Editorial

Ukraine’s Refugee Crisis

Published

3 years ago

April 4, 2022

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine precipitated one of the largest and most abrupt refugee movements in
Europe since the end of the Second World War. On March 2. Just seven days after the war began, 874,000 people were recorded to have fled to neighbouring countries. A month into the fighting, more than 3.7 million Ukrainians had fled to neighbouring countries, the sixth largest refugee flow in the past 60 years, according to a study.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has foretold that up to four million people could flee the country within the next few weeks. The European Union (EU) puts this figure even higher, reckoning that there may be seven million refugees in the long run. Regardless of the actual number, it is now rather clear that a phenomenal refugee challenge is unraveling in Europe.
While the EU calls this the biggest humanitarian catastrophe that Europe has witnessed, it is vital to recollect that it was not so long ago that the continent encountered a critical humanitarian challenge — the 2015 refugee “crisis” prompted by the war in Syria. But Europe’s varied responses to these two circumstances are a signal to those who expect a more humane and charitable Europe.
However, it is exhorting that Ukraine’s neighbours have responded with a wave of public and political backing for the refugees. Political leaders have said publicly that refugees from Ukraine are welcome and countries have been preparing to receive them on their borders with teams of volunteers handing out food, water, clothing, and medicines.
Slovakia and Poland have proclaimed that refugees exiting the war in Ukraine would be authorised to enter their country even without a passport, or any other valid travel document. Other EU countries, such as Ireland, have declared openly the immediate lifting of visa regulations for Ukrainian nationals. All over Europe, Ukrainian refugees have free access to public transport and telephone services.
The EU proposes to reactivate the Temporary Protection Directive, introduced in the 1990s to deal with large-scale refugee flows during the Balkan crisis. Under this scheme, refugees from Ukraine would be offered up to three years temporary protection in EU countries, without having to apply for asylum, with rights to a residence permit and access to education, housing, and the labour market.
The Union also recommends simplifying border controls and entry conditions for those fleeing from Ukraine. Ukrainian refugees can travel for 90 days without a visa through EU countries, and many have gone from neighbouring countries to meet their families and friends in other EU nations. People and politicians across Europe are mobilising to show solidarity and support for those fleeing from Ukraine.
That is how the international refugee protection system should work, especially in a crisis. In these times, countries keep their borders open for people running off wars and conflicts. Unnecessary identity and security checks are relaxed, while those who evade the war are not penalised for arriving without adequate identification and travel documents. Detention measures are not used and refugees are able to voluntarily reach their family members in other countries.
But we know that is not the way the international protection system works in Europe, especially in countries that are now hosting Ukrainian refugees. Public discourse in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania is often impaired by racist and xenophobic rhetoric about refugees and migrants, in particular those from the Middle East and African countries, and they have adopted hostile policies like border push-backs and draconian detention measures.
Sadly, this double standard has reared in the response to non-Ukrainians escaping the war in Ukraine. An increasing number of students and migrants from Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been subjected to racist treatment, obstruction and violence while attempting to flee Ukraine. Many described being prevented from boarding trains and buses in Ukrainian towns while priority was given to Ukrainian nationals; others depict being aggressively pulled aside and stopped by Ukrainian border guards when trying to cross into neighbouring countries.
There are also accounts of Polish authorities taking aside African students and refusing them entry into Poland, although the Polish Ambassador to the United Nation refuted this and told a General Assembly meeting that assertions of race or religion-based discrimination at Poland’s border were “a complete lie and a terrible insult to us.” He asserted that “nationals of all countries who suffered from Russian aggression or whose life is at risk can seek shelter in my country.” The Ambassador said people from 125 different nationalities had been admitted into Poland from Ukraine.
We strongly denounce discrimination at Ukraine’s borders and insist that everyone has an equal right to cross international borders to flee conflict and seek security. The unacceptable and diverse treatment of Africans is shockingly racist and a violation of international law. The African Union should persuade all countries to show the same empathy and support for all those leaving the war, despite their racial identity.
The United States was quick to send humanitarian and military aid and impose sanctions on Russia to prevent Vladimir Putin from easily funding the war. But the White House must be willing to accept Ukrainian refugees. Though the US government took the appropriate step by offering Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to 75,100 Ukrainians currently in the country on business, tourism or student visas, it must support refugees leaving Ukraine and welcome them into the country.
In all, the Ukraine refugee crisis presents Europe with not only a valuable opportunity to demonstrate its generosity, humanitarian values, and commitment to the global refugee protection regime but it is also a critical moment of reflection. Can the peoples of Europe overcome their generalised racism and animosity and join the universalistic spirit of the 1951 Convention on Refugees? According to Article 3 of the Convention, all member-states “shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.”

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

20 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

21 hours 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.