Opinion
Serving Personal Interests
Serving personal interests was a statement which started some heated arguments at a conference held at Friends International Centre in London, December, 1980. Happily, the tactful moderator of the conference, a Buddhist monk from Afghanistan, brought the arguments to a halt. Among other issues of vexation was a trending television documentary in the UK, Squandering of Riches, which depicted how Nigeria’s wealth was being spent in lavish flamboyance by the political class and leaders. That was how statements from two Nigerians at the conference sparked off arguments. “Serving Personal Interests” was followed by another statement by a Nigerian: “Our problem is not money, but how to spend it”. Juxtaposing these two statements with the trending television documentary: Squandering of Riches, one other Nigerian raised an objection at the conference, on the ground that a particular section of the country was being vilified and put in bad light. The deep insight of the moderator of the occasion saw the need to steer the discussions on a neutral line. But the point had been made in 1980, that insolvency was looming! Current trend is how to continue with lavish and flamboyant spending even when the country is laden with huge debts, borrowing here and there, to service old debts, buying exotic cars for political office holders, while the masses are hungry and gnashing their teeth. It is not that concerned Nigerians are not speaking up against these insensitive frame of public policies and programmes, rather the truth is that “serving personal interest” is a vital driving force in Nigerian politics.
What economic sense does it make that billions of public funds should be spent to buy a yacht for the luxury of those who enjoy political comfort, build a befitting house for a vice president whose dignity would abhor occupying a “tukumbo” house? The same culture of vanity and hedonistic interests makes it difficult for political office holders to inherit and use facilities which served their predecessors. Even if more debts would be incurred to be able to provide such obscene luxuries, the Nigerian senate would approve the budget! So, it came to be that Nigeria is so prone to lavish and profligate squandering of the nation’s wealth, that fatuous habit or culture cannot be curbed. Several honest studies have indicated that insensitive leadership is usually a primary cause of mass revolts. Such insensitive leadership is always made possible by the fawning attitude and self-interests of a political class that seeks to short-change the masses. The sure result of this scenario is usually the fall or economic collapse of a country.
How would an insensitive and profligate leadership expect deep loyalty, patriotism and sacrifices from the masses that have been deliberately impoverished and browbeaten to a state of stupor? it is sad that state security organs of government are not seen to serve as impartial eyes and ears of the nation’s leadership, thus creating a scenario where those in power banquet day and night, when the nation is burning and bleeding. Security apparatus, like the mass media, should serve the purpose of putting a check on excesses of the masses, as well as the leadership class. Dancers rarely see their back! Someone must draw their attention! The fact that several Nigerian professionals are leaving the country for greener pastures, should serve as an indication that the leadership and political economy of Nigeria are faulty. Neither must we wait until there is a mass revolt before it would dawn on our leaders that the masses are very hungry and sad. What led to the intervention of the military in Nigeria’s politics in 1966, were far less disturbing than the current situations. The truth is that the military and the entire security organs of government are in a dilemma; who to support: the leadership class, or the long-suffering masses?
There is little doubt in the minds of many Nigerians, who the real destroyers and problems of this country are. In the evolution of a viable political system, efforts by money-bags to form an elitist governance, known as an oligarchy, can produce a stable polity. But this is so only where the money and elite class are not predators, serving personal interest under the guise of governance. In the case of Nigeria, the evidence is clear that politics, even under the false name of democracy, is a self-serving engagement; an investment gamble! Many Nigerians are now aware of “serving personal interest” component of the nation’s political industry. The masses become ready tools and accomplices in the self-serving political shenanigans, especially those who can be used and discarded at will. It is quite a dangerous game to play, but it works, because of the use of money as a juicy lubricant. Part of the game plan is to create misery, poverty, divisions and political structures serving vested interests, such that the hungry masses look for where to find “palliatives”. Those who offer such palliatives win mass support.
