Editorial

Nigeria @ 60: Time To Restructure

Published

6 years ago

October 14, 2020

Recently, Nigeria celebrated her diamond jubilee anniversary. This milestone celebration brought to the fore, a furor of agitations from various ethnic groups, religious leaders, regional organs, men of God, and even the ordinary Nigerians for the country to be restructured.
Before independence in 1960, Nigeria had operated a regional-based government, paying to the centre taxes accruing from the commonwealth and natural resources which abound in several parts of the country including the various regions.
Nigeria as a country came into existence in 1914, when the British colonial masters, through amalgamation created a united Nigeria; that is, the unity that has been protected and upheld till date. The administration of Nigeria thereafter was through regional governments, a practice where the regions were autonomous and the centre being co-ordinated by the federal administration that was the structure then.
In 1967, states were created, thereby destroying the regional administration by the military. The military, for purposes of control, made the centre stronger because military administrators for the states were appointed, not elected, by the then Supreme Military Council. The revenue accruing from all the states of the federation became centralised and states were allocated funds for governance through revenue sharing.
The military in 1979 introduced a Constitution for Nigeria, which till date is being used in our democratic administration. The inadequacies and defects of the 1979 Constitution and to date as amended, favoured some ethnic groups, more than others. This situation has created a lot of tension and insecurity in the country, leading to clamour for restructuring of the country.
Some ethnic blocks have taken the demand for autonomy very far and are demanding for separate nations. Better still, many opinion leaders and groups, who still believe in the unity of the country and indivisibility of Nigeria are now asking for restructuring of the country, in the regional form as existed before, posturing that the states in each region should come together and form a regional government.
Other groups are of the opinion that the six geo-political zones of the country as they are today, should be pronounced as regions, so as to exercise the autonomy and powers of the then regional governments.
With this set up, they believe that the Federal Government at the centre will still remain to co-ordinate the regional administrations.
The current tension generated by the clamour for the restructuring of Nigeria is more pronounced and more deep-seated, as many Nigerians of high standing as well as responsible groups have become more vocal.
Again, the sheer fact that there are cracks and divisions within the country today may have propelled Vice President Yemi Osinbajo to state that “Nigeria may break up if efforts are not made to address the cracks in the nation”.
Interestingly, a highly respected Christian leader in the country, Pastor Enoch Adeboye has equally lent his voice to the clamour for the restructuring of the country. To say that the call for structuring of Nigeria has become more strident in recent times is to state the obvious, as such calls cut across political, ethnic and religious divides.
The Tide believes that going by the mood of the country today, restructuring of Nigeria within the context of justice, equity and fairness is the right way to go. We agree that the strength of the country is the unity of the country; and also that the country’s size and population, coupled with her abundant human and material resources better reinforce the need for the country to remain one and an indivisible entity.
Infact, this sheer fact has made the country to be highly respected globally and this has given us a prominent and strong voice in the comity of nations. Balkanising, splitting and even fragmenting the country along whatever lines to form separate nations would definitely reduce our spheres of influence within the global community, as this has the tendency of whittling down our strength and power in international affairs.
Thus, we think that irrespective of our diversities, the country’s unity is non-negotiable, and this must be brought to bear in all that we do as one people with a common destiny, goals and aspirations. We strongly subscribe to the fact that all sections of this country must be given an equal sense of belonging. In this way, our much-touted unity in diversity will make more meaning. This is key to our sovereignty as a nation.
Nonetheless, restructuring of the country would give the various ethnic groups which are today agitating for secession a sense of inclusion in the affairs of the nation, particularly in the fair distribution of the nation’s resources and our common patrimony. We are confident that if the states as they are today are retained and made to develop in their own pace, the country would be better developed.
Infact, the country should be restructured to include the existing states in the formation of a semblance of autonomous regions with the much-needed economic strength to foster equal development in the country. The Federal Government should, on the other hand, serve as the central government so as to reserve the responsibilities of coordinating the regions to enhance growth and development.
Besides, there is need to create regional administrations, taking into cognizance their comparative strength and advantage over others in trade, commence and industry. In the spirit of true federalism, devolution of powers should be such that more powers are given to regional Houses of Assembly, among other democratic organs of government. Luckily enough, at present, the six geo-political zones in the country have presented a perfect delineation in the restructuring of the country. We recommend this as a perfect and more acceptable regional restructure.
Against this backdrop, therefore, we call on the National Assembly to without hesitation commence deliberations on the restructuring of the nation, so as to save the country from imminent collapse and by so doing restore and promote the nation’s fragile unity. It would not be a bad idea if the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference are revisited and its report released and implemented.
There is also the need for the National Assembly to review and amend the 1999 Constitution to reflect the yearnings and aspirations of Nigerians today, as the present Constitution does not address the fundamental issues of justice, equity and fairness. There is no doubt that the Constitution is a mere document put together by the Military, and there is no gainsaying that it contains several defects which must be corrected. What Nigerians badly want today is a people’s Constitution, fashioned in accordance with our democratic norms and principles.
Again, the new Constitution must be such that would be able to entrench the cardinal principles of true federalism, devolution of powers and the rule of law.
Everything said and done, we are convinced that the time to restructure the country is now, for Nigeria to still remain a united and indivisible country after 60 years of her independence.

