Connect with us

Editorial

Time To Account For 13% Derivation Refunds

Published

on

How did the other South-South states, aside from Rivers, expend their arrears of the 13 per cent derivation refunds that were illegally deducted from the oil-producing states by the Federal Government since 1999? That is the tough question on the lips of some stakeholders mostly in the affected states.
This came after the startling revelation by the Rivers State Governor, Chief Nyesom Wike, that Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari authorised and paid the arrears to Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo and Akwa Ibom States. Wike spoke on the development last Friday during the inauguration of the N17 billion Port Harcourt Campus of the Nigerian Law School.
Responding to those who had been seeking to know how the Rivers State Government was able to obtain funds to execute projects many of which are being inaugurated or commissioned, Wike replied that President Buhari’s gesture was the major source of revenue for his projects, including the flyovers, the law school, the cancer centre, among others.
Hear him: “Monies that were not paid to the Niger Delta states since 1999 mainly 13 per cent deductions, the President approved and paid all of us in Niger Delta states.” Wike had reiterated a similar remark at two separate events afterwards. Following the disclosure, stakeholders have begun to ask their governors questions on how they spent or are spending their allocations of the money.
Now that the Rivers State Chief Executive has let the cat out of the bag, some of his fellow governors in the region have come out of their comfort zones to offer explanations or tell cock-and-bull stories better told to the marines. This divulgence indicates that Wike is truly fighting for the masses, even though he stands the risk of making more enemies for himself.
Speaking on the matter through his Chief Press Secretary, Olisa Ifeajika, the Delta State governor, Ifeanyi Okowa, said the state had drawn only N30 billion from its accrued share of N270 billion from the 13 per cent derivation arrears. He said his administration opted to access its share through a bridge finance loan of N150 billion from a bank. The Delta governor declared that since the Federal Government could not pay the money in bulk, the oil-producing states agreed for some part of it to be disbursed within three years and the other within five years.
Some Bayelsa stakeholders took to social media over the slow pace of development amidst considerable resources. The big question on their lips has been what happened to Bayelsa’s stake in the money paid by the Federal Government? Similar questions are asked by residents of Akwa Ibom and Edo States. While some have threatened to use the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act to compel their government to account for the money, others have called for a probe into the seemingly looted funds.
Astonishingly, some governors in the Niger Delta could receive such a tremendous amount of money in these hard times yet decline to pay salaries and pensions regularly. In some affected states, infrastructure is decrepit and development is apprehended. While Governor Wike has been building flyovers and executing other developmentally-oriented projects in his state with the windfall, the question is, what have the other governors who got a similar treasure-trove been doing with theirs?
It is time transparency and disclosure were enforced in the administration of the 13 per cent derivation by state governments. Reportedly, eight states have been benefiting from the scheme. The eight oil-producing states received about N6.589 trillion from the federation account under the derivation principle, between 2009 and 2019. Sadly, there has been little or nothing to show for such allocation in some beneficiary states as agitations for benefits continue among the people directly impacted by oil production.
For states receiving derivation payments, translucency is even more key, given the history of state governors’ management of these funds. That way, the temptation to yield to corruption risks is reduced, wasteful spending is curtailed and oil-producing communities have a greater chance of getting these funds to work in their interest.
Governor Wike deserves commendation for exposing the non-performing governors in the crude oil and gas-rich Niger Delta region, who collect huge derivation funds and arrears but without any corresponding projects on the ground to justify the allocations. But for his bringing the situation to limelight, many would not have been aware of it. The other governors in the region must ensure that their funds reflect massive developmental and infrastructural projects, as seen in Rivers.
We hail President Muhammadu Buhari for authorising the payment of the funds to the deserving states and not playing politics with it, particularly since the benefiting states are virtually in the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). This is an abiding testimony to the President’s political maturity and his commitment to the tenets of democracy and the rule of law. As can be seen, Buhari’s release of the money has enabled the Rivers governor to embark on more projects in the state.
Unfortunately, the 13 per cent derivation which is a form of royalty for mineral owners has been hijacked for political expediency rather than meeting the needs of the host communities. There must be a paradigm shift away from political expedience in the use of the funds to employing it to maximise the social and economic welfare of the oil-producing communities in particular and the state in general.
An energy expert and former adviser at Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), Garuba Dauda, said extractive revenues face a huge utilisation challenge at both national and subnational levels in Nigeria. He stressed that there were far-reaching accountability gaps in the management of oil revenues at both national and subnational levels of government, especially the 13 per cent derivation.
Accountability remains key if benefit transfer must get to the citizens. The need to imbibe and integrate corporate best practices in the oil and gas industry in Nigeria must include holding the state governments accountable for disbursement of the 13 per cent derivation funds. Oil-producing communities in derivation-receiving states must be seen to be enjoying the dividends of the derivation.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Governor’s Pension Law Repeal, Otti’s Example 