Surely, this kind of political game plan is not only risky but also destructive. Perhaps the foundation of this faulty political system was laid by past military administrations since 1970, whereby the oil and gas resources of the Niger Delta zone, became the bases of Nigeria’s political economy. Practical meaning of political economy is simply the use of political strategies to determine who gets what quantum of the national “cake”, with little input but maximum benefits. This is where the issue of “structure” counts in politics, which serves personal interests; faulty, self-serving structure! The ripples effects of the monopoly of the oil and gas resources of a section of the country for the maximum benefits of a chosen few, are beginning to manifest in current state of the nation. Late Bola Ige gave some hint long ago that some blacklash would follow, because “it is a sin to plunder the resources of the Niger Delta People”. Turn and twist the issues as political power merchants may, the truth remains that Nigeria’s political economy is a booby-trap, cleverly designed by some master strategists, as if “marching to war”!
The aforementioned heated arguments during a conference in London, 1980, involved five Nigerians, each in favour or against a political economy that would use gangsterism and blusters, to legitimatise illegality. Thus, the basis of Squandering of Riches was the availability to easy wealth provided by the oil and gas resources of a “conquered zone”. Someone at the conference raised objections at the statements “serving personal interest” and “conquered zone”. Maybe hate speech, 1980!.
Bright Amirize
Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer of Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.
The traditional institution is as old as human society. It predates the advent of modern organised society. Before the emergence of modern justice system of dispute resolution and political system of administration, the traditional institution has existed long ago. In fact, it was so revered and regarded as sacred because of the mythological conviction that it was the “stool of the ancestors”. Consequently, judgment given was deified as many people especially the traditionalists believe it was the mind of the gods revealed. Perversion of justice , in the pre-modern justice system was alien and considered uncommon. Chiefs and traditional rulers though may not have generated knowledge formally (through the four walls of a classroom), yet they embody and exemplify knowledge. They hold fast the virtue of integrity and honour, fairness and relative impartiality, partly because they believed that the stool they occupy was ancestral and traditional as act of indiscretion can court the wrath of the gods at whose behest they are on the traditional saddle of authority.
The Compass of Life stated unequivocally that “the throne is preserved by righteousness”. Where righteousness, integrity and honesty are savoured,and valued, perversion and miscarriage of justice is an anomaly. The judgments of traditional rulers and chiefs were hardly appealed against because they were founded on objectivity, fairness, truth and facts beyond primordial sentiment and inordinate interests or pecuniary benefits. Judgments were precedent. Traditional rulers and chiefs, therefore carved a niche for themselves, earning the respect of, and endearing themselves to the heart of their subjects. Is it the same today? Some traditional rulers and chiefs are administering their communities in exile; they are diasporic leaders because they have lost the confidence of the people through self-serving, raising of cult group for self-preservation, land grabbing and other flagrant corrupt practices.
When truth is not found in the traditional institution that, in my considered view, constitutes the grassroots government, then crisis is inevitable.In most African societies before advent of the Christian Faith, and consequent Christening of the traditional stools in many communities in recent times, ascent to the traditional institution was a function of a traditional method of selection. It was believed that the gods make the selection. And whoever emerges from the divination processes eventually is crowned as the king of the people after performing the associated rituals.Whoever lacked the legitimacy to sit on the throne but wanted to take it forcefully, traditionalists believed died mysteriously or untimely. Traditional rulers wielded much influence and power because of the authority inherent in the stool, the age of the person designated for the stool notwithstanding. The word of the king was a law, embodied power. Kings so selected are forthright, accountable, transparent, men of integrity, did not speak from both sides of the mouth, could not be induced with pecuniary benefits to pervert justice, they feared the gods of their ancestors and were consecrated holistically for the purpose dictated by the pre and post coronation rituals.
