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

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

23 hours 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

1 day 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.