Editorial

Another Look At PIB Provisions

Published

6 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

A Fair Wage for Difficult Times

Published

3 weeks ago

July 3, 2026

The Tide

The latest demand by the Federal Workers Forum (FWF) for an upward review of the national minimum wage from N70,000 to N300,000 should not be dismissed as another routine labour agitation. Rather, it should be seen as a reflection of the deep economic pain confronting millions of Nigerian workers whose purchasing power has been severely eroded by inflation, rising living costs, and a struggling economy. Whether or not the figure being demanded is attainable, the message behind it cannot be ignored.

The decision of the Forum to proceed with a nationwide protest also underscores the growing frustration among federal workers who believe that repeated appeals have produced little meaningful action. Their complaints over unpaid entitlements, wage awards, promotion arrears, and other outstanding benefits deserve prompt attention from the authorities. A government that expects dedication and productivity from its workforce must also fulfil its obligations to them.

It is significant that the Chief of Staff to the President recently acknowledged that federal workers are poorly remunerated. Such an admission is welcome because it confirms what workers have consistently argued for years. However, acknowledgement alone is insufficient. Nigerians expect practical measures that will improve workers’ welfare rather than statements that only recognise the obvious.

The economic realities confronting workers are doubtlessly harsh. Food prices have climbed beyond the reach of many families, transportation costs have risen sharply, rents continue to increase, and the cost of healthcare and education has become unbearable for many households. Salaries that appeared modest a few years ago have become grossly inadequate in today’s economic environment.

Compounding the hardship is the persistent challenge of insecurity across the country. Many workers travel daily under difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions to earn incomes that barely sustain their families. The emotional and financial burden of this situation has created widespread frustration and anxiety, contributing to the tense atmosphere that now pervades the nation.

Against this background, the call for a living wage is both reasonable and urgent. The purpose of a minimum wage is not just to keep workers employed but to enable them to live with dignity. When full-time workers cannot adequately feed their families, pay school fees, access healthcare, or meet basic living expenses, it becomes clear that existing wage structures require serious review.

The Federal Government should, therefore, approach this matter with the seriousness it deserves. It should immediately commence purposeful discussions with organised labour and representatives of the Federal Workers Forum to examine realistic options for improving workers’ welfare. Delaying action or relying on promises will only deepen public dissatisfaction and erode confidence in the government.

Equally important is the need for the government to honour existing commitments. Reports of outstanding wage awards, unpaid allowances, and promotion arrears should be independently verified and settled without unnecessary delay. Keeping faith with agreements already reached would demonstrate sincerity and rebuild trust between the authorities and their employees.

That said, the workers must also appreciate the importance of sustained dialogue. While peaceful protest remains a constitutional right, industrial disputes are more productively resolved through negotiation than confrontation. Every effort should be made to avoid actions capable of disrupting essential public services or escalating national tension.

The leadership of organised labour also has a crucial role to play. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) must rise and provide united, responsible, and strategic leadership. Workers need strong representation that combines firmness with wisdom and places national interest alongside legitimate labour demands.

There is no doubt that the government faces enormous fiscal challenges. Declining revenues, mounting debt obligations, and competing development needs make public finance increasingly difficult. Nevertheless, these realities cannot become excuses for allowing civil servants to sink deeper into poverty. Sound economic management must ultimately translate into improved living conditions for citizens.

In truth, paying workers a fair and sustainable wage is not only a social obligation; it is an economic necessity. Better-paid workers stimulate consumer spending, enhance productivity, reduce corruption arising from financial desperation, and contribute to greater national stability. Investment in workers is an investment in economic growth.

Nigeria can ill afford another prolonged confrontation between government and labour at a time when insecurity, inflation, and public discontent already threaten social cohesion. Both sides should exercise restraint, avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and demonstrate genuine commitment to finding common ground. Nigerians expect solutions, not endless disputes.

The message from the current agitation is unmistakable. The Federal Government must heed the legitimate demands of workers by urgently pursuing a new living wage that reflects present economic realities and restores hope to millions of households. At the same time, workers should keep engaging the government through peaceful dialogue, mutual respect, and responsible negotiation. At this critical moment in our country’s history, compromise, compassion, and decisive leadership offer the surest path to industrial harmony and national progress.