Some of those crowned king were very young in those days, but they ruled the people well with the fear of the gods. There was no contention over who is qualified to sit or who is not qualified to. It was the prerogative of the gods. And it was so believed and upheld with fear.Kings were natural rulers, so they remained untouchable and could not be removed by a political government. If a king committed an offence he was arrested and prosecuted according to the provision of the law. But they have immunity from sack or being dethroned because they are not political appointees. However, the people at whose behest he became king reserved the power to remove him if found guilty of violating oath of stool. The traditional institution is actually the system of governance nearest to the people. And kings were the chief security officers of their communities. So indispensable are the roles of kings and traditional rulers to the peaceful co-existence of their people, ensuring that government policies and Programmes were seamlessly spread to the people that many people are clamouring for the inclusion of definite and specific roles in the Constitution for the traditional institution.
Traditional rulers are fathers to every member of their domain. So they are not expected to discriminate, show favouritism. By their fatherly position traditional rulers, though can not be apolitical, are also expected to be immune from partisan politics. This is because as one who presides over a great house where people of different political divide or interest belong, an open interest for a political party means ostracisation of other members of the family which could lead to disrespect, conflict of interest, wrangling and anarchy. Traditional rulers are supposed to be selfless, preferring the interest of their people above their personal interests following the consciousness that they are stewards whose emergence remains the prerogative of the people. The position is essentially for service and not for personal aggrandisement and ego massaging. So they should hold the resources of the people in trust. However, in recent past the traditional institution has suffered denigration because of unnecessary emotional attachment to political parties and political leaders. Some traditional rulers and kings have shown complete disregard to the principle of neutrality because of filthy lucre and pecuniary gains, at the expense of the stool and people they lead. Sadly some traditional rulers have been influenced to pervert justice: giving justice to the offender who is rich against the poor.
Traditional leaders should be reminded that the “throne is preserved by righteousness”, not by political chauvinism, favouritism, or materialism.Traditional rulers should earn their deserved respect from political leaders by refusing the pressure to be subservient, beggarly, sycophantic and docile. Traditional leaders have natural and permanent leadership system, unlike the political leadership that is transient and tenured.They should be partners with every administration in power and should not be tied to the apron string of past leaders whose activities are aversive to the incumbent administration and thereby constituting a clog in the development of the State and the community they are to woo infrastructure development to. It is unpardonable error for a traditional ruler to have his conscience mortgaged for benefits he gets inordinately from any government.It is necessary to encourage kings and traditional rulers to not play the roles of stooges and clowns for the privileged few, political leaders. Political leaders are products of the people, even as every government derives its legitimacy from the people.
No doubt, the roles of traditional rulers are so necessary that no political or military government can operate to their exclusion. This is why the 10th National Assembly mulled the inclusion of Traditional institution in the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.Traditional rulers and chiefs should, therefore, be and seen to be truthful, forthright, bold, courageous, honest and people of integrity, not evasive, cunning, unnecessarily diplomatic and economical with truth.The time to restore the dignity of the traditional institution is now but it must be earned by the virtuous disposition of traditional rulers and chiefs.
Igbiki Benibo
The Tax Reform Bills, presented by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the National Assembly for passage since October, 2024, have continued to stir hot debates both at the National Assembly and within the wider Nigerian society. A quartet of presidential proposals comprising; the Nigeria Tax Bill 2024, the Nigeria Tax Administration Bill, the Nigeria Revenue Service Establishment Bill, and the Joint Revenue Board Establishment Bill; the bills present the most audacious overhauls in revenue collection laws ever proposed in Nigeria. The Nigeria Tax Bill (NTB) promises to be a comprehensive piece of single legislation that streamlines tax administration in the country.
Currently, national taxes and revenue collections are being administered through more than 11 different direct/indirect laws, and collected through numerous agencies, often times without inter-agency co-ordination, transparent accountability and timely remittances. Recent reports exposed a recurrent setback of the status quo, when in January, 2025, the Federal Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC) accused the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) of withholding N13.763 trillion. According to FAAC, out of the N27.28 trillion payable to the federation accounts from sales of domestic crude between 2012 and 2024, only N13.524 trillion had been remitted, leaving a balance of N13.763 trillion. Such accusations are weighty, and no doubts, justify the need to streamline revenue collections in the country.
