Editorial

Improving Criminal Justice Delivery

Published

4 years ago

January 11, 2022

The December 2021 jail delivery exercise by the Chief Judge of Rivers State, Justice Simeon Amadi, during
which 27 inmates of the Port Harcourt Maximum Security Correctional Centre were granted pardon and discharged, has again brought to the fore the need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the judicial system in the state.
The freed inmates included those who were either awaiting trials and had spent more than eight years in detention, as well as those who had health challenges. According to the Chief Judge, the jail delivery was in the exercise of his “powers in Section 34 of the Rivers State Administration of Criminal Justice Laws” (ACJL) and added that the decongestion of the correctional centres should be a major concern for stakeholders in the administration of justice.
Justice Amadi attributed the congestion of the correctional centres to several factors, including non-filing of information on case files, wrong charges, lack of diligent prosecution, among others. He said, in the pursuit to achieve decongested custodial centres in the state, the management of the state judiciary had “approved that periodically, magistrates will be posted to the centres to continue the exercise”.
Undoubtedly, the judiciary, which is the third arm of government, performs a very important function of interpreting the law. It dispenses justice without fear or favour. Most importantly, the administrators of the judiciary are desirous of speedy justice dispensation because justice delayed is justice denied.
Interestingly, in both criminal and civil justice administrations, time is of the essence as delay defeats equity. However, recent happenings in the criminal justice administration in Rivers State appear not to take cognizance of the very essence of time. The Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Rivers State 2015 was no doubt enacted to facilitate justice delivery but unreasonable delays continue to be a pain in the ass as there is seeming unwillingness on the part of both the judiciary and public prosecutors to help matters.
The law is explicit, “A defendant charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years shall, on application to court be released on bail…” except for certain reasons. The resultant effect of unreasonable delay is that the correctional centres in the state have become a dumping ground for all manner of defendants, sometimes over fathom and frivolous charges.
Unfortunately, the correctional centres in the state are filled to the brim. The Port Harcourt Correctional Centre which was initially meant for about 804 inmates now has more than 4,000 with attendant congestion and health hazards. There is obviously nothing to learn at the centre except the ugly experiences that inmates pass through. Many inmates who ought to be refined after their experiences come out hardened and society is worse for it.
Surprisingly, Amadi, during his recent jail delivery, discovered to his chagrin that certain inmates at the Port Harcourt Correctional Centre had no files. As benumbing as the fact appears, it underscores the fact that their detention at the correctional centre can only be adjudged illegal. Every detainee at the correctional centre must have been brought there upon a charge known to law. If the charge is bailable, the Magistrate’s Court must “suo moto” grant bail whether on the application of the defendant’s counsel or not.
Regrettably, that is not the case today. The supervisory role of Chief Magistrates to visit police stations in the local government areas where they have their courts is often neglected. Besides, withholding charges, a situation where matters are referred to court without the requisite jurisdiction have worsened delay in justice delivery.
For many years, defendants often await the advice of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) but to no avail. Most defendants are remanded in correctional centres without trial for more than 10 years despite the constitutional provision that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. Some defendants, in the course of awaiting trial, serve out the prison terms of the alleged offences if they were properly convicted, yet, cannot regain freedom.
Pathetically, these defendants are abandoned to their fate; no information is filled and there is no advice from the DPP. Even when bail applications are made to the High Court by counsel on their behalf, the judges stick to the old order of not easily granting bail to applicants charged with serious offences often without a diligent perusal of the defence counsel’s motion and accompanying processes.
One condition for the grant of bail to a defendant charged with murder is the defendant must have remained in detention for one year and above without arraignment, absence of information as well as trial. Another reason for granting bail to an applicant charged with murder pertains to the health status of the detainee. If the applicant is seriously ill, he or she can be granted bail.
The situations under which a defendant charged with a serious crime can be granted bail are provided for in our extant laws, especially in the ACJL, yet, the conspiracy of the judges who stick to the old order and public prosecutors who arbitrarily oppose bail applications have put paid to the efforts to ensure speedy dispensation of justice.
To ensure a speedy dispensation of justice in the state, all hands must be on deck. The State Ministry of Justice and the judiciary must live up to their billings. This is because the number of inmates at the correctional centres across the state is increasing by the day as many defendants remain without trials for a long period.
Again, judicial officers still write in long hands. They have not kept pace with developed countries of the world that make use of electronic equipment to record court proceedings. Since writing in long hands is slow and tedious, it, in turn, slows down the administration of justice. The problem here is not the shortage of manpower, but the system adopted, hence, the need for toeing the electronic path.
We strongly advise the administrators of our justice system in the state to turn a new leaf and address the nagging problem of unnecessary delays occasioned by lack of diligence on the part of public prosecution or the reliance on the old order by judges where defendants charged with grave criminal wrongs are simply allowed to rot in jail without trial.

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.