Editorial

Getting State Police Right

Published

3 weeks ago

June 29, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria appears closer than ever to embracing state police, a transformative reform that has dominated national security discourse for years. Such a move, however, requires constitutional amendment to eliminate existing legal obstacles. The National Assembly deserves commendation for expediting work on the necessary legislation to amend Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, which currently provides for a single, centralised national police force. Having secured passage in both chambers, the amendment bills should now be transmitted without delay to the state Houses of Assembly for prompt consideration.

The urgency of this reform is indisputable. Nigeria has been grappling with terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence, and organised crime, all of which have overstretched the existing security architecture. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Nigerians paid an estimated N2.23 trillion in ransom between May 2023 and April 2024, while about 51.9 million crime incidents affected households during the same period. These disturbing figures underline the necessity of strengthening policing through a more pragmatic and responsive system.

State police could remarkably complement the efforts of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), bringing law enforcement closer to local communities. Officers recruited from within their areas are often better acquainted with the terrain, languages, and cultural dynamics that shape criminal activity. Such local knowledge could produce a more perspicacious approach to crime prevention, intelligence gathering, and rapid emergency response.

Critics rightly fear that state police could become instruments of political persecution if left unchecked. Unscrupulous governors may be tempted to intimidate opponents, suppress dissent, or influence elections through the misuse of security agencies. Any constitutional amendment must, therefore, establish firm precautions that guarantee operational independence and prevent such capricious abuse of authority.

Another serious concern is finance. Running a modern police organisation requires sustained investment in personnel, equipment, technology, training, and welfare. Many states already struggle to pay salaries and pensions promptly. Without reliable funding, state police could deteriorate into poorly equipped institutions that weaken rather than strengthen public safety. Fiscal prudence must accompany political ambition.

Nigeria’s ethnic and religious diversity also demands careful reflection. Minority communities in several states have legitimate concerns that locally controlled police could be manipulated against them during periods of political or communal tension. Recruitment based on ethnicity, family ties, or political loyalty would further undermine professionalism. Only transparent procedures founded on merit can cultivate an equitable policing culture.

Equally important is the need for a comprehensive legal framework to regulate state police operations. Clear provisions are required to define jurisdiction, disciplinary procedures, civilian complaints, accountability mechanisms, and the limits of operational authority. Without such legal clarity, disputes and uncertainty could quickly overwhelm the new institutions.

The relationship between state police and the Nigeria Police Force also deserves meticulous attention. Cross-border crimes, insurgency, and organised criminal networks rarely respect state boundaries. Unless command structures, operational responsibilities, and emergency coordination are carefully defined, jurisdictional rivalry could produce dangerous ambiguity at critical moments.

A fragmented security system presents another risk. Thirty-six separate police commands operating under different priorities and standards may complicate coordinated national responses to terrorism, banditry, and other transnational threats. Intelligence sharing between federal and state agencies must be seamless, timely, and cohesive, leaving no room for avoidable security gaps.

Human rights protection should occupy a central place in the reform agenda. Nigeria’s experience during the #EndSARS protests exposed deep concerns about police brutality, impunity, and excessive force. Establishing additional police formations may merely multiply opportunities for abuse. Independent complaint commissions, judicial oversight, and regular human rights training are indispensable guarantees.

Political transitions pose another challenge. Changes in state administrations should never trigger wholesale dismissals of police leadership or politically motivated appointments. Professional continuity, rather than partisan loyalty, must define career progression. Uniform training standards, ethical codes, and promotion procedures will help preserve the integrity of the institution regardless of who occupies government office.

History also offers a critical lesson. Nigeria operated regional police forces before 1966, but their widespread political misuse contributed to their eventual abolition. That experience should not automatically condemn present reforms, yet neither should it be ignored. Policymakers must undertake a judicious assessment of past failures and design institutions capable of preventing their recurrence.

Ultimately, state police represent an opportunity to strengthen security, but only if reform is pursued with wisdom rather than haste. Constitutional amendment alone will not guarantee success. Strong oversight institutions, transparent recruitment, sustainable funding, effective intelligence sharing, respect for human rights, and genuine accountability must accompany decentralisation. If these essential conditions are fulfilled, state police could become a valuable pillar of national security instead of another source of instability.

Editorial

June 12: The Faltering Democratic Journey

Published

1 month ago

June 12, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria today marks Democracy Day, an occasion set aside to celebrate the country’s democratic journey and reflect on the sacrifices made by citizens in the struggle for representative government. The day is both a celebration and a reminder that democracy is not merely about periodic elections. It is also about freedom, justice, accountability, security, and the welfare of the people.