Going by its current proposal, the NTB aims to repeal 11 prevailing laws – Capital Gains Tax Act, Casino Act, Companies Income Tax Act, Deep offshore and Inland Basin Act, Industrial Development (Income Tax Relief) Act, Income Tax (Authorised Communications) Act, Personal Income Tax Act, Petroleum Profits Tax Act, Stamp Duties Act, Value Added Tax Act and Venture Capital (Incentives) Act. These repeals would trigger a cascade of consequential amendments on numerous other enactments, encompassing the Petroleum Industry Act, the Nigerian Export Processing Zones Act, the Oil and Gas Free Trade Zone Act, the Petroleum (Drilling and Production) Regulations of 1969, the National Information Technology Development Agency Act, the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (Establishment) Act, the National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (Establishment) Act, the Customs, Excise Tariffs, Etc. (Consolidation) Act, the National Lottery Act, the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act, the Nigeria Start-up Act, the Export (Incentives and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (Establishment, Etc.) Act, and the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act.
A key reality is that NTB’s axing blows would scrap the laws that established Federal Inland Revenues Service (FIRS), and in its place establish the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS). The NTB proposes vesting upon the NRS, unlike in the FIRS, the powers to collect all taxes in Nigeria, including excise and import duties currently reserved for the Nigerian Customs Service, and oil revenue royalties which presently is the exclusive privilege of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC). The NTB would be empowering the NRS with a supremacy clause which provides in part that, “this Act shall take precedence over any other law with regard to the imposition of tax, royalty, levy, excise duty on services or any other tax. Where the provisions of any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall prevail and the provisions of that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
If passed, the emergent laws would have far-reaching reverberations across revenue generating and collecting interests across Nigeria. The new laws would phase-out or drastically shrink the powers of institutions that by their strong-holds on the proceeds of national resources, had detected the pace of the Central Bank of Nigeria and even those of governments. Proponents of the tax laws say the new reform is to increase revenue collection efficiency and reduce collection costs, considering that revenue agencies deduct commissions as collection charges even as their staff are employees of government, paid salaries for same job. However, the closing of every economic order may create losers and usher-in new set of winners. It is therefore no wonder that the tax reform bills have continued to generate much heated debates in Tinubu’s administration than no others.
Worrisome however, is the trend of the ensuing arguments which, tending towards a rather North Vs South polarising dimension, have concentrated solely on the sharing formular for Value Added Taxes (VATs), while politicians appear to be neglecting numerous other issues that bear more on the generality of Nigerians. It is also disappointing that much attention is not being paid to the blocking of revenue collection loopholes. How that Nigeria’s commonwealth is equitably harnessed and distributed to care for every Nigerian, should have been the crux of revenue arguments. As the NTB proposes a progressive VAT that would jump from 7.5per cent to 10per cent in 2025, then to 12.5per cent from 2026 to 2029, and culminate to 15per cent in 2030, it implies there is no plan to tame the current inflation burdens currently inflicting Nigerians…. (To be continued)
Joseph Nwankwor
The “withdrawn” reaction of the Rivers State Police Command to public condemnation of the police antagonism to a recent peaceful protest in Port Harcourt, tagged #Take-IT-Back Movement organised by Civil Society Organisations, the Niger Delta Congress and other concerned groups, leave much to be desired. The Police Public Relations Officer of the Rivers State Command, Grace Iringe-Koko in what seems a brilliant defence to the action of the unprofessional and inordinately ambitious conduct of the policemen had described those whom the police threw cannisters of teargas at, as, “miscreants and thieves”. To say the least, the Channel Television Reporter, Charles Opurum, Allwell Ene of Naija FM, Soibelelemari Oruwari of Nigeria Info, Ikezam Godswill of AIT and Femi Ogunkhilede of Super FM who were among those tear-gassed while discharging their legitimate duties of covering the peaceful protest, could not have been “miscreants” and “thieves”. Such practice of giving people a bad name to whip up public sentiment and hate and give a cosmetic treatment to an exceedingly ugly incident, seems the antics of some men of the Nigeria Police.
