Editorial

End Ukraine’s Invasion, Now!

Published

4 years ago

March 4, 2022

Ukraine’s intrusion by the Russian Federation after months of enormous military build-up has spurned the world, threatening to kindle a large-scale war involving notable world powers.
Russian forces bombarded from conglomerate fronts, including from Crimea, whichVladmir Putin had appropriated in 2014 and from two breakaway provinces that had seceded with the Russian military’s support, and from Belarus. Explosions rocked Ukrainian cities and ground forces penetrated backed by tanks, artillery, warplanes and attack helicopters.
The stratagem espoused by Russian troops in Ukraine raises forebodings of a looming humanitarian cataclysm, with the progressively variegated air assault of civilian areas inflaming a spiralling death toll and spawning a wave of refugees scurrying the country for the neighbouring nations. Given Putin’s record as a pillager of cities such as Grozny and Aleppo, these concerns are more than vindicated.
With Russian forces closing on Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, and the government requesting its three million people to take up arms, Putin’s war may avail pogrom. It is the most preposterous infraction of another country’s sovereignty since Iraq under the late Saddam Hussein overswarmed and “annexed” Kuwait in August ,1990. Whichever means the world mobilised to expel the Iraqi invaders, it must rally to halt Putin’s tyranny.
In his efforts to exculpate the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian President has made multifarious uncultivated claims of a “genocide” committed by the Ukrainian authorities against the population of Russian-occupied Eastern Ukraine. These unsubstantiated allegations are all the more sneering given the very real genocidal potential of the war Putin has now unleashed.
The photographs transmitted from the streets of Ukraine have renewed the flashbacks of the wars of the 20th century, of a type that once seemed inconceivable in 2022. Many have been left to speculate: is it a new cold war or the beginning of a third world war? Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, appears to be receiving favourable responses as he obtains further weapons. That is why several options need to be on the table to avoid imminent disaster.
The origin of the current war dates back to the beginning of Putin’s reign and reflects his unwholesome obsession with Ukraine. He has never made any attempt to conceal his contempt for Ukrainian independence, which he regards as an accident of history and the most painful of the many injustices brought about by the 1991 Soviet collapse.
Putin must be cut short and impelled to depart Ukraine. Should he be indulged to get away with his nihilistic act, he could move on to other irresolute neighbours, invigorate similar despots and ultimately retrogress the relative peace the world has relished since the end of the World War II in 1945. His brigandage harks back to a contemptible past of stronger powers making unattainable demands on decrepit neighbours, marauding, and annexing them.
The threats exchanged by Russia and United State-led NATO have taken a precarious turn as Moscow announces a nuclear alert. It is the second time the world has come close to a nuclear war. As the war exacerbates, Putin’s rhetoric has become shrill. He has put his country on nuclear alert, sparking outrage and denunciation from the US and its allies. Many quibble that Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling has brought the world to the 1962 period designated the “Cuban Missile Crisis.”
Aside from his hankering, the Russian tyrant wants assurances from Ukraine that it would not seek NATO and EuropeanUnion (EU) membership. It claims that the request is imperative for its security. Ukraine has shunned such demands as an abdication of its sovereignty. Besides, the two breakaway and rebel-held Donetsk and Luhansk domains not only disinherit the country of colonies, but they also persist in claiming most of the rest of Ukraine as theirs.
Meanwhile, the world has reacted with anger. Financial sanctions imposed by the US and Western allies are smothering the Russian economy. The country’s economy has begun to founder under the pressure of exceptional penalties. The US and EU are preventing certain Russian banks from access to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a messaging system utilised by banks to operate transactions.
Russia’s decision to exact a military solution to the political question of Ukraine is a criminal blunder reclining on a might-is-right contention. Russian officials claim to be open to talks, but Putin’s description of the Ukrainian government as “a band of drug addicts and neo-Nazis” shows Moscow is unserious. Care must be taken as the world slides into a protracted international struggle for spheres of influence among great powers.
We insist that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that should be free to decide its destiny, including establishing economic, political and even military relationships with any bloc. Russia cannot dictate to it. It is perhaps a long and hard task, but the world should be firm on this principle of the inviolability of the sovereignty of one country by another. The United Nations must step up to liberate Ukraine.
At this moment of superlative danger, it is essential that the Russian President and sole originator of this pointless scourge, execute an instantaneous armistice. Militarily, he has miscalculated, diplomatically, he is isolated, as the UN Security Council’s denunciation of Moscow’s actions shows. Even his citizens have declined to endorse this noxious aggression. At home, his war is aggravating extensive revolts and turmoil.
Putin crossed every conceivable red line and suddenly turned his country into an international pariah. He must pay a huge price for his action. While we call for discretion and a relaxation of positions, we must exert pressure on the Russian leader to end the chess game in Ukraine. The world powers must, willy-nilly, arrive at a consensus as quickly as possible before someone clasps a button.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

3 days 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

3 days 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.