Editorial

Electoral Act, Making Votes Count

Published

4 years ago

March 11, 2022

Since President Muhammadu Buhari assumed office as Nigeria’s President on May 29, 2015, he had gone
back and forth with the National Assembly on amendments to the crucial Electoral Act. The macabre dance finally ended when he approved 10 alterations to Nigeria’s 2010 electoral law, creating legal safeguards for more transparent voting and collation processes.
Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, is gearing up for a high-strung general election next February, with some of its outstanding politicians already thrusting themselves into what could result in a fierce campaign season. And while that may be impressive enough, the African giant has now fastened electoral laws, raising anxieties and demonstrating that it can hold elections that are widely seen as credible for the first time in years.
This is an amazing development in a country categorised low on civil liberties, where elections are often prone to extensive vote manipulation and voter arm-twisting. Remarkably, the new emendations give the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) more decision-making powers and reserves early funding for it to avoid the incommodious technical and logistical lags that led to the rescheduling of the 2019 election which disenfranchised some voters in the end.
Perhaps, most fundamentally, the law also furnishes legal support for the use of electronic card readers for accreditation and the electronic transmission of results for collation in Section 50. This gives INEC the legal authorisation for the electronic transmission of election results, a sticking point for some politicians who believe the decrepit state of the country’s telecommunications system could hinder voting in certain areas. Hopefully, it will extensively abate the machination of Nigerian elections.
Conversely, members of civil society groups reckon that the card reader, first used in the 2015 election, aided transparency and diminished the incidence of string pulling. But the admissibility of electronic data in court had been hotly debated because of a lack of legal support for the device. The new Act goes into effect immediately, indicating that INEC can test-run the rules this year, when Osun and Ekiti States in the South-West will hold gubernatorial elections.
Following approval of the bill, President Buhari said in a televised address to Nigerians on the night it was signed that it “could have a positive impact on Nigeria’s elections”, and added that the technological innovations provided “will safeguard citizens’ constitutional right and vote effectively”. But he campaigned vigorously as a clean politician during his successful presidential bid in 2015, yet, seemed very reluctant to assent to the bill.
The President had vetoed parts of the bill, returning it to parliament five times since 2015 and making it one of the longest-debated laws in Nigeria’s history. The rejections were often accompanied by requests for amendments. In one renunciation, Buhari cited grammatical errors. On another event, he impeded until a few months to the 2019 election before contending that it was too close to D-Day to evaluate the bill.
Last December, he asked the National Assembly to lift restrictions mandating parties to hold direct primary elections, rather than hand-pick favourites of more powerful party leaders. The lawmakers acquiesced but introduced more anti-manipulation measures into the bill. For example, when they took off the mandatory direct primaries provision, they added clauses that staved off political appointees from running for office or voting during primaries without giving up their current positions. This is entrenched in Section 84(12) of the Act.
It states: “No political appointee of any rank shall be a voting representative or be voted for at any party’s convention or for the nomination of a candidate for any election.” For Buhari, this provision constitutes a denial of the right to vote or be voted for at any political party’s convention. Before endorsing the bill, the President advised the legislators to revise the provision. Interestingly,the Senate has rejected to act on the request of President Buhari for an amendment of Section 84(12) of the newly assented Act.
Importantly, Section 50 allows INEC to determine the procedure for voting at an election as well as the transmission of results, either electronically or manually. Section 51(2) empowers the Presiding Officer at a polling unit to cancel the results of the election in the polling unit where the number of vote casts surpasses the number of accredited voters in the polling units. Furthermore, the time frame for campaigns by political parties has moved from 90 days to 150 days before the election. This is according to Section 94(1).
Another provision, Section 29(1), makes it a law for political parties to conduct their primaries and submit the list of candidates at least 180 days before the general elections from the previous 60 days. The list of candidates submitted must emerge from valid primaries conducted by the political party. This provision is particularly laudable as political parties have now been compelled to prepare for an early primary election in line with the guidelines.
Section 64(9) criminalises any act of false collation and declaration of results by a returning or collation officer. If a returning or collation officer intentionally collates and announces a false result, such a person commits an offence which is liable on conviction to a fine of N500,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least 3 years or both. In instances where INEC determines that such act was not done willingly or made contrary to the provisions of the law, regulations, guidelines, and manuals for the election, Section 65 gives the Commission the power to review such results.
INEC must be commended for making incremental improvements to the electoral system since 2015 when it first introduced the Permanent Voter Card and Smart Card Reader for elections. It has also upgraded the system to use the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, a better technology that was deployed during the off-season November 6 governorship election in Anambra State.
Nigeria is crumbling at the seams. It has been significantly weakened by its poor electoral system that allows thieves, mediocres, and incompetent politicians to attain high offices. In many instances, instead of the will of the people prevailing, it is the increasingly tainted courts that determine the fate of Nigerians. Therefore, now that the Electoral Act has been amended, all stakeholders, particularly civil society organisations and the citizens, should rise for democracy, pointing the way forward.