June 12 occupies a special place in Nigeria’s political history because it commemorates the presidential election of June 12, 1993, widely regarded as the freest, fairest, and most credible election ever conducted in the country. The election was won by late Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, but the military government of General Ibrahim Babangida annulled the results, plunging the nation into political turmoil and a prolonged struggle for democratic rule.

For many years, Nigeria celebrated Democracy Day on May 29 because that was the date when military rule ended and power was handed over to a democratically elected government in 1999. However, in 2018, the administration of late President Muhammadu Buhari officially moved Democracy Day from May 29 to June 12. The change was intended to honour the sacrifices of those who fought against military dictatorship and to recognise the importance of the annulled 1993 election.

More than two decades after the return to civilian rule, Nigeria’s democratic record presents a mixture of progress and disappointment. The country has maintained uninterrupted civilian government since 1999, making it the longest democratic period in its post-independence history. Yet, the quality of governance and democratic institutions remains a matter of concern.

On political rights, Nigeria has made modest gains. Citizens have the constitutional right to vote and contest elections, and political parties operate freely. However, concerns have always been about voter apathy, political violence, and the influence of money in politics. In the 2023 general election, fewer than 30 per cent of registered voters cast their ballots, highlighting declining public confidence in the electoral process.

Civil liberties have improved compared with the military era, but challenges persist. Citizens enjoy greater freedom to express opinions, organise groups, and participate in public debates. Nevertheless, reports of unlawful arrests, harassment of activists, and restrictions on peaceful protests raise questions about the full protection of civil freedoms.

Electoral integrity has shown some improvement through the deployment of technology by the Independent National Electoral Commission. Yet disputes over election management, vote buying, rigging, logistical failures, and prolonged litigation undermine public trust. Many Nigerians still believe electoral reforms have not gone far enough to guarantee completely transparent elections.

Freedom of expression and association are relatively vibrant. Traditional and social media platforms provide citizens with avenues to criticise government policies and mobilise public opinion. However, journalists, activists, and media organisations occasionally face intimidation, legal pressures, and threats that create concerns about press freedom and democratic openness.

Security is one of Nigeria’s weakest democratic indicators. Insurgency in the North East, banditry in the North West, farmer-herder conflicts in parts of the Middle Belt, separatist tensions in the South-East, and widespread kidnapping have created a climate of fear. Thousands of lives have been lost in violent attacks over the past decade, while many communities live under constant security threats.

The rule of law and judicial independence present a mixed picture. Nigerian courts have delivered landmark judgments that have strengthened democracy and resolved electoral disputes peacefully. Yet allegations of political interference, delays in the justice system, and concerns over selective application of the law affect public confidence in the judiciary.

Protection of individual rights and checks on executive power are among areas requiring improvement. Although constitutional safeguards exist, enforcement is often inconsistent. Institutions responsible for oversight, including the legislature and anti-corruption agencies, sometimes face accusations of weakness or partisanship. Strong democratic systems require institutions that can operate independently of political influence.

On accountability and transparency, Nigeria has made some progress through public procurement reforms, digital financial systems, and increased access to information. Yet corruption remains a major obstacle. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has consistently ranked Nigeria among countries facing serious corruption challenges. The misuse of public resources undermines development and public trust.

Citizen participation in governance has expanded through civil society organisations, community groups, and digital engagement. However, many citizens still feel disconnected from decision-making processes. Economically, democracy has not delivered the level of prosperity many expected. Despite being Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria has been struggling with high inflation, unemployment, poverty, and a rising cost of living. Effective and responsive government remains a challenge as many Nigerians demand better public services, infrastructure, healthcare, and education.

As Nigeria marks Democracy Day, the path forward is clear. Electoral reforms must be strengthened to improve transparency and public confidence. Security agencies must be better equipped and held accountable. Judicial independence should be protected, while anti-corruption institutions must be empowered to act without fear or favour. Governments at all levels should embrace transparency, respect human rights, and prioritise economic policies that create jobs and improve living standards.

Above all, citizens must actively engage in governance. Democracy flourishes not only through elections but also through continuous participation, vigilance, and accountability. The promise of June 12 will be fully realised only when democratic governance delivers freedom, justice, security, and prosperity to all Nigerians.