Editorial

For Peace In PDP

Published

3 years ago

September 12, 2022

These are difficult times for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). An exacerbating leadership crisis is increasingly threatening to split Nigeria’s main opposition party. The whole crunch has been reduced to calls for the resignation of the current National Chairman, Dr Iyorchia Ayu. This has thrown up push and pull forces around the tenure of the embattled party chairman. One camp, led by the Rivers State Governor, Chief Nyesom Wike, is insisting on Ayu’s resignation as a condition for peace. The opposing group headed by the PDP presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, is putting up opposition to the call.
The growing dissension has caught up with practically all the crucial organs of the party, slashing their ranks down the middle. The situation has now assumed a North/South power struggle built around mutual distrust and suspicion. The National Working Committee (NWC), which Ayu heads, is not insulated from the conflict. Members of the organ are split up over calls for the chairman’s resignation. The emergence of Atiku as a presidential candidate has altered the entire power control levers in existence before the presidential primaries.
The call for Ayu’s sack took an extensive appeal as some Southern and Northern leaders, like PDP Board of Trustees (BoT) member, Chief Bode George, and former Plateau State governor, Jonah Jang, joined the call for the party’s leadership structure to be balanced and reflect a North/South geopolitical spread. While Atiku has declined to commit to Ayu’s sack, the national chairman had declared that he would not vacate the seat because he was elected for a four-year term in office.
But the gulf between both camps further widened when Ayu got a confidence vote from members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) last Thursday after weeks of speculations about whether he should retain his seat. The decision did not go down well with Wike’s group, which has continued to insist that he must step down. The former BoT chairman, Senator Walid Jibrin, however, gave up his position for Senator Adolphus Wabara, the former Board Secretary, who moved in as acting chairman to guarantee the presence of the South in the party’s top leadership echelon. This has been repudiated by the Wike’s camp as not far-reaching enough.
Every effort must be made to end the impasse in the main opposition party. We are concerned and deeply worried that the unfolding events in the PDP portend a possible recast of the 2015 scenario, where unresolved internal disputes led to high-profile defections to the then-opposition All Progressives Congress (APC). Among the defectors were five PDP governors who accused former President Goodluck Jonathan of reneging on a gentleman’s agreement to zone the party’s presidential ticket to the North.
Senator Ayu’s indiscretion is to blame for the current escalation of the problem. Rather than pursue a peaceful resolution of the matter, the national chairman reacted provocatively to the issues at stake. As the party chairman, we expected that he would be more circumspect and peace-embracing in handling the matters. Unfortunately, he reacted immaturely. His reference to Governor Wike and his supporters as “children” in issues of politics is regrettable. This indicates that the chairman is a poor crisis manager and puerile in his temperament and approach.
It is within the right of the Rivers State governor and his proponents to ask for what is fair and equitable, particularly when there is evidence that the presidential candidate of the party strongly promised that Ayu would step down soon after the primaries to maintain the power-sharing tradition which PDP is recognised and known for. It is unfair for the national chairman and Atiku to renege on this all-important mutual pact.
Therefore, Wike’s insistence on the right thing to be done is justifiable because it serves the interests of justice, peace, and unity in the party. And the right thing is for Ayu to identify with popular calls for him to resign, since he cannot emerge from the same region as Atiku. The truth is if the PDP must go into the campaigns and subsequently the general elections unscathed and in one accord, the so-called confidence vote on the national chairman by the NEC must be revoked to prevent disintegration. Ayu’s complete disbelief in the party’s history and its philosophy of inclusion, spread, and fairness is inconsistent with its founding fathers.
The reason the chairman initially committed to resignation should the presidential candidate emerge from the North was because of the established norms and conventions that find an anchor in the principle of rotation and inclusion. Furthermore, the reason former Vice President Abubakar and others left the PDP in the run-up to the 2015 elections was due to the perceived breach in the rotation of power arrangement that led to the party’s defeat.
It is therefore self-serving and myopic for anyone to advise the party to violate a well-known and settled principle between the North and South that prohibits the presidential candidate and the national chairman to come from the same region. It is unfounded and deceptive to say that five months to the 2023 elections is too short for the party to embark on a simple re-organisation of the NWC to guarantee the inclusion of the South and success at the poll.
The emerging arrogance and grandstanding in some quarters that the North has aligned towards the PDP and therefore the South has become inconsequential may be the party’s undoing for the third time. Every time the PDP lost between 2015 and 2019, it relegated the South in the scheme of things, and it is in the interest of the party to rise above manipulated pre-election polls that tend to corner the presidential candidate to expend money and move on with the campaigns.
A party with 13 governors and in which about five are in controversy is a non-starter ahead of the 2023 elections, regardless of sentiment and grandstanding and also not when competing against a party like the APC. Nigerians are carefully watching the PDP whether it is a party that can rescue the nation and guarantee fairness. It is this kind of short-changing of the South in the main opposition party structure that will make the people rethink.
Sadly, the party appears not to have learnt enough lessons that would make it stand firm against all odds, as individual ambition is fast becoming the overriding interest of its leaders rather than the passion to serve the nation. The crisis in the main opposition party has robbed Nigerians of the opportunity of giving attention to alternative views and having the Federal Government put on its toes. Not a few Nigerians were disappointed that the party could not project any official position when the pump price of petrol was recently jerked up.
Former Vice President Atiku, who today is regarded as the head of the party, must brace up to the challenge and muster the political will to do what is right. He has to reopen negotiations quickly and consider Wike’s demands, including ensuring Ayu’s exit for peace to return to the party. We make bold to state that Governor Wike cannot be intimidated, ignored or relegated, as he still relishes an enormous following. The party must beware of the activities of moles and fifth columnists in its folds, whose interest may be to fan the embers of a relentless feud for the APC to reap from and advance in power beyond 2023.

