Editorial

No To Ban On Doctors’ Strike

Published

4 years ago

January 10, 2022

The House of Representatives may, on resumption from its Christmas and New Year recess, examine a bill prohibiting strike for medical professionals in the enrolment of the three tiers of government. The bill, if passed, will facilitate administrative and judicial processes for resolving trade disputes involving medical practitioners in government employment.
It is entitled: “An Act to Amend the Trade Disputes Act Cap T8, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 to Prohibit Medical Practitioners in the Employment of Federal, State, and Local Governments (as employees in the essential service sector) from Embarking on Strike and to Accelerate Administrative and Judicial Proceedings in the Determination of Trade Disputes Involving Them and Related Matters.”
Sponsored by Rep Simon Chukwuemeka Atigwe (PDP, Enugu), the bill, which is entered on the House Journal as House Bill (HB) 1618, had earlier scaled first reading in the House and is thought to be scheduled for second reading which is the debate on the general principles of the bill before it goes for public hearing.
Reacting to the proposed law, the Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) and the Joint Health Sector Union (JOHESU) knocked members of the House of Representatives over plans to proscribe strikes in the health sector. The bodies described a bill to that effect as draconian and an onslaught on the democratic rights of employees.
Recall that doctors and other health workers frequently get involved in industrial actions, which have paralysed the health system in the country. In 2021, for example, the NARD were on strike for 63 days because the government was unable to meet its demands. The National Association of Nigerian Nurses and Midwives, Lagos State chapter, is also proposing to go on a strike by January 10 over the failure of the state government to meet its demands.
There is no doubt that this move by the legislators will amount to a gross violation of the rights of the medical workers to declare their grievances with amicable negotiation and, as a last resort, launching industrial action. The right to strike is a universal democratic right of all employees, regardless of their workplace – whether private or public.
Our legislators must recognise that industrial actions or strikes are not undertaken for nothing; some issues contribute to them. If there must be a law to ban strikes in the medical sector, then, the House of Representatives should first promulgate a law that will inhibit the government from reneging on several agreements it enters into with health employees.
Furthermore, there should be laws to prevent the government from delays in payment of salaries, pensions and gratuities, promotion and disbursement of entitlements of workers. They should pass legislation that requires us to improve the infrastructure in our hospitals and ensure that consumables are available at all times.
Anything short of that as preconditions to the law to prohibit strikes by health workers means the government wants to arm-twist, gag and turn health providers in Nigeria into captives and lame ducks. The result of this will particularly be a spike in the already colossal migration of the workers to other countries with better service conditions, where their efforts, abilities, and expertise are better recognised.
Indeed, the bill is tumultuous and runs counter to the freedom of expression of health workers. Instead of creating a system in which medical workers do not have to go on strike, the Federal Government seeks to infringe on their rights to declare their resentment. Unfortunately, these legislators fail to understand the privileges that democracy confers. Why would legislators, who are supposed to sympathise with Nigerians as representatives of the people, come forward with such a bill? Shame!
Medical and health workers’ strikes are a global phenomenon, reported in both remarkably developed and progressive countries. Strikes by health workers are of increasing concern for international and local health authorities. They are an obstacle to achieving the universal health coverage contemplated by the World Health Organisation.
However, while the right to strike is regarded a fundamental one, medical workers in Nigeria, notably doctors, must realise that they have a moral duty to adhere to the Hippocratic tenets of the medical profession and fiduciary obligation to their patients. Under Hippocrates oath, doctors are deemed to be in a social contract and obliged to treat a patient’s health and life as a preference over everything else and going on strike may be seen as a contravention of such contract.
As essential workers, Nigerian doctors and health care providers should invariably strike a balance between improved health care services for patients and the need to press for justifiable wages for themselves to fulfill their primary human needs like everyone. So, we advise health workers in this country to act in the best interests of patients and make their health and their lives a priority above all else.
Resolving persistent strikes in the health sector calls for fiscal and ethical solutions and a moral commitment to promoting the health and welfare of Nigerians. All stakeholders involved in the management of the medical profession in this country are required to come to the negotiating table. A conference between health workers’ unions and associations and the Nigerian government is long overdue. Instead of banning strikes in the sector, a work system must be established where medical staff see no reason to declare a collective action.