Editorial

INEC’s Threat Alert Deserves Urgent Attention

Published

1 day ago

October 30, 2026

The Tide

The Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) disclosure of an alleged plot to target its ad hoc personnel ahead of the 2027 general elections demand urgent national attention. The reported arrest of suspects, with intelligence support from the Department of State Services (DSS), is encouraging, but must not breed complacency. Any attack on electoral workers threatens not only human lives but also Nigerians’ constitutional right to choose their leaders through credible elections. The alleged conspiracy must be thoroughly investigated, its sponsors identified and all those found culpable prosecuted.
Particularly troubling is the reported targeting of National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) members, who play a vital role in Nigeria’s electoral process. Many serve far from home and undertake sensitive assignments at polling units and other electoral locations. As civilians, they should not be exposed to intimidation, abduction or violence without adequate protection. If election workers are vulnerable, the safety of other officials, observers and voters cannot be guaranteed.
Nigeria’s electoral history offers painful lessons. Human Rights Watch reported in Nigeria’s Post-Election Violence, published in May 2011, that more than 800 people died in the violence following the 2011 general elections. NYSC members serving as electoral officials were among the victims. This tragedy underscores the deadly consequences of political tension, incitement and disputed outcomes. Nigeria must act on the latest warning before another preventable disaster occurs.
INEC deserves recognition for uncovering the alleged plot, while the DSS and other security agencies merit commendation for their reported assistance. However, arrests are only the beginning. Investigators must establish the suspects’ identities, motives, networks and intended targets, ensuring that evidence is admissible in court. The process must remain impartial and free from political interference. Credible public updates are also necessary, provided they do not compromise investigations or operational security.
The authorities must adopt a comprehensive, intelligence-led security strategy for 2027. INEC’s proposed security conference should produce practical measures developed in collaboration with the Inter-Agency Consultative Committee on Election Security (ICCES), the police, the DSS and other relevant agencies. Threat assessments should guide personnel deployment, secure transportation, emergency communications, evacuation procedures and rapid response. Protection must extend beyond polling day to the distribution of sensitive materials, collation centres and the safe return of ad hoc personnel.
Those who provide intelligence must also be protected from retaliation. Confidential reporting channels and appropriate safeguards should be established for informants and others assisting investigations. Equally, security deployments must not intimidate voters or facilitate political repression. Personnel should act professionally, impartially and proportionately, within the law. Clear mechanisms for reporting misconduct and investigating abuses are essential to maintaining public confidence.
The threat also highlights broader concerns about trust in the electoral system. The European Union Election Observation Mission’s June 2023 final report identified shortcomings in transparency and operational implementation during Nigeria’s 2023 general elections, alongside concerns about the legal framework and electoral dispute resolution. Credible elections require more than security; they depend on transparent procedures, accountable officials and consistent enforcement of electoral laws. INEC must demonstrate measurable progress in addressing previously identified weaknesses.
Voter apathy presents another challenge. INEC’s published figures indicate that approximately 25 million people voted in the 2023 presidential election, out of about 93.5 million registered voters, a turnout of roughly 26.7 per cent. Although insecurity is not the sole cause of low participation, threats against electoral personnel can heighten public anxiety and discourage voters from exercising their franchise. INEC should strengthen civic education, improve polling accessibility and communicate procedures clearly. Political parties, civil society and the media must promote peaceful participation and reject electoral intimidation.
Misinformation and manipulated digital content pose additional risks. False reports, fabricated announcements and deepfake videos can inflame tensions, impersonate officials and mislead voters. INEC should establish a well-resourced, rapid-response communication system supported by verified digital channels and timely public statements. Collaboration with credible media organisations and fact-checkers would help counter falsehoods without suppressing legitimate criticism. Clear, consistent communication is indispensable, as administrative confusion and delayed explanations often allow rumours to spread.
Electoral integrity must also begin within INEC itself. The chairman’s warning against partisanship, negligence, extortion and ethical misconduct deserves serious attention. Security measures cannot compensate for officials who abuse their positions or disregard established procedures. INEC should strengthen staff training, ensure transparent recruitment and deployment, provide secure channels for reporting misconduct and enforce disciplinary rules consistently. Allegations of bribery and political interference must be investigated regardless of rank, while ad hoc personnel should receive adequate briefing, support and prompt payment.
The legal framework also requires clarity and consistent enforcement. INEC should explain the precise provisions and applicability of Section 26 of the Electoral Act 2026, including the obligations of electoral officials and security personnel, and publish authoritative guidance on neutrality and professional conduct. Complaints by opposition parties that they have been prevented from campaigning in certain states must likewise be investigated impartially. Any established violations should attract appropriate corrective action. Electoral fairness requires not only impartial polling officials but also lawful campaigning, access to competing viewpoints and freedom from intimidation.
The alleged plot against INEC’s ad hoc personnel is a warning against complacency ahead of the 2027 general election. Governments, security agencies, INEC, political parties and civil society must work together to prevent violence, punish misconduct and protect citizens’ participation. The commission should communicate its security priorities, maintain accessible threat-reporting channels and provide periodic updates on preparedness. Nigeria’s democracy cannot be safeguarded by assurances alone; it requires demonstrable preparation, impartial law enforcement and an unwavering commitment to free, fair and credible elections.