Published

on

Abia State’s decision to repeal the governor’s pension law is a momentous move towards cutting down on
the expenses of governance and focusing on the welfare of pensioners in the State, who were last paid in 2014. Governor Alex Otti’s bold action in overturning this law demonstrates a dedication to financial prudence and transparency. This resolve will help in reducing the financial burden on the State.
Pension for governors and their deputies has been a contentious topic in Nigeria, with concerns raised about the ethics and morality of providing lifetime benefits to public officials who may only serve a limited term in office. Abia State has taken a bold step by repealing this law, setting a positive example for other States to follow. This move has sparked a much-needed conversation about the need for accountability and responsible governance in the country.
Governor Otti’s argument for repealing the governor’s pension law to alleviate the financial burden on the State and address the issue of unpaid pensions for Abia’s retirees is compelling. By prioritising the needs of the people over political considerations, Governor Otti is demonstrating strong leadership and a commitment to serving the best interests of the citizens.
The Abia State Governors and Deputy Governors Pension (Repeal) Law of 2024 has been widely reproached for its excessive provisions for former office holders. Not only does the law guarantee former governors and former deputy governors 100 per cent of the operative salary of their successors, but it also includes the provision of three police officers and two Department of State Services officers for life. Additionally, the State is responsible for paying for their domestic staff and building mansions for them in both their home State and in Abuja.
Proponents of these benefits assert that they are necessary to ensure that former governors are appropriately provided for after their tenure in office. They maintain that these benefits are in line with the sacrifices and responsibilities that come with holding a public office. Furthermore, supporters of the entitlements contend that these provisions are intended to attract qualified individuals to compete for gubernatorial positions, with the assurance that their welfare will be looked after once they leave office.
Despite efforts to eliminate these schemes in some States, about 18 States still retain pension for their former leaders, which many Nigerians view as a form of political hedonism. Zamfara set a precedent in 2019 by eliminating its pension law, signaling a shift away from the traditional practice of providing lucrative benefits to former governors and their deputies. Many other States continue to operate this practice, allowing former leaders to receive substantial pension and other perks even after leaving office.
In 2020, both Lagos and Kwara States announced their intentions to scrap their pension laws, acknowledging the increasing public outcry over the issue. Kwara went a step further by officially abrogating the law in January, 2021, demonstrating a commitment to reforming the system and promoting accountability. Meanwhile, Lagos took a more gradual approach by reducing the benefits for former leaders by 50 per cent in August , 2021. This move was perceived as a compromise between completely abolishing the scheme and maintaining the status quo.
According to the World Poverty Clock and the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Nigeria has been listed as the poverty capital of the world, with millions of people living in extreme poverty. The fact that States would continue to record more ex-office holders after every tenure only adds to the financial strain of these pension schemes. With the number of former office holders increasing each year, the costs associated with their pension become unsustainable for many States.
The funds that could be allocated towards alleviating poverty and improving infrastructure are instead being spent on providing lavish retirement benefits for a select few. The current pension schemes for ex-governors in Nigeria are not sustainable in the long term, especially in the face of the present economic realities. Reforms are needed to ensure that public funds are used more efficiently and effectively, and that the needs of the most vulnerable in society are given preference over the comfort of former government officials.
Pension for former governors often result in the enrichment of the wealthy elite at the expense of the struggling masses. These politicians typically only served in office for a maximum of eight years, yet, they are able to secure generous pension that allow them to maintain a life of luxury. Some even go on to hold positions as Ministers or Senators, further perpetuating their unjustified wealth.
Curiously, the 10th National Assembly is home to more than 12 former governors who continue to benefit from these lavish retirement benefits. In stark contrast, many public workers dedicate 35 years of their lives to serving the public and the government, only to receive meagre pension or sometimes none at all. Tragically, some pensioners pass away before ever receiving the benefits they are owed.
Other States should look to Abia State as a model for promoting democratic values and accountability. The active participation of civil society organisations, pressure groups, taxpayers, and activists is critical in upholding the principles of democracy and ensuring that the government is accountable to the people. The scandalous pension laws that have been passed in many States are not only unjust but also a detriment to the democratic process.
Nigerians should engage with their legislators and demand the immediate annulment of these obnoxious laws that serve to enrich a select few at the expense of the public. Citizens can help ensure that their voices are heard and that their rights are protected by actively participating in the legislative process and holding their representatives accountable. Abia is a constant reminder that democracy is a continuous process that requires the active involvement of all.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Enough Of Legislative Rascality In Rivers