Editorial

For A Prosperous 2026

Published

1 week ago

January 2, 2026

The Tide

As 2026 begins, Nigeria stands once again at a defining crossroads. The expectations of citizens are high, patience is thin, and the responsibility of leadership has never been more urgent. This year must not be another season of rhetoric; it must be a year of deliberate action that restores confidence in the country and renews hope among the people.

Foremost on the national agenda is security. From terrorism and banditry to kidnapping and communal violence, insecurity continues to erode lives, livelihoods, and national cohesion. Government must strengthen the current fight against insecurity by improving intelligence gathering, equipping security agencies adequately, boosting morale, and deepening cooperation among federal, state, and local authorities.

In this effort, continuous collaboration with strategic partners such as the United States remains crucial. Beyond military support, such partnerships should focus on intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism training, cyber security, and capacity building for law enforcement. Nigeria must leverage international alliances while retaining firm ownership of its security strategy.

Equally pressing is the ailing economy. Inflation, unemployment, and currency instability have placed enormous pressure on households and businesses. 2026 should be the year of hard economic choices—fiscal discipline, support for local production, targeted social protection, and policies that encourage investment, especially in agriculture, manufacturing, and technology.

Infrastructural development must also move from promise to performance. Roads, rail, power, ports, and digital infrastructure are not luxuries but foundations of growth. A clear focus on completing ongoing projects, rather than endlessly inaugurating new ones, will signal seriousness and deliver measurable benefits to citizens.

As the nation looks ahead, preparations for the 2027 general elections must begin now. Credible elections are central to democratic stability. Political actors should moderate their conduct, while citizens must be encouraged to engage peacefully and responsibly in the democratic process.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has a special duty in this regard. Early preparations—logistics, voter education, technology upgrades, and staff training—are essential to avoid the familiar last-minute challenges. Transparency and consistency from INEC will go a long way in rebuilding public trust.

In Rivers State, 2026 carries its own weight of expectations. Immediate attention must be paid to preparations for the February bye-elections to fill two vacant seats in the State House of Assembly. INEC, political parties, security agencies, and community leaders must work together to ensure peaceful, credible polls free from intimidation and violence.

Beyond the bye-elections, the state must deliberately cultivate peace as it moves toward the 2027 elections. Rivers has paid a heavy price in the past for political tension and conflict. The lessons are clear: development cannot thrive in an atmosphere of perpetual crisis.

The resurging political crisis in the state must therefore be urgently contained. All stakeholders—across party lines—should put Rivers first, choosing dialogue over confrontation. Institutions must be respected, and the rule of law upheld, to prevent political disagreements from degenerating into instability.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s administration must remain focused and undistracted. Governance demands clarity of purpose. The people elected this government to deliver results, not to be consumed by endless political battles that divert energy from service delivery.