Editorial

WPFD: Nigeria’s Defining Test

Published

7 days ago

May 6, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria stands at a critical juncture as the world marked World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) on May 3. This annual observance is a reminder that a free press is central to democratic life, good governance, and public accountability. For Nigeria, it is also a moment for sober reflection on how far the country has come and how far it still has to go in safeguarding the independence of its media.
World Press Freedom Day exists to highlight the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and to honour journalists who risk their lives in pursuit of truth. It underscores the idea that without a free press, societies cannot function transparently, nor can citizens make informed decisions. In countries like Nigeria, where democracy continues to evolve, the observance carries particular urgency.
This year’s theme, “Shaping a Future at Peace: Promoting Press Freedom for Human Rights, Development and Security”, places journalism at the heart of global stability. It emphasises that a peaceful society cannot be built on silence, fear, or manipulated information. Rather, it depends on the free flow of accurate, timely, and independent reporting.
At its core, the theme highlights the role of journalism in fostering accountability, dialogue, and trust. These are not abstract ideals. In Nigeria, where public confidence in institutions is often fragile, the media remains one of the few platforms through which citizens can question authority and demand transparency. When press freedom declines, so too does public trust.
Journalism serves as a foundation for peace, security, and economic recovery. Countries with robust media systems tend to attract greater investment, maintain stronger institutions, and resolve conflicts more effectively. Nigeria’s economic challenges, ranging from inflation to unemployment, require open scrutiny and informed debate, both of which depend on a free press.
However, the issue of information integrity has become increasingly complex in the digital age. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and online platforms have amplified the spread of misinformation and disinformation. In Nigeria, where internet penetration has grown rapidly, false narratives can travel faster than verified facts. This makes the role of credible journalism more vital than ever.
The challenge is not only technological but also ethical. AI-driven manipulation of information threatens to distort public discourse, influence elections, and deepen social divisions. In such an environment, professional journalism must act as a stabilising force, ensuring that truth prevails over sensationalism and propaganda.
Equally troubling is the safety of journalists. Across Nigeria, reporters face growing levels of online harassment, judicial intimidation, and physical threats. Self-censorship is becoming more common, as media practitioners weigh the risks of reporting sensitive issues. This trend undermines the very essence of journalism.
A particularly alarming incident involved a serving minister in the present administration, who openly threatened to shoot a journalist during a televised exchange. Such conduct, broadcast to the public, sends a dangerous signal that hostility towards the press is acceptable. It erodes the norms of democratic engagement and places journalists in harm’s way.
This year’s theme aligns closely with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)16, which promotes peace, justice, and strong institutions. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of this goal. Without it, institutions weaken, corruption thrives, and justice becomes elusive. Nigeria’s commitment to SDG 16 must therefore include genuine protection for the media.
Historically, the Nigerian press has been a formidable force. From resisting colonial rule to challenging military dictatorships, our journalists have played a central role in shaping the nation’s political landscape. Today, however, that legacy appears to be under strain, as the media operates under what can best be described as a veneer of freedom.
Beneath this facade lies a troubling reality. Journalists are routinely harassed, detained, and prosecuted for performing their constitutional duties. Reports from media watchdogs indicate that dozens of Nigerian journalists face legal threats or arrest each year, often for exposing corruption or criticising those in power.
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act of 2015 has become a focal point of concern. Originally intended to combat cyber threats, it has increasingly been used to silence dissent. Sections 24 and 27(1)(b), in particular, have been invoked to target journalists, bloggers, and social commentators.
Although amendments introduced in February 2024 were meant to safeguard journalists, concerns persist. The law continues to be wielded in ways that stifle investigative reporting and restrict freedom of expression. Legal reforms must go beyond cosmetic changes to address the root causes of misuse.
To safeguard the future of journalism in Nigeria, decisive action is required. The Cybercrimes Act must be revisited to ensure it cannot be weaponised against the press. Law enforcement agencies must operate free from political influence, upholding the rule of law and protecting journalists’ rights. Civil society and international partners must also strengthen independent media through funding, training, and platforms for wider reach.
In this rapidly evolving world shaped by artificial intelligence and digital innovation, Nigeria faces a clear choice. It can either allow press freedom to erode under pressure, or it can champion a truly independent media landscape. The path it chooses will determine not only the future of journalism, but also the strength of its democracy and the peace it seeks to build.

Editorial

FG’s LIN Policy: The Missing Link

Published

2 weeks ago

April 27, 2026

The Tide

For decades, Nigeria’s education sector has lurched from one grand initiative to the next, each announced with fanfare and abandoned in frustration. The latest proposal, the Learners’ Identification Number (LIN) for primary and secondary pupils, has been presented as a solution to the chronic problem of school dropouts, particularly in the North. Yet before any new system is rolled out, citizens are right to pause and ask: have we not seen this play before?

The Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, deserves some credit for acknowledging a genuine crisis. According to UNESCO data, Nigeria has an estimated 10.5 million children out of school, the highest number in the world, with the northern region accounting for over 60 per cent of that figure. The idea of tracking individual pupils from admission through to graduation is not, in principle, unreasonable. However, the gap between a sound principle and workable implementation has historically been a chasm in this country.

Consider the fate of previous education policies. The Universal Primary Education (UPE) programme of the 1970s collapsed under poor planning, inadequate teacher training, and a lack of sustained funding. The 6-3-3-4 system, introduced in the 1980s to emphasise vocational skills, never achieved its objectives because laboratories and workshops remained empty. More recently, the National Teacher Education Policy (NTEP) introduced in 2014 ran aground due to inconsistent enforcement and low morale among instructors. And presently the Universal Basic Education (UBE). Each policy promised a transformation; each delivered frustration.

The proposed LIN system raises a basic logistical question: does any school today admit a child without recording that admission? Every primary and secondary school already maintains enrolment registers. The challenge is not the absence of identity numbers but the absence of a functional national data collation system, reliable electricity for digital records, and administrative accountability in remote areas. Introducing a new number without fixing these foundations will merely add another layer of paperwork.

Furthermore, the Minister’s plan to phase out the common entrance examination in favour of Continuous Assessment (CA) requires careful scrutiny. While CA can reduce examination pressure, it demands well-trained teachers, standardised evaluation criteria, and rigorous oversight. In many public schools today, class sizes exceed 60 pupils per teacher, and marking is irregular. Without massive investment in teacher quality, CA will become as unreliable as the examination it replaces. Good intentions do not fill gaps in competence.

We must also confront the risk of financial exploitation. Nigeria’s history shows that every new education policy tends to generate new fees: registration fees for identity cards, processing fees for data entry, and renewal fees each term. The Federal Government must give an unequivocal guarantee that the LIN will cost parents and guardians nothing. Given the current economic hardship, with inflation standing at over 28 per cent and food prices soaring, any additional levy, no matter how small, would push more children out of school, not fewer.

The Minister states that the LIN will help identify dropouts. Yet we do not need a complex numbering system to calculate dropout rates. Simply comparing enrolment figures at the start of Primary 1 with attendance at the end of Junior Secondary School 3 would reveal the attrition rate. The real need is not more numbers but more action on the root causes: poverty, child labour, early marriage in some regions, and the poor quality of schooling that makes parents see education as a waste of time.

This brings us to the most direct solution, one the government continues to avoid: free, compulsory basic education nationwide. Section 18 of the 1999 Constitution and the Universal Basic Education Act already mandate free and compulsory education for the first nine years. Yet many states still charge levies for uniforms, parent-teacher association fees, and examination costs. Instead of introducing a tracking number, the government should enforce existing laws, fully release UBEC matching grants, and hold state governors accountable for out-of-school children.

The previous administration’s free school feeding programme showed what is possible when a policy addresses immediate material need. The programme increased enrolment by roughly 15 per cent in targeted areas, according to World Bank monitoring reports. However, it also demonstrated the nemesis of Nigerian policy: corruption. Food quality declined, contractors inflated costs, and political loyalists were favoured over competent caterers. No new number will stop corruption; only transparent auditing and harsh penalties will.

We therefore advise the Federal Government to collapse its many overlapping initiatives into one coherent strategy. The education sector currently suffers from a cacophony of policies: the LIN, Continuous Assessment reform, teacher professional development schemes, digital literacy programmes, and adolescent girls’ education initiatives, among others. Each has its own bureaucratic structure, funding stream, and reporting requirements. Schools, especially in rural areas, cannot manage this chaos. A single, well-funded, long-term plan with clear targets for 2030 would achieve more than a dozen fragmented policies.

Until the government addresses the fundamentals—free tuition, adequate classrooms, and trained teachers—the LIN policy will be remembered as yet another well-intentioned distraction. No identity number ever kept a girl in school when her family could not afford transport. No database ever persuaded a hungry child to stay for afternoon lessons. The missing link in Nigeria’s education sector is not a digit; it is the political will to spend honestly and act decisively. Let the Minister drop this proposal and pick up the harder, older task of enforcing free education for every Nigerian child.

