy the democratic ideals by the very people who should hold it sacred. When you entrust into these people, you don’t expect that they will destroy the fabric of society just because of their ambition.
The former president made a very noble statement. For everything he will be remembered for, that is one statement that will go down history. He said my ambition is not worth anybody’s blood and that was why he decided to, whether the election went in his favour or not, sheat the sword. We hope that other leaders will learn from this. That’s the hallmark of humility.
Rivers State is the case here and we’re really calling on the leaders in Rivers State to take the interest of the state at heart and not their ambition. Politics is not a do or die and some of them are going back to these offices for the second, third, forth term. The way politics is played in this part of the world is either I gain access or I die.
The past British Prime Minister honourably resigned and you could see him moving his things out of his official residence. That will hardly happen in Nigeria, hardly happen in Africa. So, our message to all the political actors is sheat your sword. We want Rivers of Peace, not Rivers of violence or Rivers of blood. We want peace in the state because Rivers State is a rallying point for the entire six states in the Niger Delta. Anything that happens in Rivers State rubs off on other states. So we’re calling our leaders to sheat their sword, take the election results in good faith. It favours you, it does not favour you, go for peace. We just want peace in Rivers State.
Lawyers and the judiciary have been indicated as having a part in the unsavoury state of affairs in this country what do you say as a lawyer?
Well, that’s a tough one for me. Within the judicial system there’s a whole lot of issues popping up. I read recently that even the NBA election is almost being truncated because there is a court order stopping election from holding. There is serious contention among the candidates and I said to myself, at what point would we rise above this?
So, even within the judiciary, both the bar and the bench, there are monumental issues. For me, I get a bit confused at what point would we have to address these issues. You saw the series of judgements that were given, forward and backward. The court of Appeal will give a judgement, the Supreme Court will over rule the judgement of the Court of Appeal. Same issues but different verdicts.
So, I feel strongly that there’s a drag of politics creeping into the judiciary. I may not be able to adequately explain this. It is looking more to me like the more you look the less you see. A lot of lawyers’ integrity has been punctured, especially in this current political dispensation. I still think that the judiciary needs a whole lot of re-assessment, some reviewing and also some over hauling.
A senator who represented Taraba Central, Mr Abubakar Yusuf, has declared that the economic policies of President Bola Tinubu are not yielding the expected results.
His comment is one of the strongest internal critiques yet from within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
The comment underscores the growing dissatisfaction within sections of the ruling party over the direction and impact of the administration’s economic reforms amid rising living costs and fiscal pressures across the country.
Mr Yusuf, who served in the Senate between 2015 and 2023 under the platform of the APC, made the remarks during an appearance on national television.
Responding to a question on whether the administration’s economic direction, often referred to as Tinubunomics, was working, Mr Yusuf answered in the contrary.
“For me, it is not working. I am a member of the APC. I would be the last person to hide the facts”, he said.
He said while the government might be operating diligently within its policy structure, the framework itself is ill-suited to Nigeria’s current realities
“Within the policy framework, yes, they are doing their best, but it is not the framework that is suitable for Nigeria at the point in time that President Asiwaju came into power,” he said.
Mr Yusuf criticised the immediate removal of fuel subsidy on the day the president was sworn in, arguing that the decision lacked sufficient consultation and planning.
“I am one of those who say President Asiwaju ought to have waited. Not on the day he was sworn in to say subsidy is gone. On what basis?”, he asked.
He urged broader engagement before major fiscal decisions are taken.
“Sit down with your cabinet, sit down with your ministers, sit down with your advisers,” he said, dismissing the argument that subsidy removal was justified solely on grounds of corruption.
The former lawmaker identified “structural flaws” in the country’s budgeting system, particularly the envelope budgeting model.
“One of the basic problems is that before you budget, you should have a plan. The envelope system we have been operating has been you budget before you plan. That has been a major issue”, he said.
He argued that allocating spending ceilings without aligning them to concrete development strategies inevitably weakens implementation and delivery.
“If you give me an envelope which is contrary to my plan, whether it is plus or minus, there is no way I am going to implement my plan. It is bound to fail,” he said.