Security remains paramount at the state level as well. A secure Rivers State will attract investment, protect individuals and communities, and enable economic activity. Strengthening collaboration between state authorities, security agencies, and local communities should be a top priority in 2026.

Job creation, especially for young people, must also take centre stage. Education and healthcare require renewed investment, not just in infrastructure but in quality and access. A healthy, skilled population is the strongest asset any state can possess.

Ultimately, 2026 should be a year of reset for both Nigeria and Rivers State, a year when leaders choose responsibility over rivalry and vision over short-term gain. If security is strengthened, institutions are respected, and the welfare of citizens remains paramount, the foundations for a more stable and prosperous 2027 will have been firmly laid.

The media, civil society, and traditional institutions also have a crucial role to play in 2026. Agenda-setting must go beyond politics to issues of accountability, transparency, and civic responsibility. Citizens must be consistently informed, not inflamed; mobilised, not manipulated. A vigilant public space will help ensure that leaders at both national and state levels remain responsive to the people they serve.

History will judge 2026 by the choices made today. Nigeria and Rivers State cannot afford drift or distraction. What is required is steady leadership, collective responsibility, and an unwavering focus on peace, development, and democratic integrity. If these priorities guide action throughout the year, 2026 can become a turning point rather than another missed opportunity.

Editorial

Task Before New Defence Minister

Published

1 month ago

December 8, 2025

The Tide

The appointment of General Christopher Musa as Nigeria’s Defence Minister has been met with widespread approval across the nation, and rightly so. After his commendable tenure as Chief of Defence Staff, where he demonstrated exceptional leadership and strategic acumen, Nigerians are justified in their optimism that he possesses the requisite credentials to tackle the country’s mounting security challenges. This is not merely another political appointment; it represents a deliberate and overdue shift towards placing experienced military personnel at the helm of our defence apparatus. The stakes could not be higher, and the nation’s expectations are correspondingly elevated.

For once, the Senate demonstrated the thoroughness that Nigerians have long demanded from their legislators. During approximately five hours of screening, General Musa faced rigorous questioning rather than the perfunctory “take a bow and go” treatment that has become the hallmark of senatorial confirmations. This meticulous approach signals a refreshing departure from the rubber-stamp mentality that has characterised many previous appointments. The lawmakers deserve commendation for recognising the gravity of the defence portfolio and subjecting the nominee to proper scrutiny. We can only hope this sets a precedent for future ministerial screenings.

President Bola Tinubu deserves credit for making what appears to be a pragmatic and judicious decision. By appointing someone with robust military credentials and intelligence expertise, the President has demonstrated an understanding that Nigeria’s security crisis demands specialised knowledge and battlefield experience. This appointment suggests a willingness to prioritise competence over political patronage, a quality that has been sorely lacking in previous administrations. The President must be encouraged to maintain this standard across other critical appointments.

The departure of Mohammed Badaru Abubakar from the Defence Ministry should serve as a lesson in the importance of matching expertise to responsibility. Whilst Mr Abubakar may possess political acumen, his lack of military background rendered him ill-equipped for the complexities of national defence. He was, in every sense, a square peg in a round hole. The previous arrangement, which saw two politicians manning the Defence Ministry, was nothing short of a misnomer. One cannot credibly oversee military operations without understanding military strategy, tactics, and the psychology of warfare. The mistake should not be repeated.

Whilst we applaud both the President for this appointment and the Senate for their diligent screening, the real test lies ahead. General Musa must now prove his mettle in the theatre of action. Words and credentials, however impressive, mean little without tangible results. Nigeria has suffered too long under the scourge of insecurity, with bandits, terrorists, and kidnappers operating with impunity across vast swathes of the country. The new minister must act decisively to save the nation from the embarrassment of continued security failures. The time for excuses has passed; Nigerians demand results.

