Editorial

Another Look At PIB Provisions

Published

5 years ago

January 4, 2021

Progress on the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) currently under careful considerations in the National
Assembly (NASS) may be stalled as two prominent groups in the Niger Delta region, the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) and the Niger Delta Dialogue (NDD), have outrightly rejected no fewer than 12 significant provisions in the Petroleum Host and Impacted Communities Development Bill (PHICDB).
Specifically, both groups are asking for the redrafting, rephrasing and restructuring of the observed provisions to accommodate the interests of the poor and neglected people of the oil and gas host and impacted communities in the Niger Delta or lose the peace and development sought by the PHICDB in the region.
PANDEF and NDD revealed their positions during the NDD’s Strategic Communication and Advocacy Training session for major stakeholders in PANDEF, NDD, and the various Policy Advocacy Committees (PACs) in Port Harcourt recently. The PHICDB is an essential part of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB) currently before both chambers of the National Assembly.
The PHICDB seeks to promote sustainable mutual social and economic benefits from petroleum operations to host and impacted communities. It is equally designed to enhance peaceful and harmonious coexistence between settlers and host/impacted communities as well as create a framework to support their development process.
The objectionable provisions include the Interpretations Section, which the groups claim was vague in the use of words and terms such as “host and impacted communities” to describe oil-bearing communities in the region. They also faulted the silence of the bill on how the clusters should be formed and the trust fund shared. Similarly, they rejected the vague use of the term ‘Settlor(s)’ in Part 2, Section 2, Subsection 1 and 2 of the draft bill.
Additionally, the stakeholders wondered why “sabotage spill” was not clearly defined but its effects were highlighted in the draft bill. Further, they condemned the observed silence in the sharing formula of the accruing fund from the “Settlor(s)” between host and impacted communities, particularly given that there are more impacted settlements than host communities in available oil industry records.
Furthermore, the groups took a swipe at Part 3, Section 9, Subsection 1 and 2 of the draft bill for resting the creation and determination of the membership of the Board of Trustees (BoTs) for the trust funds on the International Oil Companies (IOCs). They also picked holes in Section 11, which splits the utilisation of the Endowment Fund to 70 per cent for capital expenditure; 20 per cent for the Reserve Fund; and 10 per cent for the settlor(s) special projects.
Expressing worry that the Presidency failed to specify how the operating expenditures of the settlor(s) would be verified to ascertain the accruing funds to the cluster trusts, the stakeholders objected to Section 22 that the settlors’ Operating Expenditure (OPEX) paid into the trust fund shall be subject to Petroleum Income Tax (PIT) and Companies Income Tax (CIT) deductibles.
Section 5 of the bill was queried for failing to give specific sanctions for underpayment, late payment or non-payment of agreed money into the cluster trust fund as and when due. They lamented the insufficient clarity on time frames for the incorporation of cluster trusts for host and impacted communities and the failure to stipulate penalties for reneging on implementation of agreed projects and programmes by the settlor(s) as contained in Section 3 of the bill.
First, it must be established that the broad objectives of the PHICDB are commendable, and that is to find an acceptable framework for an active company-community engagement mechanism structure. But it shouldn’t be seen as a substitute for the government’s responsibility to provide basic services and infrastructure for the host and impacted communities.
However, the flawed provisions identified by PANDEF and NDD are troubling. These principally relate to the power vested in the oil industry to determine crucial parameters connected to how funding will be allocated. We also need to know what constitutes a host community and how the BoTs to manage the funds will be set up.
If the purported purpose of the bill is to empower host communities to take charge of their development needs, why does it give the IOCs the sole power to appoint and determine the composition of the BoT, cutting communities out of the decision-making process? This way, investors can appoint non-indigenous persons as board members. This is a source of conflict and highly undesirable for a bill that aims to build trust.
Again, the issues regarding the lack of an enforceable time frame for project implementation must not be ignored because of its likely consequences. It will probably institutionalise the perception among communities that their concerns are marginal to those of industry, hence, generate serious grievance for many.
It is equally sad that the PHICDB makes settlors the sole authority for determining areas of operation. In effect, this is the power to determine which communities are impacted by the petroleum industry and as such benefit from the trust fund. This means communities that suffer environmental damage from the petroleum industry, but which, if not designated as a host community, will be denied compensations. This enables IOCs to fulfill their obligations in a way that suits their needs, not the communities’.
The PHICDB, as it stands, downplays the role of government in the development of host communities. Instead, it places that responsibility on the oil companies, with the only role for the government that of the Nigerian Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NPRC). NPRC is to mediate in disputes with the proviso that the decision of the Commission remains valid until overturned by the Federal High Court.
But being a creation of the government, it is believed that the NPRC may not be an impartial arbiter because the likely outcome in any such dispute will be favourable to industry, not the communities. And since historical antecedents of such litigations in court have tended to take years, if they are resolved at all, likely the NPRC decision will unduly last longer.
Clearly, the PHICDB vests too much power in the IOCs, particularly in terms of deciding how development projects are determined and implemented, as well as their beneficiaries. This may further alienate communities that already consider themselves cut out of decision-making. In consequence, the Federal Government and NASS should re-examine the PIB and accommodate the recommendations of the PACs to prevent another round of tension and agitations in the region.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