Mr Yusuf called for the scrapping of the envelope budgeting system, noting that he had consistently opposed it even during his years in the National Assembly.
“It is not good for us. It is not going to work well for us,” he said.
He further blamed poor capital releases and persistent deficit financing for undermining budget performance over the years.
“We could not meet 60 percent of our capital budget in all these years. No releases. If you make a budget and the release is very poor, there is no way the budget will be executed”, he stated.
According to him, weak fund disbursement mechanisms and reliance on deficit financing have entrenched a cycle of underperformance.
“Our budget ought to have been a surplus budget, but all our budgets have always been deficit financing budgets,” Mr Yusuf added.
The Nigerian House of Representatives has resolved to reconvene for an emergency session tomorrow February 17, 2026, to deliberate on issues arising from the Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) release of the timetable for the 2027 general elections.
The decision was disclosed in a statement issued by the House Spokesman, Rep. Akin Rotimi, who described the electoral body’s announcement as one of “constitutional and national significance.”
INEC had fixed February 20, 2027, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections.
According to the statement, members of the Green Chamber were notified of the emergency sitting through an internal memorandum from the Speaker’s office.
The session is expected to focus on legislative matters connected to the newly released timetable, reflecting the House’s resolve to act promptly on issues affecting the nation’s democratic process.
Rep. Rotimi noted that all related businesses would be treated with urgency and urged lawmakers to prioritise attendance in view of the importance of the deliberations.
INEC had on Friday formally unveiled the comprehensive schedule for the 2027 polls, including timelines for party primaries slated for July to September 2026, as well as the commencement of Continuous Voter Registration in April 2026.
The development comes amid ongoing consultations and proposed amendments to the Electoral Act ahead of the 2027 general elections.
As the controversy over the transmission of election results continues across the country, the Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), a pro democracy organisation in the country, has criticised the National Assembly for not giving express approval to real time transmission of elections results.
To this end, the group is calling on all civil society organisations in the country to mobilise and push for a better Electoral Reform in the country.
This was contained in a press statement titled, “Defence For Human Rights and Democracy Demands Real Time Election Transmission of Result”, a copy of which was made available to newsmen in Port Harcourt.
The group described the refusal of compulsory real time transmission of result results by the Senate as undemocratic, adding that the situation will give room for election manipulation, rigging and voters apathy.
It said that the provision of mandatory real time transmission of election results would have significant improvement on the nation’s democracy.
According to the statement, “Since the return of democracy in 1999 to date, it is 27 years, so our Democracy has metamorphosed from being nascent and as such significant improvement should have been recorded.
“Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is really disappointed at the National Assembly, especially the upper chamber (Senate) for not approving ‘Real Time Electronic Transmission of Election Result’.
“This undemocratic act of theirs, if not tamed, will give room for election manipulation and rigging’”.
Signed by Comrade Clifford Christopher Solomon on behalf of the organisation, the statement further said, “The Defence For Human Rights and Democracy unequivocally supports real time transmission of election result”, stressing that his group will resist any act by the National Assembly to undermine the nation’s democracy.
“DHRD,unequivocally supports ‘True Democracy’, which is Government of the people, by the people and for the people.
“Therefore, anything that will crash the hope of Nigerians to Freely, Fairly and Transparently elect candidates of their choice in any given election should and will be vehemently resisted because good governance begins with leaders elected through credible process. By so doing, leaders have entered a social contract with the citizens to equitably manage their affairs and abundant resources”, the statement added.
It urged the National Assembly to revisit the issue in order to avoid civil unrest.
According to the DHRD, “To avoid civil unrest,voters apathy, election rigging and manipulation, rather to promote citizens participation, advancing our Democracy and entrenching free, fair, credible and acceptable electoral outcome, the National Assembly should amend the electoral act in a manner that will deepen our democracy and boost citizens confidence.
“On this note, The Defence For Human Rights And Democracy (DHRD), is calling on all other civil society organisations (CSOs) to mobilise, organise and push for a better electoral act amendment by the National Assembly”.
By: John Bibor