Published

on

The political deadlock in Rivers State is showing no sign of abating, with the State House of Assembly voting once more to nullify Governor Siminalayi Fubara’s veto of the Rivers State Assembly Service Commission Bill. This is in addition to the one that occurred in January, when the legislators went against some of the governor’s decisions about four other bills, claiming it could cause chaos and violate certain laws.
The four bills include the Rivers State Local Government Law (Amendment) Bill; Rivers State Traditional Rulers’ Law (Amendment) Bill; Rivers State Advertisement and Use of State-owned Property Prohibition (Repeal) Bill and Rivers State House of Assembly Fund Management Bill. Unlike before, the amendment to the Assembly Service Commission Law now permits the Assembly to appoint the chairman and members of the Commission, not the governor.
But legal experts say that the amended law violates the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits the Assembly from overstepping the governor’s authority to appoint the chairman and other members of the Commission. If that position is accurate, then the Rivers State House of Assembly Service Commission (Amendment) Law, 2024, is legally void. The question is: why is Rivers State different if the President, working with the National Assembly, nominates members of the National Assembly Service Commission?
In yet another controversial move, the State Assembly has passed a bill to amend the Rivers State Public Procurement (Amendment) Law No. 1 of 2021. The bill, which was put forward at the 127th sitting, aimed to delete Section 3 of the 2021 Amendment Law to limit mobilisation fees to suppliers or contractors to not more than 20 per cent. We condemn this ill-motivated enactment, as the same Assembly had previously amended the law in 2021 to allow for 100 per cent payment of mobilisation fees to contractors.
While the House maintains that the laws are intended to bring more balance of power, we perceive it as an audacious endeavour to humiliate the governor and diminish his position. This power contest between the legislative and executive arms is unsettling and detrimental to the state. It is incomprehensible why the same Assembly members failed to challenge any bills during former Governor Nyesom Wike’s tenure, which period they also served as lawmakers.
We advise the state lawmakers to be wary of their actions and always prioritise the well-being of Rivers people by operating collaboratively with Governor Fubara. They should set aside their deep-rooted prejudices and concentrate on enacting good legislation to benefit the citizens. We insist that the governor should be allowed to administer the state freely in line with his constitutional mandate to ensure stability and progress in the state.
It is time for our renegade legislators to pay attention to their duties and not allow their paymaster to manipulate them for his narcissistic purposes. We find it disappointing to see those in power succumb to high-level corruption and disregard the people’s needs because of politics. What we need now is unity and cooperation, not the constant harassment of Fubara to create tension and division.
When individuals who are supposed to uphold the law and safeguard the people’s interests are being used as pawns in a murky political game, it is a sad state of affairs. The lawmakers need to understand that they owe it to the people of Rivers State to buck any attempts to jeopardise their integrity and independence. The trust of the people they represent is undermined by letting themselves be controlled, which also erodes their credibility.
Repealing and re-enacting laws without careful consideration by these lawgivers is reckless and unacceptable. Their actions could cause a crisis in the state, making governance more challenging. They need to understand that any problem they ignite will not only affect the general public but also themselves and their loved ones. That is why the legislators must contemplate the repercussions of the laws they revoke or make and how such statuses will impact their interests and all residents of the state.
Speaker Martins Amaewhule and his cohorts are pushing the boundaries of their rascality too far. After elections, politics in most states ends, allowing for genuine governance to take over. Unfortunately, this is not the scenario in Rivers, where political turbulence is destroying the state’s economy. If these parliamentarians truly cared about the state in which interest they have always claimed to act, they would end the ardent political imbroglio and unnecessary power struggles causing divisions and increased insecurity
Political tenseness in a state can sidetrack the attention of the government away from enforcing impressive policies to tackle challenges and promote progress. It is estimated that Rivers State has lost about N2 trillion in public sector investments over the past 12 years due to unrest in the political arena. Numerous projects valued at over N1.91 trillion have been impeded, along with other economic activities that could have profited many.
Some of the losses include the N250 billion bond approved in 2010 to build listed projects. However, a political dire straits in 2012 compelled the state to resort to bridging loans from commercial banks, as opposed to Lagos State that took bonds. The World Bank water project, that was supposed to transform Port Harcourt into a modern city, was allegedly not endorsed by the Goodluck Jonathan administration following political upheavals in the state.
To transform Port Harcourt into a fast and efficient transportation centre, the government invested over N20 billion in the monorail project. However, once Wike became the governor, he abandoned it. Former Governor Chibuike Amaechi used to set aside N100 billion each year for the Greater Port Harcourt City project, but Wike, following political disagreements with his predecessor, neglected it and instead used it as a means to reward his supporters. The unstable political climate prevented the realisation of these public sector investments, which could have greatly expanded the state’s economy.
Rivers people are indeed fed up with waking up every day to distressing news from the political space. Amaewhule and his troublesome allies must be told that enough is enough. The inept lawmakers should put aside their personal interests and those of their principal and work with Governor Fubara, who has been brandishing the olive branch to advance the state. Rivers State needs peace and development.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Another Look At Capital Punishment