Editorial

Domesticate FG’s Exit Benefit Scheme

Published

1 month ago

April 10, 2026

The Tide

The recent approval of the “Exit Benefit Scheme” by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) stands as a landmark achievement for the administration of President Bola Tinubu. For many observers, this remains one of the most impactful and compassionate policies introduced by the current government. By restoring a sense of financial dignity to those who have dedicated their lives to national service, the administration has demonstrated a clear commitment to the welfare of the Nigerian workforce.

Under this new framework, retirees of the Federal Civil Service are set to receive a gratuity equal to 100 per cent of their last gross annual pay upon retirement. This policy, which officially comes into effect on 1 January 2026, ensures that Federal civil servants are not left stranded the moment they exit the office. It provides a vital financial cushion that has been sorely missing from the lives of many public servants for over two decades.

The primary objective of this scheme is to bolster financial security by providing a significant lump sum payment to eligible employees who have served for at least 10 years. Crucially, this benefit does not exist in isolation; it is designed to work alongside the existing Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). This dual-layered approach ensures that the immediate transition into retirement is as seamless as the long-term pension disbursements that follow.

It is important to clarify that this new benefit is intended to complement, rather than replace, the current CPS managed by Pension Fund Administrators (PFAs). For years, the pure contributory framework left a void where the traditional gratuity once stood. By reintroducing this payment, the Federal Government is addressing a long-standing grievance regarding the adequacy of the total retirement package available to civil servants.

This policy marks a historic return to gratuity payments for Federal Civil Servants after a lengthy hiatus. Since the pension reforms of the early 2000s, the focus has been strictly on contributions, often leaving retirees with a “waiting period” that can be financially devastating. The return of the gratuity signals a shift back toward a more holistic view of worker appreciation and social security.

Indeed, this payment comes exactly 22 years after the introduction of the Contributory Pension Scheme in 2004. The two-decade gap saw many retirees struggle to adjust to life after service without a substantial initial payout. This intervention demonstrates the Federal Government’s ongoing commitment to policies that promote improved welfare and secure the future of the civil service in a tangible, measurable way.

By reversing the lack of gratuity inherent in the previous purely contributory model, the government has earned the rare and resounding praise of organised labour. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has rightly described this move as a major welfare upgrade. This endorsement highlights the alignment between the government’s policy direction and the actual needs of the Nigerian worker on the street.

We commend President Tinubu for this watershed approval. The new gratuity payment is a sincere reflection of the administration’s recognition of the dedication, sacrifice, and professionalism inherent in the Federal Civil Service. It acknowledges that those who build the nation’s administrative backbone deserve more than just a handshake and a promise of future monthly stipends when they finally step down.

However, the pursuit of social justice must not end with Federal workers alone. We strongly advocate that this initiative trickles down to the various states. The Governor’s Forum should meet as a matter of urgency to approve and adopt the Federal Government’s template. If the central government can find the means to honour its retirees, the states—who are the primary employers of the bulk of the nation’s workforce—should follow suit.

It is a painful reality that many workers retire from service today with nothing to take home on their final day. Pensions frequently take months to process, and in many jurisdictions, gratuities take “forever” to be disbursed. This is why the Exit Benefit Scheme is the true embodiment of Tinubu’s “Renewed Hope Agenda.” There is perhaps nothing that offers more hope to a weary worker than the certainty of a dignified exit.

Shamefully, several state governments are still battling with legacy gratuity payments from years past. Adopting a scheme like this would serve as an essential cushion while long-term arrears are settled. No citizen should face destitution or death simply because they rendered service to their government. It is time to end the era where retirees survive on mere trickles; even a modest lump sum can be the difference between a dignified retirement and a tragic one.

Specifically, we call upon the Rivers State Government to adopt this scheme to give life to its pensioners. The Federal Government has already provided the successful template; there is no need to reinvent the wheel. We must ask: if political office holders are entitled to generous severance benefits after just four or at most eight years, why should civil servants who serve for 35 years go without a similar “severance” package?

In Rivers State, the need for clarity is urgent. Workers who left the service after June last year face the uncertainty of whether they fall under the Defined Benefit Scheme or the Contributory Pension Scheme. The state government must resolve this administrative ambiguity immediately to prevent a full-blown pension crisis. Domesticating the Federal “largesse” should be straightforward, as Rivers is a state blessed with the necessary resources.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara, a former civil servant, understands the plight of the worker better than most. While we commend his administration for paying one of the highest minimum wages in the country, he has the opportunity to go further by becoming the first governor to implement the 100 per cent Exit Benefit Scheme. With this, he can ensure that Rivers State workers, who deserve the best, are truly rewarded for their service.

Let Rivers lead where others have lagged.