Editorial

That Call to End Girl-Child Marriage

Published

6 days ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria joined the world in commemorating the International Day of the Girl-Child on 11 March 2026, an observance dedicated to advancing girls’ rights and amplifying their voices. This year’s theme, “End Child Marriage and Invest in Girls’ Rights,” confronts a deep-rooted injustice and demands an end to sacrificing girls’ futures to prejudice and expediency.

The focus is child marriage, not as an unavoidable misfortune but as a preventable injustice. Though prevalent in many societies, the practice remains particularly troubling in parts of northern Nigeria, where it has become normalised. Reports of girls aged 10 to 13 being married off are disturbing. The controversy surrounding a Nigerian senator and former governor who married a 13-year-old girl further exposed the practice to global scrutiny, yet accountability at home appeared limited. When lawmakers disregard the law, society’s moral compass is compromised.

UNICEF’s statistics reveal the scale of the crisis. Globally, an estimated 650 million women and girls alive today were married before turning 18, while more than 12 million girls enter marriage annually before adulthood. In Nigeria, about 33 per cent of girls marry before 18 and 11 per cent before 15. The prevalence reportedly reaches 63 per cent in Jigawa and Zamfara States and 61 per cent in Sokoto and Katsina. These figures represent millions of childhoods interrupted and futures imperilled.

These statistics explain why the United Nations continues to campaign against child marriage and advocate investment in girls. The consequences are devastating. Girls whose bodies are not fully developed face increased risks of maternal death, obstetric fistula, sexually transmitted infections and psychological trauma. The economic cost is equally significant. A 2017 World Bank and International Centre for Research on Women Study estimated that ending child marriage could generate an additional $7.6 billion in earnings and productivity for Nigeria, as early marriage deprives girls of education, skills, and opportunities to contribute to national development.