During his screening, General Musa made a particularly important pledge: to end the patronage of bandits and terrorists by state governors. This commitment strikes at the heart of one of Nigeria’s most troubling security contradictions. The practice of negotiating with criminals, often facilitated or endorsed by state governments, has emboldened these miscreants and transformed banditry into a profitable enterprise. Such negotiations amount to nothing less than aiding and abetting criminality. General Musa’s promise to treat these elements as the criminals they are, rather than as legitimate negotiating partners, is commendable and must be pursued with unwavering resolve. There can be no compromise on this principle.

The new minister must undertake a comprehensive overhaul of Nigeria’s security architecture to enhance military effectiveness. This requires close collaboration with the service chiefs to establish clear objectives and ensure coordinated execution. Beyond structural reforms, General Musa must address the discipline deficit within the military ranks. Reports of corruption, negligence, and complicity in security breaches have eroded public confidence in the armed forces. Restoring discipline is not merely an administrative matter; it is fundamental to rebuilding the military’s credibility and operational effectiveness. Without discipline, no amount of equipment or funding will suffice.

General Musa’s promise to investigate the mysterious withdrawal of soldiers from the school in Kebbi State, which preceded the kidnapping of students, demonstrates a welcome commitment to accountability. This incident exemplifies the inexplicable lapses that have characterised Nigeria’s security response. Someone ordered or permitted that withdrawal, and the timing suggests either catastrophic incompetence or deliberate sabotage. The minister must get to the root of this matter and ensure that culprits face appropriate sanctions. Only through such decisive action can he send a clear message that negligence and complicity will no longer be tolerated.

However, Musa cannot succeed without adequate resources. The Federal Government must provide sufficient funding to enable the Defence Ministry to perform optimally. Next year’s budgetary allocation must reflect the enormous task at hand. It is counterproductive to demand results whilst starving the military of the resources necessary for modern warfare. This includes investment in intelligence gathering, modern weaponry, surveillance technology, and troop welfare. A poorly equipped and demoralised military cannot be expected to defeat well-armed insurgents and bandits who increasingly possess sophisticated weaponry.

The political class must resist the temptation to interfere with the General’s work. Whilst many politicians publicly profess support for the fight against insecurity, evidence suggests that some work surreptitiously to undermine these efforts for personal or political gain. Whether through the aforementioned negotiations with bandits, the protection of criminal elements, or the diversion of security funds, political interference has consistently sabotaged military operations. General Musa must be given the autonomy to perform his duties professionally. Only then can he be fairly held accountable for outcomes. The President must shield him from political machinations and vested interests.

The military must abandon its reactive, fire brigade approach to security operations. Waiting to respond only after attacks have occurred is a strategy of perpetual failure. The armed forces must take the fight to the criminals’ hideouts, conducting sustained offensive operations that dismantle their infrastructure and eliminate their capacity to strike. This requires robust intelligence, rapid deployment capabilities, and the political will to sustain operations until objectives are achieved. Proactive military engagement, not defensive positioning, is what the situation demands.

Nigeria’s porous borders represent a critical vulnerability that demands immediate attention. Countries around the world have recognised that border security is fundamental to national security. India has erected comprehensive fencing along its border with Pakistan specifically to prevent terrorist infiltration. Israel has constructed sophisticated barrier systems along multiple borders. Hungary built fences along its borders with Serbia and Croatia. Even the United States has invested billions in border security infrastructure. These nations understand what Nigeria seems reluctant to acknowledge: that uncontrolled borders invite national disaster.

Our borders remain scandalously porous, serving as entry points for the foreign fighters who constitute a proportion of those conducting attacks on Nigerian soil. The Lake Chad Basin, where Nigeria shares borders with Cameroon, Niger, and Chad, has become a particularly problematic corridor through which terrorists move freely. Without proper border infrastructure, surveillance systems, and adequate personnel deployment, Nigeria will continue to face an endless influx of armed criminals. The Defence Minister must prioritise border security as part of a comprehensive strategy to protect Nigerian lives and territory. The appointment of a competent Defence Minister means little if our borders remain open highways for those who wish us harm.