Editorial

In Support of Ogoni 9 Pardon

Published

5 days ago

November 3, 2025

The Tide

The posthumous pardon granted to the Ogoni 9 on the 1st of October, along with the national honours conferred on the Ogoni 4 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is commendable. It is a bold and humane initiative that signals a readiness to confront the difficult truths of Nigeria’s past. It also speaks to a willingness to mend fractured relationships and begin the process of national healing. This decision, though long overdue, has been widely welcomed and recognised as a considerable gesture of reconciliation.

For the Ogoni people, the development holds profound emotional meaning. Many families lost loved ones to the crisis that engulfed Ogoniland in the 1990s. To see the Nigerian state finally acknowledge that these individuals were wronged is a source of solace. This act affirms that the nation remembers the pain and sacrifices of its citizens, even when they are long gone.

It is widely accepted that the crisis divided the Ogoni people considerably. The internal fractures that emerged during the struggle for environmental justice prevented the area from realising its developmental aspirations. Communities were split, brothers turned against one another, and the collective strength of the Ogoni nation weakened. Despite various interventions from government, non-governmental organisations and international agencies, the deep wounds remained largely unhealed.

Past administrations, particularly at the federal level, failed to demonstrate the political will required to meaningfully address the grievances of the Ogoni people. While statements of sympathy were made and committees were set up, concrete steps were too often absent. The sense of abandonment festered and deepened. In contrast, President Tinubu’s action represents a recognition that a grave error was committed, one that cost lives and damaged a people’s connection to the Nigerian state.

The concerns of the Ogonis, especially regarding environmental pollution and land degradation, remain pressing. The establishment of Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) was intended to address these concerns, yet progress has been slow and uneven. It is time to ensure that the clean-up and environmental restoration are treated as matters of urgency. In equal measure, the Ogoni people must also give peace a fair chance. They have suffered greatly and lost many illustrious sons. A cycle of distrust cannot be allowed to define their future.

Reconciliation requires both justice and forward-looking commitment. Therefore, the Ogoni people must embrace unity and abandon practices that perpetuate division. They must consider the development opportunities available when they work together with the government. For Ogoniland to thrive, both sides must show willingness to move forward.

Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, deserves acclaim for his contributions toward restoring peace among the Ogonis. His efforts to encourage dialogue and his support for the newly established Federal university in the area reflect a practical commitment to development. We urge him to sustain this approach and continue to stand as a bridge between the state and the Ogonis.

The pardon and the posthumous honours must now create avenues for deeper engagement between Ogoni leaders and the Nigerian state. The proposed return of oil exploration in Ogoniland must be approached inclusively and transparently, ensuring that the people benefit meaningfully from their resources. Economic development must not come at the expense of dignity or community welfare.

However, unity among the Ogoni people themselves is an essential condition for progress. It is disheartening that some have rejected the President’s gesture. This moment should serve as a rallying point rather than a trigger for further division. If Ogoniland is to progress, it must speak with one voice on matters of collective interest.

It is worth noting that several Presidents have come and gone since the execution of the Ogoni 9. Yet it is President Tinubu who chose to take this courageous step. In doing so, he has attempted to correct one of Nigeria’s darkest and most shameful episodes. He has also sent a clear message that the state can, indeed, admit when it has erred.

The pardon signals a broader preparedness to redress past injustices. For too long, Nigeria has professed the intention to build equity while failing to address historical grievances. If national unity is to be genuine, it must be grounded in accountability. President Tinubu’s gesture marks a momentous shift in that direction.