Educating a woman benefits the entire society. As a mother, she often becomes her children’s first teacher and a vital influence on their character. An educated mother helps raise enlightened children, just as one candle can light many others without losing its flame. Denying women education undermines families and communities. To expect wisdom while deliberately withholding knowledge is to demand the impossible.

Several reasons are offered for marrying off young girls, including economic hardship, cultural practices and religious beliefs. In some households, daughters are treated as commodities, married early so that their bride price can finance their brothers’ education. While boys enter classrooms, their sisters are sent to matrimonial homes. This discriminatory practice is shortsighted, depriving the nation of half its human potential. A country cannot expect to run effectively after deliberately crippling one side of its capacity.

Beyond these justifications lies the entrenched belief that women ultimately belong in the kitchen, regardless of their education. This outdated notion is demonstrably false. Countries where women lead governments, businesses, research institutions and other sectors show what investment in female talent can achieve. Rwanda’s substantial female parliamentary representation is one example. Confining women to domestic roles limits not only their ambitions but also the nation’s progress.

A girl-child must not surrender her childhood to poverty or prejudice. Some traditions discourage women from attaining educational heights comparable to or greater than those of men, driven by the baseless fear that educated women will disrespect their husbands. Such thinking equates enlightenment with insubordination and empowerment with threat. This patriarchal mindset perpetuates inequality and keeps society trapped in backwardness.

Consequently, some parents consider educating their daughters a waste of resources, likening it to watering another man’s garden. This attitude is deeply misguided. Every girl deserves the opportunity to learn, grow and pursue her dreams. Early marriage mortgages her future, stifles her potential and traps her in circumstances she might otherwise overcome. No society can justify sacrificing a child’s prospects to outdated customs or immediate financial gain.

Ending child marriage must, therefore, go hand in hand with investing in girls’ education, safety and rights. Every girl should have the opportunity to realise her potential. This requires more than annual declarations, billboards, posters and seminars held in air-conditioned halls. Awareness without action is like a cloud without rain: promising, yet incapable of nourishing the ground.

The campaign must move beyond tokenism to practical intervention, particularly at the state level, where the problem is acute. Governments should formulate policies that protect girls and make education accessible. Scholarships, bursaries, conditional cash transfers, school feeding programmes and other incentives can help keep girls in school. When education is affordable and adequately supported, more girls can choose the classroom over the bridal chamber.

Civil society organisations, faith-based groups, and traditional institutions must intensify efforts to challenge child marriage and dismantle harmful beliefs disguised as religious or cultural obligations. Parents must also uphold their responsibility to protect and educate their daughters, despite economic pressures. A society that educates its girls invests in its future; one that marries them off in childhood mortgages that future at an incalculable cost.

Editorial

Restructure the UN Power Arrangement

Published

2 weeks ago

October 19, 2026

The Tide

When Vice-President Kashim Shettima rose in New York on behalf of President Bola Tinubu to address the general debate of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, he carried a message that Africa has whispered, petitioned and pleaded for far too long: the world’s highest table of peace and security must make room for the continent. Nigeria’s demand is unambiguous: at least two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, with full rights, including the veto, alongside five non-permanent seats. It is a demand that deserves a fair hearing and a decisive response.

The President’s argument rests on a simple proposition: the architecture erected in 1945 cannot credibly govern the world of 2026. Reform of the United Nations, he insisted, must begin with the Security Council, where African representation remains grossly inadequate. Nigeria’s position, he reminded delegates, is anchored in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, which together articulate the African Union’s common position on Security Council reform. His most compelling point was also his simplest: Africa cannot continue to dominate the Council’s agenda while remaining absent from its permanent membership.

Consider how exclusive the club remains. Since the organisation’s founding, only five countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union’s seat, and China—have held permanent membership, with the privilege of the veto. When the UN Charter entered into force, the United Nations had 51 member states; today, it has 193. The organisation’s membership has nearly quadrupled, yet its inner sanctum has admitted no new permanent member in eight decades. A body that refuses to evolve invites the charge that it remains a monument to the victors of a long-concluded war.

The imbalance becomes even more striking when viewed through the lens of geography. Europe has two permanent seats held by European states, while Asia has one held by China. The United States holds another, and Russia, whose territory spans Europe and Asia, occupies the fifth. Africa, home to 54 countries and more than a quarter of the General Assembly’s membership, has none. We are entitled to ask why the historical circumstances of 1945 should continue to determine who sits permanently at the head of the table in the third decade of the twenty-first century.

The irony is bitter. According to Security Council Report, an independent monitoring organisation, Africa accounts for a substantial share of the Council’s formal meetings, while many of its peacekeeping and Chapter VII enforcement mandates concern African states. The Council, in effect, helps determine the fate of African nations without a permanent African voice in its deliberations. To make decisions with far-reaching consequences for a continent while excluding it from permanent decision-making is unjust, outdated and corrosive of the very legitimacy the Council claims.

Nor does the existing arrangement for African participation offer much consolation. Three non-permanent seats are allocated to Africa, but their occupants serve two-year terms, have no veto and enjoy no guaranteed continuity. The so-called A3 must repeatedly learn the corridors of power just as their tenure expires, while the permanent five enjoy continuity, influence and the power to block decisions. How can the United Nations credibly claim to represent the world equitably when an entire continent is excluded from permanent membership? If it is truly a global institution, Africa must have a seat at the table as of right, not at the discretion of others.

Demography reinforces the case. Africa is home to about 1.5 billion people, roughly a fifth of humanity, and its share of the global population is projected to rise. Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country, has an estimated population of more than 230 million and a long record of contributing to peacekeeping and regional stabilisation. Africa’s permanent representatives must be chosen through a process that reflects the continent’s collective interests, and Nigeria, by virtue of its population, diplomatic standing and record of service, is well placed to be considered for one of the two seats. We, therefore, endorse the Federal Government’s position that Africa should have at least two permanent seats on the Security Council.

The vexed question of the veto deserves equal candour. Our considered view is that the veto should be abolished. Where four members agree, a single dissenting voice should not be allowed to frustrate the will of the majority. Time and again, the veto has paralysed the Council in the face of atrocities and aggression, turning deliberation into deadlock and undermining collective action.

The African Union’s formal position is pragmatic: if the veto is abolished for all, so be it; but for as long as it survives, Africa must not be saddled with second-class membership without the same privilege. This is a logical and defensible position, even if the complete abolition of the veto remains the more desirable goal.

The lopsided composition of the Council helps explain why the international community has struggled to make meaningful progress on some of the world’s gravest conflicts. A chamber in which a handful of powers pursue their strategic interests, with limited accountability to the regions most affected by its decisions, can hardly be described as democratic. Legitimacy is the currency of any international institution. When that legitimacy is squandered, confidence in the Council’s decisions weakens, and the cause of multilateralism suffers.

Several practical steps should follow. First, Abuja and the African Union must speak with one voice, agreeing on the criteria for selecting Africa’s representatives and establishing a credible process for identifying candidates for the two seats. This would prevent internal divisions from being exploited by opponents of reform. Second, Nigeria should build alliances beyond the continent, notably with Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, as well as Caribbean and Pacific states that share an interest in reforming the international system. Third, Nigeria must continue to strengthen its credentials through sustained contributions to peacekeeping, sound democratic governance, and timely financial contributions to international institutions.

The Security Council was fashioned for a world that has long since vanished. To pretend otherwise is to court irrelevance. Africa is asking not for charity but for representation commensurate with its population, its responsibilities and its potential. Reform is long overdue, and the international community can no longer afford to ignore the issue. President Tinubu has set out Nigeria’s case with clarity; it is now incumbent on the major powers to demonstrate that the United Nations is a community of nations, not a private club reserved for the victors of a bygone era. History will judge them by how seriously and swiftly they respond.