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

Certificate Forgery, Loss Of Public Trust

Published

1 day ago

November 10, 2025

The Tide

Nigeria has found itself once more in an uncomfortable global spotlight after the abrupt resignation of Geoffrey Uche Nnaji, the former Minister of Innovation, Science, and Technology. The circumstances surrounding his exit were neither dignifying nor reassuring. Instead, they have brought about a profound sense of national embarrassment and institutional opprobrium.

The allegations that Nnaji forged his university degree and National Youth Service Corps certificate have raised serious questions about integrity in public office. The University of Nigeria, Nsukka, (UNN) expressly denied awarding him a degree, stating unequivocally that he did not complete his studies. Such a revelation is not only scandalous but deeply unsettling for a nation already battling credibility deficit.

Even more troubling is the fact that the former Minister, under intense scrutiny, reportedly conceded that he was never issued a certificate by the university. This revelation begs the most fundamental question. Where then did he secure the UNN decree certificate he allegedly tendered upon his appointment? That inquiry alone unravels layers of possible complicity and systematic failure.

This matter has opened a can of worms. It is a sad commentary on a nation struggling to project an image of responsibility and moral uprightness. Instead of inspiring confidence, such cases reinforce the perception that Nigeria suffers from chronic ethical erosion in leadership recruitment processes.

It is particularly depressing that individuals who commit crimes of this nature can simply resign and walk away unscathed, as if public office was a revolving door of impunity. A mere resignation does not absolve one of accountability. It is imperative that those who defraud the nation must be held to legal consequences, not treated as though they merely committed a social faux pas.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Nigeria is grappling with such an ignoble scandal. A former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Salisu Buhari, was once enmeshed in a forgery controversy over a fake degree and age falsification. Former Finance Minister Kemi Adeosun resigned after being found with a forged NYSC exemption certificate. Such shameful precedents have become almost predictable.

When high-profile officials indulge in such fraudulent practices and face little to no consequence, it sends a dangerous message. It tells ordinary citizens that integrity is negotiable and that laws are flexible privileges reserved for the powerful.

It is unconscionable that the law eagerly pursues the poor for petty infractions while turning a blind eye when the wealthy and politically connected commit more grievous offences. This selective justice is a tragic indictment of our system and values as a nation.

Our leaders, by virtue of the trust placed in them, should be punished doubly when they violate the law. The law must not merely exist on paper. If leaders continue to evade accountability, then what exists is not a legal system but a symbolic facade.

Time has come for the authorities to demonstrate that all Nigerians are indeed equal before the law. That principle, which is the bedrock of every functioning democratic society, must be evident not only in rhetoric but in action.

While it is commendable that Nnaji resigned, resignation alone cannot suffice as closure. We insist that he be properly investigated and prosecuted where found culpable. Likewise, previous offenders should also be recalled to face justice. National healing requires consequences, not concealment.

This scandal exposes the rottenness of our political selection process. It signals that trust has been replaced with convenience and accountability substituted with nonchalance. Nigeria cannot move forward if leadership continues to be riddled with fraudulent representation.

The Department of State Services (DSS) must be held accountable for clearing an appointee whose records were allegedly not thoroughly verified. Screening is not a ceremonial exercise. It is supposed to involve critical background checks and authentication of claims.

Similarly, the National Assembly must put an end to the hollow practice of asking nominees to “take a bow and go.” Ministerial screenings are not social receptions. They are constitutionally mandated checks intended to protect national interest. When legislators fail in this role, the entire country suffers the consequences.

Both the DSS and the National Assembly must reform their processes immediately. The continued casual, wishy-washy scrutiny of appointees is not only an indictment of leadership but a disservice to Nigerians. If Nigeria must rebuild trust and respect, it begins with ensuring that only individuals of proven integrity occupy public office. Accountability must prevail, and the era of impunity must be brought to an end.

Editorial

In Support of Ogoni 9 Pardon

Published

1 week 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

2 weeks 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.