For the Ogoni people, the pardon provides a measure of comfort. It affirms that voices long stifled can still be heard. It also offers hope to other marginalised communities still waiting for justice. Nigeria’s diversity will only become a strength if all groups are assured that they matter.

To ensure that this gesture is not dismissed as mere political theatre, the Federal Government must make good its commitment to the Ogoni clean-up exercise. Words must translate into sustained action. The Ogoni environment must be restored, livelihoods must be rebuilt, and trust must be re-established. Only then will the pardon and posthumous national awards become a true foundation for peace and renewal.

Editorial

Strike: Heeding ASUU’s Demands

Published

2 weeks ago

October 27, 2025

The Tide

The recent warning strike declared by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) on October 13, though short-lived, has once again drawn national attention to the lingering crisis in Nigeria’s tertiary education sector. The strike was intended to last two weeks, but was suspended after appeals by eminent Nigerians. However, ASUU has warned that if the Federal Government fails to take concrete steps in addressing the issues, the union may have no option but to embark on an indefinite strike. This is a fearful prospect.

At the heart of this recurring crisis is the non-implementation of the 2009 agreement that the Federal Government willingly signed with the union. It is disheartening and embarrassing that more than a decade after that pact was reached, it remains a subject of dispute. The failure to uphold the terms of the agreement reflects a deeper malaise in the country’s governance culture: the inability to honour commitments.

That students and parents had begun to believe that ASUU strikes were gradually becoming a relic of the past makes the situation more regrettable. There was a general sense of relief after previous strikes ended, with many hoping that meaningful progress had been made. Unfortunately, the old cycle appears to be repeating itself. This latest action represents a huge setback for the education sector.

Historical records show that ASUU strikes have seldom benefited anyone. For students, the consequences are painful and lasting. Academic calendars are disrupted; graduation timelines become uncertain; careers are stalled before they even begin. Research activities, many of which are time-sensitive and tied to grants or international collaborations, are abruptly halted.

It is all the more lamentable that this impasse concerns a long-concluded agreement on the welfare of lecturers and the funding of universities. That successive governments have failed to honour commitments they voluntarily undertook raises questions about the seriousness of Nigeria’s leadership regarding education. Why should an agreement take over a decade to fully implement?

The constant resort to industrial action also highlights the plight of students, who remain the innocent casualties in this tussle. Many of them come from struggling homes, and their futures hang precariously in the balance each time universities are shut down. The insensitivity displayed by authorities in allowing matters to deteriorate to this level is deeply troubling.

Indeed, this development raises broader concerns about the Federal Government’s crisis management capability. The perception is that government officials are unbothered because their children are not affected by strikes; many school abroad or attend expensive private universities locally. This is a sad reflection of the decline in confidence in public institutions.

University lecturers should ideally be devoting their time to research, mentorship, publications and innovation. Instead, many are forced to expend creative energy on survival. It is no secret that some lecturers, faced with poor remuneration and harsh economic conditions, resort to unethical means such as demanding payment from students. When the system fails, moral decay becomes inevitable.

The salary disparity between Nigerian lecturers and their counterparts in other African countries is glaring. A Nigerian lecturer reportedly earns the equivalent of between $300 and $600 per month depending on rank, while a lecturer in Ghana earns about $1,200 on average. In Kenya, salaries range around $1,000 monthly, and in South Africa, they are higher, with lecturers earning between $2,000 and $3,500 monthly. Such disparities contribute to brain drain and low morale among Nigerian academics.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has continued to expend enormous sums on non-essential ventures. Billions have been spent on luxury vehicles for political office holders, frequent foreign trips, inflated contracts and poorly managed subsidy schemes. These funds, if redirected, could strengthen university infrastructure, boost research grants and improve staff welfare.

It is therefore crucial for the government to adopt a more proactive approach. The usual threat of “no work, no pay” will not resolve the crisis; rather, it deepens mistrust. ASUU has demonstrated time and again that it cannot be cowed into submission. Genuine dialogue, not intimidation, is the only path forward.

The union’s persistence is fuelled by the government’s perceived insincerity. ASUU is not asking for anything new; it is simply requesting that promises already made be fulfilled. This scenario mirrors the broader challenge of governance in Nigeria, where stakeholders grow tired of endless promises and little delivery.

If this situation is allowed to escalate, the consequences could be dire. Students forced out of academic activity for long periods may become vulnerable to crime, drug abuse and social vices. The nation can ill afford another contributing factor to youth restiveness at this delicate time.