22 hours ago

September 22, 2025

Uchechukwu Okwum

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.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

22 hours ago

September 22, 2025

The Tide

Editorial

Rivers’ Retirees: Matters Arising

Published

2 weeks ago

September 8, 2025

The Tide

The Rivers State Government deserves commendation for the manner in which it conducted the last biometric exercise for pensioners in the state. For the first time in many years, the verification process was not only efficient but also humane, a development that has brought relief to a category of citizens that often bears the brunt of neglect.

Unlike previous verification exercises that left pensioners exhausted and unattended, the latest exercise set a refreshing precedent. Retirees were given proper and sumptuous meals, and in addition, the government paid the sum of N10,000 into their accounts to cushion their transportation costs. Such gestures go a long way in demonstrating that those who had laboured for the state are not forgotten in their twilight years.

The measure was particularly necessary given that some pensioners had to travel long distances to reach their verification centres. For elderly men and women, such journeys come with physical and financial strain. By recognising these realities and easing the burden, the government has shown that pensioners deserve dignity, not disdain.

Beyond this laudable act of consideration, the authorities must reflect on the very structure of pension verification. The era of compelling retirees to be physically present for routine verification should be reconsidered. With digital tools and innovation, the government can adopt systems that capture and confirm data without the stress of physical assembly. This is crucial for pensioners residing in other states or even abroad.

While we acknowledge the importance of verification in cleaning up pension records, we cannot ignore the darker side of the matter. It is regrettable that some allowances continue to be paid to deceased pensioners, with relatives fraudulently collecting the funds. The latest biometrics, thankfully, exposed some of these sharp practices. The exercise, therefore, is not only about order but also about justice.

We urge families of deceased pensioners to be patriotic enough to inform the government of the deaths of their loved ones. It is deeply shameful that in some instances, individuals attempted to impersonate late pensioners during the biometrics. Such behaviour undermines the spirit of honesty and deprives genuine retirees of their due entitlements.

The exercise also revealed another important area of concern: the health of pensioners. It is reassuring to learn that the state government has reportedly promised to take over the medical treatment of some retirees who arrived for the biometrics in critical condition. This is a step in the right direction. Elderly citizens, after years of service, should have access to special health care facilities in the state. Setting aside hospitals or designated centres for the aged is not just desirable but necessary.

While pension payments in Rivers State have remained consistent, attention must now be directed towards gratuities. Senior citizens deserve to receive their retirement benefits without the bureaucratic hitches that have often marred the process. After years of loyal service, nothing is more demoralising than to see retirees languish for want of their gratuities. Every worker, as Scripture reminds us, is worthy of his wage.

Retirement, in any civilised society, should not be reduced to a sentence of suffering. In dealing with pensioners, government must consistently wear a human face. The humane manner displayed during this verification exercise should not be a one-off. It must become the norm in all dealings with retirees. Measures must continually be put in place to ensure that they do not feel abandoned by the state they served.

One welcome innovation has already been introduced. The Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral (Rtd) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, has altered the method of gratuity payment. Pensioners now receive their monies directly into their bank accounts, eliminating the cheque-based system that for years served as fertile ground for corruption. This reform is both pragmatic and forward-looking. Similarly, the implementation of the N32,000 pension harmonisation is also commendable.

Direct payments gratuities ensure transparency and drastically reduce the possibility of diversion of funds. More importantly, they restore confidence in the system and assure pensioners that their entitlements will reach them without interference. In this way, the government has not only safeguarded the process but also upheld the principle of accountability.

Seamless gratuity payment has a ripple effect on the workforce as a whole. When workers are confident that retirement will not plunge them into hardship, the temptation to falsify age in order to remain in service is eliminated. Such reforms, therefore, enhance efficiency, honesty, and productivity in the public service.

In sum, the Rivers State Government has struck a refreshing chord in its handling of pension verification. It has shown empathy, innovation, and accountability. However, the momentum must be sustained, and the focus must shift towards modernising verification methods and prioritising retirees’ welfare in health, gratuity, and dignity.

When retirees are treated with compassion and fairness, the message to those still in service is clear: faithful service to the state will not go unrewarded. The humane verification exercise, though a single event, offers a hopeful glimpse of what governance can look like when people, especially the elderly, are placed at the heart of policy.