Editorial

HYPREP And The Collapsed Water Tank

Published

2 months ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

The recent collapse of a water tank built by the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) in the Gwara area of Ogoni in Rivers State is an alarming reminder of how easily public faith in government interventions can erode when development projects fail so soon after their unveiling. The incident has stirred deep concern across the state, raising doubts about whether the communities can truly rely on the structures meant to improve their lives.

Only days earlier, the Minister of Environment, Balarabe Lawal, had proudly inaugurated two water projects in Bane and Gwara communities in the Khana Local Government Area, with residents celebrating what they believed would mark a new chapter in access to clean and safe drinking water. The communities had hoped these projects would bring long-awaited relief and stand as symbols of meaningful government presence.

Yet in an unexpectedly disturbing turn of events, the Gwara water station, designed to supply potable water to about 14 communities, collapsed merely three days after the commissioning. This rapid failure has left residents not only shocked but also frustrated, as such an outcome suggests deep flaws in planning, execution, supervision, or all three combined.

Some natives allege that the debacle resulted from the use of inferior construction materials, raising a serious accusation that calls into question the level of professionalism involved. If such claims turn out to be true, then the collapse becomes more than an accident; it becomes evidence of negligence that could have endangered several lives.

Others are alleging outright sabotage, a troubling claim that suggests there may be forces actively working against the progress of development projects in the area. This possibility only widens the scope of questions that investigators must answer to restore public confidence.

Meanwhile, HYPREP insists that its water projects in other Ogoni communities are functioning efficiently and that this particular incident does not define the overall quality of its work. However, this defence, while necessary, does little to calm a community that has already seen too many failed promises over the years.

This situation raises an important question about whether the good work of HYPREP is being undermined by unscrupulous individuals whose interests may not align with the welfare of the people. If sabotage is indeed at play, then identifying those responsible becomes crucial in preventing further setbacks.

Given the gravity of the matter, the collapse requires an immediate and rigorous investigation to uncover what truly happened and why. It is reassuring that a committee has already been set up to delve into the details, but the public expects nothing short of a transparent and thorough process.

The fact remains that if the tank had collapsed on people, the community would be counting casualties and dealing with a deeply grievous tragedy. The near-miss should serve as a wake-up call about the potential dangers that poorly executed infrastructure projects pose in vulnerable areas.

It is therefore expected that the findings of the committee will expose the actual competence or otherwise of the contractors HYPREP engages. Only a reliable and professional team can successfully deliver the kind of durable infrastructure that the Ogoni people deserve.

If such a catastrophe can occur just days after commissioning, it indicates that similar incidents may happen again in the future unless deliberate and strategic efforts are made to prevent them. Preventive measures must become a standard part of project planning and monitoring.

The public cannot help but question why an organisation as financially endowed as HYPREP appears unable to deliver a credible water project for the Gwara community. With the massive resources at its disposal, the people expect excellence, not excuses.

Ogoni, being a historically volatile area whose people have endured relentless injustice and environmental degradation, cannot afford provocations of this nature. A crisis could easily have been triggered if the collapse had caused casualties or severe destruction.

More regrettably, the Ogoni clean-up has evolved into a lucrative cash cow for corrupt officials who seem more interested in contracts and kickbacks than in the wellbeing of the people. Meanwhile, residents continue to drink polluted water, suffer from inadequate healthcare, and navigate treacherous road networks.

Communities across Ogoniland must refuse to remain silent when substandard projects are imposed on them. Their voices and vigilance are vital in demanding accountability and ensuring that development interventions truly meet their needs.

HYPREP, on its part, must reaffirm an unwavering commitment to quality, transparency, and accountability in all ongoing and future water projects across Ogoni. Only through this can it rebuild trust and demonstrate that it genuinely prioritises the people.

Finally, HYPREP must enforce rigorous internal and external quality assurance mechanisms that leave no room for negligence. Restoration work should commence urgently, with all efforts dedicated to ensuring that project delivery meets global standards and restore hope to the long-suffering communities of Ogoniland.