The Minister of Education must handle this matter with urgency and diplomacy. Nigeria is already grappling with economic distress, insecurity and political tension. A full-scale ASUU strike would only deepen national instability. The authorities must act now—honour agreements, restore trust, and place education where it truly belongs: at the centre of national development priorities.

Editorial

Making Rivers’ Seaports Work

Published

3 weeks ago

October 17, 2025

The Tide

When Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, received the Board and Management of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), led by its Chairman, Senator Adeyeye Adedayo Clement, his message was unmistakable: Rivers’ seaports remain underutilised, and Nigeria is poorer for it. The governor’s lament was a sad reminder of how neglect and centralisation continue to choke the nation’s economic arteries.
The governor, in his remarks at Government House, Port Harcourt, expressed concern that the twin seaports — the NPA in Port Harcourt and the Onne Seaport — have not been operating at their full potential. He underscored that seaports are vital engines of national development, pointing out that no prosperous nation thrives without efficient ports and airports. His position aligns with global realities that maritime trade remains the backbone of industrial expansion and international commerce.
Indeed, the case of Rivers State is peculiar. It hosts two major ports strategically located along the Bonny River axis, yet cargo throughput has remained dismally low compared to Lagos. According to NPA’s 2023 statistics, Lagos ports (Apapa and Tin Can Island) handled over 75 per cent of Nigeria’s container traffic, while Onne managed less than 10 per cent. Such a lopsided distribution is neither efficient nor sustainable.
Governor Fubara rightly observed that the full capacity operation of Onne Port would be transformative. The area’s vast land mass and industrial potential make it ideal for ancillary businesses — warehousing, logistics, ship repair, and manufacturing. A revitalised Onne would attract investors, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth, not only in Rivers State but across the Niger Delta.
The multiplier effect cannot be overstated. The port’s expansion would boost clearing and forwarding services, strengthen local transport networks, and revitalise the moribund manufacturing sector. It would also expand opportunities for youth employment — a pressing concern in a state where unemployment reportedly hovers around 32 per cent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Yet, the challenge lies not in capacity but in policy. For years, Nigeria’s maritime economy has been suffocated by excessive centralisation. Successive governments have prioritised Lagos at the expense of other viable ports, creating a traffic nightmare and logistical bottlenecks that cost importers and exporters billions annually. The governor’s call, therefore, is a plea for fairness and pragmatism.
Making Lagos the exclusive maritime gateway is counter productive. Congestion at Tin Can Island and Apapa has become legendary — ships often wait weeks to berth, while truck queues stretch for kilometres. The result is avoidable demurrage, product delays, and business frustration. A more decentralised port system would spread economic opportunities and reduce the burden on Lagos’ overstretched infrastructure.
Importers continue to face severe difficulties clearing goods in Lagos, with bureaucratic delays and poor road networks compounding their woes. The World Bank’s Doing Business Report estimates that Nigerian ports experience average clearance times of 20 days — compared to just 5 days in neighbouring Ghana. Such inefficiency undermines competitiveness and discourages foreign investment.
Worse still, goods transported from Lagos to other regions are often lost to accidents or criminal attacks along the nation’s perilous highways. Reports from the Federal Road Safety Corps indicate that over 5,000 road crashes involving heavy-duty trucks occurred in 2023, many en route from Lagos. By contrast, activating seaports in Rivers, Warri, and Calabar would shorten cargo routes and save lives.
The economic rationale is clear: making all seaports operational will create jobs, enhance trade efficiency, and boost national revenue. It will also help diversify economic activity away from the overburdened South West, spreading prosperity more evenly across the federation.
Decentralisation is both an economic strategy and an act of national renewal. When Onne, Warri, and Calabar ports operate optimally, hinterland states benefit through increased trade and infrastructure development. The federal purse, too, gains through taxes, duties, and improved productivity.
Tin Can Island, already bursting at the seams, exemplifies the perils of over-centralisation. Ships face berthing delays, containers stack up, and port users lose valuable hours navigating chaos. The result is higher operational costs and lower competitiveness. Allowing states like Rivers to fully harness their maritime assets would reverse this trend.
Compelling all importers to use Lagos ports is an anachronistic policy that stifles innovation and local enterprise. Nigeria cannot achieve its industrial ambitions by chaining its logistics system to one congested city. The path to prosperity lies in empowering every state to develop and utilise its natural advantages — and for Rivers, that means functional seaports.
Fubara’s call should not go unheeded. The Federal Government must embrace decentralisation as a strategic necessity for national growth. Making Rivers’ seaports work is not just about reviving dormant infrastructure; it is about unlocking the full maritime potential of a nation yearning for balance, productivity, and shared prosperity.