Editorial

Nigeria’s Electoral Best Buy

Published

5 years ago

March 15, 2021

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has said that it would use the 2023 General Elections to set the standard for future polls in Nigeria. Its Chairman, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, was reported to have given the assurance during a meeting with Resident Electoral Commissioners (RECs) at the INEC Headquarters in Abuja, last Monday.
It would be recalled that the INEC boss had, in an earlier interview with journalists on the sideline of the 2021 budget defence at the House of Representatives, late last year, announced that his Commission intends to introduce an electronic voting method in the country; possibly beginning with the Anambra governorship election this year.
From the foregoing, it is clear that INEC is positioning to deepen the present secret ballot arrangement in Nigeria even as there are almost daily indications that this voting system is beginning to suffer hiccups in the very industrial democracies from which we copied it.
For instance, the 2016 presidential election in the United States was widely suspected to have been electronically altered by offshore manipulators (principally from Russia) to favour the erstwhile Republican president, Donald Trump. Again, in 2020, it was the latter who reportedly trumped up charges of voting irregularities by members of the Democratic Party to oust him from the White House.
After many elections since its introduction in Nigeria, INEC is yet to come to terms with the smartcard readers’ hit-and-miss functionality for which reason the so-called voter’s Incidence Form has become a permanent appendage to our balloting process. And now, they want to push it a notch higher by introducing the electronic voting machine.
Some reliable sources have it that the 2015 and 2019 General Elections may have cost the government an average of N250 billion. If we add what the political parties spent in preparing for those elections, the figure may well rise to over double this amount. This is even exclusive of the cost of re-runs and post-election litigations (to defend the victorious president and state governors).
But why are Nigerians so bent on the continuous exploration of this costly and stressful electoral path? Shoes, they say, have their sizes; it is left for the buyer to identify and purchase his size. As far as republican systems go, Nigeria can be likened to a 10-year old who opts to choose size-42 shoes because that’s exactly what most of his adult friends wear. In other words, the world’s poverty capital is not yet ripe for the kind of electoral system she is spending so much money attempting to practise.
Available literature show that Australia practised the open ballot electoral system until 1856, Britain 1872, Switzerland 1872, Canada 1874 and Belgium 1877. If we juxtapose this with when these nations were formed, then we can begin to understand how long it took them to build and develop the technology and political culture that enabled a transition to the electronic secret ballot system they enjoy today.
In Nigeria, it is said that the open ballot system was in practise until 1923 when the British colonialists first introduced the secret voting method. The former system was mainly adopted by town unions to elect their officers.
But even as the system was not new to Nigeria, it took the radical introduction of Option A4 in the 1993 General Elections by the Chairman of the then National Electoral Commission of Nigeria (NECON), Prof. Humphrey Nwosu, for many voters in the country to appreciate the nature of the open voting process.
The presidential election of that year which was widely presumed to have been won by Chief MoshoodAbiola of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) against Alhaji Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention (NRC) is still regarded as the freest, fairest, safest and most transparent in the country, so far. But even so, it was later annulled by the then military junta led by General Ibrahim Babangida.
In a nutshell, Option A4 simply required registered voters to present themselves at their polling units within the specified time on Election Day for accreditation, after which the voter could choose to go back home or hang around until the appointed voting time. Once it was time, an announcement was made by an authorised election official for accredited voters to form a queue in front of the posters bearing symbols of their choice political parties. This would go on for a while until it was time for voters’ counting when security agents took up positions behind the last voter on each line.
Counting of voters was usually shouted aloud and keenly watched by other election officials, security men, party agents and even the queuing voters themselves. If well conducted, the entire exercise could be over in less than four hours (usually between 8:00 am and 12:00 noon).
Other advantages of this voting option are that it eliminates the use of ballot papers; eliminates double voting; eliminates voided votes due to irregular thumb printing; produces instant and credible results; eliminates ballot snatching; discourages double standards; reduces incidence of waiting for late arrival of officials and voting materials as the RAC centres will have little to distribute. Its transparency and credibility also attract less litigation and the attendant costs, thereby releasing judicial officers to attend to other equally important court cases.
On the other hand, its critics are always quick to fault it as outdated and capable of resulting to intimidation by unforgiving politicians whose agents may be wont to point out any unfaithful party member and other sell-outs. It may also lead to bandwagon voting as some undecided voters are unlikely to openly identify with any scanty queues. Again, the system may not readily lend itself to diaspora voting as is currently being encouraged.
Indeed, if this homegrown voting arrangement had emanated from Ghana, Kenya or Rwanda, Nigerians would have embraced it wholeheartedly.
On the whole, defenders of Option A4 (including self) are of the opinion that the standard established by Prof. Nwosu in 1993 should be revisited and improved upon if Nigeria must achieve free, fair, credible and cost-effective polls, going forward.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

2 days 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

2 days 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.