Some years ago I remember a trigger- happy police officer had rhetorically asked me, “Do you know I can shoot you here and brand you a criminal”? The question that readily came to my mind was, if a public officer and a professional journalist of several years of practice could be so threatened and branded a criminal, what is the fate of common citizens in society. That lends credibility to the fact that some victims of police brutality and extra-judicial killings are innocent. They are mere victims of circumstances. It is also common experience that men of the Nigeria Police swoop on scenes of crime, arrest some innocent residents of the area, brand them suspects and hurl them in detention for more than 48 hours. Nigeria Police should be more professional enough in their operations, so that innocent people will not suffer humiliation, incarceration and financial losses for bail. Agreed that it is within the statutory obligation of the Public Relations unit to launder the image of its organisation, but it should be done with discretion, and not with utter disregard and disrespect to the sanctity of human lives. Refutal must be factual and truth based.
The public relations or image making service if not done conscientiously can dent the credibility and integrity of a practitioner. No doubt the viral video clips on the police hurling teargas cannisters on peaceful protesters cannot be described as a figment of imagination or an attempt to “incite public anxiety and create unnecessary tension within the State” as stated by the Police Public Relations Officer in her reaction to public condemnation of the action of her colleagues. Though the able and Media-friendly Rivers State Commissioner of Police has apologised to the Nigeria Union of Journalists, Rivers State Council and the assaulted Journalists, for the unprofessional conduct of the policemen who were involved in the Journalists’ brutality, the conduct was, according to the leadership of Rivers State Council of Nigeria Union of Journalists, “barbaric, inhuman and a flagrant disrespect to the rights of the assaulted journalists. Recall that the Rivers State Police Command had described as false, unfounded and baseless, reports that police officers fired teargas on unarmed protesters in an attempt to disperse them.
In the words of the Police Public Relations officer, “Upon receiving intelligence regarding the protest, our officers were promptly deployed to the specified locations. “On arrival, a group of miscreants was observed engaging in criminal acts, including the theft of mobile phones and other valuables from unsuspecting members of the public. “Our operatives responded swiftly, dispersing the individuals. This baseless story appears to be a deliberate fabrication by mischief makers seeking to incite public anxiety and create unnecessary tension within the state.” However, it is time Nigeria Police realised that the right to peaceful protest is legitimate and fundamental. It is enshrined in International rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and domesticated by Nigeria. Section 40 of Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to assemble freely. The right to peaceful protest is the beauty and a function of democratic governance. It offers the masses the opportunity for self expression and calling erring or a failed government or leadership back to its statutory obligation.
It allows people to publicly voice their concerns, challenge injustices, and participate actively in the democratic process. Protests serve as a vital mechanism for holding leaders accountable and ensuring that government actions reflect the will and needs of the people. The recognition and approval of the right to protest is one action that makes a great difference between a truly democratic government from a repressive, dictatorial and despotic administration. Protest is evident and inevitable in every human institution or organisation from family to school, work places etc, if the heads or the administrators abuse their position and treat with contempt the people on whose prerogative they (leaders) were elected. Some children have also protested against their parents, students protest against wrong administration etc. Protest is therefore, a corrective mechanism, it is expression of a dissenting position against anti-people policies and programmes. The distinctiveness of the Democratic governance over the Military is unreserved and unalloyed respect and regard for the Rule of Law. If the Rule of Law and its implications are undermined, then there is inevitable transition to dictatorship, a military regime in the garb of a civilian administration.
However, the calamitous consequences during the #EndSARS protest and #EndBadGovernance protest show that the respect for the rule of law and its implications remain a far-cry to constitutional requirement. The losses incurred during such protests cannot be consigned to the dusbin of history in a hurry. What is the outcome of the #EndSARS protests and brutality? Nigeria Police and other security agencies should tread with caution on the issue of peaceful protests and treating journalists and innocent members of the public as “miscreants”, and “thieves”.
By: Igbiki Benibo