Editorial

US-Iran Crisis

Published

6 years ago

January 13, 2020

Since after the chain of events that led to the invasion of the United States Embassy in Teheran and the holding of 52 embassy staff hostage by irate Iranians in 1979, relations between the two countries have remained largely volatile.
The US had since designated the Islamic Republic as a state sponsor of terrorism which often uses its foreign-based militia formations to attack American citizens and sabotage Western interests, particularly in the Middle East. For this reason, Washington DC had rallied other Western nations to impose series of economic sanctions and travel bans against Teheran and some of its top state functionaries.
America and its major allies, including Israel and European Union member-countries have been at the forefront of moves to ensure that Iran does not develop its nuclear capabilities beyond the limit allowed for civilian purposes. International nuclear experts had always visited the Arab nation to monitor its nuclear projects development. And previous US Presidents had also worked with the international community to pursue any nuclear agreements reached with Iran.
Then enter President Donald Trump in 2017, riding on his ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign slogan. The tough-talking US leader would brook no nonsense from any rival world power, let alone Iran. He wasted no time in pulling out of the international nuclear deal with the Gulf State. What’s more, he is currently embroiled in trade disputes with China, Canada and Mexico, among others. Domestically, there has been no respite for Trump as opposition Democratic Party members of the US Congress are daily plotting to impeach him out of the White House via a Senate trial.
Just a few months ago, President Trump came close to unleashing US might on Iran when he ordered a military strike against the latter in retaliation for the downing of a US drone over the Strait of Hormuz. He was, however, reported to have recalled the mission at the last minute on the excuse that no American life was lost in the drone tragedy.
But the situation was different penultimate Friday, as the world was shaken by news of the killing of an Iranian military commander and head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps elite Quds Force (the corps’ foreign operations arm), Lt-General Qasem Soleimani, along with Iranian-backed Iraqi militia leader, Abu Mahdi Muhandis, near Baghdad airport.
Ordered by Trump, the killings which sparked massive street protests both in Iraq and Iran were carried out by a drone strike over the accusation that Soleimani had previously killed thousands of peaceful Iranian protesters and the suspicion that he was planning an attack on four embassies in the Persian Gulf region.
While Iran saw the elimination of one of its finest military officers as an act of war and, therefore, swore to retaliate, their equally angry Iraqi counterparts, fearing that Iraq would naturally become the theatre of any military confrontation between the two muscle-flexing nations, demanded that the US withdraws its forces from their land.
Iran made good its threat on Tuesday by firing more than 15 missiles at US military bases inside Iraq, despite the United Nations’ and other sovereign calls for the exercise of restraint by both sides. Iran’s action came after its parliament placed a bounty on Mr. Trump and unanimously designated the US Army and its defence chiefs at the Pentagon as terrorist entities.
Trump who had earlier threatened to hit 52 Iranian targets, including cultural sites, in the event of an Iranian reprisal, scaled down his threat with the claim that the Iranian missiles did not cause any collateral damage, after all. But analysts think that his capitulation may have resulted from international condemnations by those who feared that his Iranian targets could include UN-designated World Heritage Sites.
He would rather tighten the sanctions noose on Teheran while calling on his compatriots in the Middle East to leave the region immediately. US ships and airliners were also advised to steer clear of the region.
The implication of all this is that Trump, who recently boasted that the US was now less dependent on foreign crude oil and, as such, didn’t need to station so many troops abroad is now being forced to consign more American soldiers and equipment to Iraq.
Also, many gainfully employed US citizens in the Middle East will now have to suffer the inconvenience of having to abandon such jobs and hastily relocate with their families in response to their President’s recent directive.
Again, back in the US homeland, travelling Iranian-Americans are said to have come under demeaning security scrutiny, particularly by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officials.
Elsewhere, there is this growing apprehension that any further escalation of the crisis may result to yet another world war.
Iran is known to have the largest population of Shia Muslims in the world. And, as such, anything affecting the country is very likely to resonate in places with sizeable Shia populations across the globe. Apparently thinking in this direction, the Nigerian government was reported to have beefed up security, especially at the US and Israeli Embassies and Consulates in the country.
The Tide joins the UN and other peace-loving countries to demand a de-escalation of hostilities between the US and Iran while efforts should be stepped up toward exploring an enduring diplomatic solution to any sticking issues. Already, the current crisis has led to the loss of about 56 lives during a stampede at Soleimani’s funeral. This was quickly followed by the 176 victims of a Ukrainian airliner which crashed immediately after take-off from Teheran airport on Wednesday. After initial denials, an Iranian military outfit has finally admitted responsibility for the tragedy, blaming it on human error. This has prompted a massive anti-government demonstration in the nation’s capital.
As a region with the world’s highest reserve of hydrocarbons, situations in the Middle East often act to influence the global price of petroleum. Nigeria’s economy, being highly dependent on revenue from the sale of this product, remains pitiably vulnerable.
Just as we fear that the current US-Iran crisis may embolden Iran to revive its secret uranium- enrichment programme, we can only pray and hope that the situation does not escalate as to claim more human lives and hurt global oil and gas prices any further.

Editorial

In Support of Ogoni 9 Pardon

Published

17 hours 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

1 week 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.

Editorial

Making Rivers’ Seaports Work

Published

3 weeks ago

October 17, 2025

The Tide

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.