Published

on

There are far too many prisoners in Nigeria’s correctional facilities. Thousands of them are awaiting trial inmates, while others are either serving their jail terms or have received death sentences. The approximate number of death row convicts in custodial facilities around the nation as of July 2022 was 3,145. Of the figure, 3,084 were men and 61 women, according to the Nigerian Correctional Service. This has over time put the process of decongesting the correctional facilities all but impossible.
As governors decline to sign the death warrants for the condemned, the number of the individuals on death row is growing, sparking reservations among human rights advocates and attorneys about what might happen to the prisoners. A few of them have proposed converting the death penalty to life in prison. Others contend that the death sentence ought to be abolished under the constitution if the governors are unwilling to sign the warrants. Femi Falana, SAN, maintains that keeping a prisoner on death row for a considerable amount of time is torture.
Despite repeated calls by the Federal Government for state governors to exercise their constitutional responsibility of signing death warrants of criminals condemned to death by courts of competent jurisdictions, no death row inmate has been executed in the last 10 years. Governors are delaying the wheel of justice and contributing to congestion in correctional centres by refusing to sign the death warrants. States should share in the burden of decongesting custodial facilities in the country.
Crimes that are punishable by death include homicide, kidnapping, and murder. The governors must still sign the warrants after the judges issue these orders for the execution to proceed. Over time, the governors, who are liable for confirming execution orders, have been dodging their role, which has made the already cramped jails even more cluttered. They justify their refusal to append the warrants by citing political correctness and feelings.
One of the most contentious and frequently discussed subjects in the world is the death penalty. Numerous organisations observe that it is cruel and barbarous. Its opponents frequently compare it to murder, pointing out that it has no effect on homicide rates and that the ends do not always substantiate the methods, particularly when people are wrongfully condemned.
Since Nigeria is yet to consider abolishing or suspending the death penalty, the onus is on the governors to take the correct course of action. The number of nations that have done so is expanding. According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, almost 70 per cent of nations worldwide have either outlawed or discontinued the death penalty. Kazakhstan and Papua New Guinea are among the most recent nations to ban it.
By the end of 2021, 108 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes under the law; 144 countries had done the same in practice; 28 countries had done so in effect by not carrying out an execution in the previous ten years; and 55 countries still applied the death penalty for common crimes. This information comes from data provided by Amnesty International.
However, proponents of capital punishment often view it as a necessary evil to protect society from individuals who commit the most heinous crimes. Despite the declarations from former Governors Seriake Dickson of Bayelsa State and Simon Lalong of Plateau State that they would not hesitate to approve the death penalty for convicted kidnappers, there is no concrete evidence of them following through on this promise. The only elected governor in recent Nigerian history known to have signed a death warrant was former Governor of Edo State, Adams Oshiomhole, which sparked criticism from various groups.
During his tenure as President of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan made a controversial statement urging state governors to sign death warrants for criminals condemned to death. Speaking at a Fathers’ Day Sunday service in 2013, Jonathan reminded the governors that their role as leaders involved both pleasant and unpleasant tasks. Jonathan’s call serves as a reminder of the dual responsibilities that come with leadership and the need for critical reflection on the consequences of such decisions.
Governors play a crucial role in the criminal justice system when it comes to deciding the fate of individuals on death row. They are faced with the weighty decision of either approving the death warrants of those who have exhausted their appeals process, converting their death sentence to life imprisonment, or offering them clemency. Failure to act on any of these options should result in the removal of Section 33, which permits the death penalty, from the constitution.
State governors must set aside personal emotions and make decisions based on the principles of justice, fairness, and compassion. Approving death warrants should only be done after careful consideration of all facts and evidence in a case, ensuring that justice is served. However, if governors find that there are mitigating circumstances or doubts about guilt, they have the option of converting the death sentence to life imprisonment or offer clemency. This allows for the possibility of exoneration or further legal proceedings to rectify any injustices.
Clearly, then, the death penalty in Nigeria should be re-evaluated. The lack of execution and the potential for injustices highlight the need for a more humane and effective form of capital punishment. Life imprisonment could provide a better alternative, ensuring that criminals are still held accountable for their actions while avoiding the risks and controversies associated with the death penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending