Opinion

Nigeria’s Anti-corruption Institutions: How Independent?

Published

10 seconds ago

October 19, 2026

Quote:“Nigeria’s anti-corruption battle is too important to be reduced to political contests or personalities. It must rise above administrations, parties and individuals and become a sustained national institutional commitment.”

Corruption remains one of Nigeria’s most persistent governance challenges. It affects public resources, weakens institutions, undermines service delivery and erodes citizens’ confidence in government. For decades, successive administrations have declared their commitment to fighting corruption, while agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) have investigated and prosecuted numerous cases. Yet, beyond the number of arrests, investigations, prosecutions and convictions, there is a more fundamental question Nigeria must continue to confront: How independent and fair are the institutions entrusted with the fight against corruption?

This question matters because the success of anti-corruption agencies depends not only on their legal powers but also on the confidence citizens have in the manner those powers are exercised. An agency may possess extensive statutory authority, but if citizens believe that its decisions are influenced by political considerations, public confidence can suffer. The ICPC Act provides for the Commission’s independence, stating that in discharging its functions, it shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. This statutory provision is significant. An agency charged with investigating public officers and institutions must be sufficiently protected from improper influence if it is to perform its duties objectively.

Independence, however, should not be confused with freedom from accountability. Anti-corruption agencies must themselves operate within the law and remain subject to appropriate constitutional, judicial and institutional checks. The power to investigate and prosecute is enormous, and such power must always be exercised responsibly.This is where fairness becomes indispensable. An effective anti-corruption campaign cannot be built on the perception that the law is tough on some people and gentle on others. Citizens should be able to believe that allegations are examined on their merits, evidence determines the direction of investigations, and suspects are afforded due process irrespective of their political status, social standing or connections.

The presumption of innocence must remain sacrosanct. Being investigated is not the same as being guilty, just as being charged is not the same as being convicted. The media and the public also have a responsibility to distinguish allegations from established facts. At the same time, fairness must not become an excuse for inaction. Where credible evidence exists, investigations should proceed without fear or favour. The challenge, therefore, is to build anti-corruption institutions whose actions are guided by law rather than personalities. Their credibility should not depend on who occupies political office, which party is in power or whose interests may be affected by an investigation. Nigeria has made important institutional investments in the fight against corruption.

The EFCC’s mandate covers the investigation and prosecution of economic and financial crimes, while the ICPC combines enforcement with preventive measures, including institutional reforms and anti-corruption initiatives within public institutions. But enforcement alone cannot eliminate corruption. Institutions must also close the loopholes that make corrupt practices possible. Procurement systems, financial controls, public-sector accountability and transparency mechanisms must be continually strengthened. Prevention is often more effective and less costly than waiting for corruption to occur before pursuing those involved. The judiciary also has an important role. Courts provide the constitutional and legal checks necessary to ensure that anti-corruption powers are exercised within the law.

Judicial oversight should not be regarded as an obstacle to the anti-corruption fight. Rather, it is part of what gives the fight legitimacy. There is also a need for greater transparency in the work of anti-corruption agencies. Nigerians deserve credible information about institutional performance, while sensitive investigations must be protected from unnecessary exposure. Regular publication of statistics, outcomes and institutional reports can help citizens distinguish between genuine enforcement and publicity. Ultimately, Nigeria does not need an anti-corruption campaign that is powerful only when directed at particular individuals. It needs institutions that remain strong regardless of who is being investigated. The real measure of progress should therefore go beyond the number of people arrested or prosecuted.

It should include whether public institutions are becoming more transparent, whether public funds are better protected and whether citizens believe that the law applies fairly. Nigeria’s anti-corruption battle is too important to be reduced to political contests or personalities. It must rise above administrations, parties and individuals and become a sustained national institutional commitment. Independent institutions, impartial investigations, due process, judicial oversight and equal application of the law are not competing objectives. They are the pillars upon which a credible anti-corruption system must stand. If Nigeria succeeds in building institutions that can investigate without fear, prosecute without favour and operate without improper political interference, the country will have moved beyond the politics of anti-corruption to the establishment of a genuine culture of accountability. The ultimate victory over corruption will not come merely when more people are punished; it will come when Nigerian institutions become strong enough to make corruption increasingly difficult to commit, conceal and protect.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

Gift Or Will: Why Wait Until Death To Give?

Published

9 seconds ago

October 19, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”The value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?”

Will and gifts are subjects that many people, particularly in this part of the world, are reluctant to discuss. This may be due to the misconception that they are matters reserved for the dying and that talking about them could somehow invite death. Yet, both are important subjects that everyone, young and old alike, should understand. Every property owner should ask a fundamental question: Why wait until death before allowing the people we love to enjoy the fruits of our labour? Many parents spend their productive years acquiring houses, land, businesses and other valuable assets, yet postpone sharing these blessings with their children and loved ones until they are no longer alive. They prepare Wills, appoint executors and hope their wishes will eventually be fulfilled. But is there a case for giving more generously during one’s lifetime?

A Will is an important legal instrument, and nobody should be discouraged from making one. However, lifetime gifts deserve greater attention because they allow property owners to witness the benefits of their generosity and, where properly completed, transfer ownership before death. One practical difficulty with inheritance is that writing a Will does not automatically make the property available to beneficiaries upon the testator’s death. Ordinarily, executors must obtain a grant of probate from the appropriate Probate Registry before administering the estate under the Will. The process may involve producing the original Will and death certificate, identifying executors and beneficiaries, preparing an inventory and valuation of assets, completing prescribed forms, paying applicable fees and satisfying other registry requirements. Procedures vary across jurisdictions in the country and depend on the circumstances of each estate.

Where documentation is incomplete, the estate is complex or questions arise about the Will, administration may be delayed. Matters become more difficult when a relative or beneficiary challenges the Will, enters a caveat or commences litigation. Legal expenses accumulate, family relationships deteriorate, and intended beneficiaries may wait for years before receiving their inheritance. A child expecting to inherit a house may be unable to deal freely with the property while administration remains outstanding. Similarly, a beneficiary hoping to use inherited funds to establish a business may be frustrated by delays. Across Nigeria, families have experienced difficulties accessing their late parents’ estates because of disputes over Wills and prolonged legal proceedings. See Dan Jumbo v Dan Jumbo. Where a court declares a Will invalid, those named as beneficiaries may lose their entitlement under that document, and the estate may instead be distributed under the applicable intestacy rules. Consequently, people the deceased deliberately intended to benefit may receive nothing under the disputed Will. Ajibaiye v Ajibaiye

This does not mean every challenge will succeed or that all beneficiaries will necessarily be excluded. It nevertheless highlights a risk in postponing every act of generosity until death: the intended beneficiaries may have to establish their entitlement through a process whose outcome is uncertain. A lifetime gift, commonly called a gift inter vivos, is a gift intended to take effect during the donor’s lifetime. Where validly completed, ownership of the transferred interest generally passes to the beneficiary, and the property ordinarily ceases to form part of the donor’s estate.This distinction is significant. A beneficiary who acquires valid ownership of property during the donor’s lifetime does not ordinarily have to establish entitlement to that property through the donor’s Will. The claim rests on the completed transfer rather than a testamentary promise. For instance, a parent with several properties may transfer a house to a child who needs accommodation or give land to another who wishes to build a home. A business owner may transfer an interest in a business to a child already involved in its management. These arrangements provide practical support while allowing the giver to witness the benefits.

Properly completed lifetime gifts may also reduce the assets that must subsequently pass through probate, potentially simplifying the administration of the remaining estate. However, such transfers must comply with applicable law. A mere declaration or unfulfilled promise to give land may not be sufficient. Depending on the circumstances, a gift may require an appropriate deed, acceptance, execution, registration and any necessary consent. Sections 21 and 22 of the Land Use Act 1978 regulate certain dealings involving statutory and customary rights of occupancy. Lifetime gifts are not immune from disputes though. Transfers may be challenged on grounds such as fraud, undue influence, incapacity or failure to comply with legal formalities. Proper legal advice and documentation are therefore essential. Encouraging lifetime gifts does not mean abandoning Wills. A Will remains useful for assets an owner wishes to retain throughout life, property acquired later and assets not transferred before death. It also allows the testator to appoint executors and give instructions for distributing the remaining estate.

Property owners must also avoid giving away assets indiscriminately. Adequate provision should be made for personal upkeep, accommodation, healthcare and other financial responsibilities. Parents should never be pressured into transferring their entire estates or surrendering their financial independence. Where a donor wishes to retain the right to occupy a gifted house, that arrangement should be properly structured and documented. Ultimately, the value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. A gift of land may enable a child to build a home; financial assistance may help a young person establish a business; and a properly transferred property may provide security while the donor is still alive to share in the beneficiary’s joy. Probate is a necessary safeguard, not a reason to dismiss Wills. Nevertheless, where appropriate, lifetime gifts can reduce the property left for administration and help beneficiaries avoid waiting for assets that could have been transferred earlier.

My appeal is simple: let us cultivate a culture of thoughtful giving. Make a Will, but also consider what you can responsibly give today. Seek legal advice, document your intentions and ensure every transfer is properly completed. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Nigeria On Age of Prosperity?

Published

2 weeks ago

October 5, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “The real test of prosperity is not what government announces, but what the ordinary Nigerian can afford, earn and hope for.”

Nigeria’s 66th Independence Anniversary came with a message of hope from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu: the country has moved beyond the difficult phase of economic reforms and is now entering what he called an “age of prosperity.” In his October 1 national broadcast, titled From Reform to Prosperity, the President argued that the painful economic measures of the past three years had corrected the country’s economic direction and laid the foundation for shared and widespread prosperity.

The declaration is significant because Nigerians have lived through an extraordinarily difficult period. The removal of fuel subsidy, exchange-rate reforms, rising living costs and other economic adjustments have placed considerable pressure on households and businesses. Government’s argument has consistently been that these sacrifices were necessary to correct structural weaknesses and prevent an even deeper economic crisis. President Tinubu therefore used his Independence Day address to announce what he sees as the beginning of the reward phase.

According to the President, the economic indicators now point in the right direction. He said Nigeria’s economy had grown by more than four per cent in 2026, while both the oil and non-oil sectors contributed to the growth. He also cited declining oil theft, falling inflation from its peak, rebuilt foreign reserves, greater stability in the foreign exchange market and more than $6 billion in non-oil export revenue in 2025.

But economic statistics, important as they are, must eventually be translated into household realities. For the average Nigerian, prosperity is not merely a matter of GDP growth, foreign reserves or export figures. It is the ability to buy food without anxiety, pay school fees without borrowing, travel at affordable cost, access healthcare, secure decent accommodation and earn an income that provides dignity.

This is where the President’s new promise becomes particularly important. He said prosperity would mean a Nigeria where farmers can cultivate their land safely, produce at lower cost and earn decent returns; where factories have reliable electricity; where businesses can obtain credit; where young people can find productive employment; and where food, transportation and education become more affordable.

That vision places production at the centre of the prosperity agenda. Nigeria cannot permanently consume its way out of poverty. The country must produce more food, manufacture more goods, create more jobs and export more competitive products. This requires reliable electricity, good roads, efficient rail and port systems, accessible credit, security for farmers and investors, and an environment in which businesses can survive and expand.

The President’s emphasis on agriculture is therefore noteworthy. Nigeria has vast arable land and a large youthful population, yet food insecurity and high food prices remain major concerns. Expanding irrigation, mechanisation, access to inputs, storage and transportation could help reduce production and distribution costs if properly implemented. The challenge, however, will be moving from policy announcements to measurable results across the farming communities.

The same applies to employment. Nigeria’s youthful population can become an enormous economic advantage, but only if young people have opportunities to acquire relevant skills and participate meaningfully in the economy. President Tinubu spoke of expanding digital connectivity, supporting industries, using domestic gas to power factories and helping Nigerian businesses grow.

These are areas that deserve sustained attention because prosperity cannot be built on government spending alone. It must be driven by productive citizens, viable businesses, innovative entrepreneurs and industries capable of creating wealth and employment.

Yet, the transition from reform to prosperity must also recognise the millions of Nigerians who cannot afford to wait indefinitely for the benefits of future growth. The President acknowledged that many families still struggle with food, school fees, medical expenses and transportation. His administration therefore pointed to social support programmes, education loans, consumer credit and other interventions as bridges towards greater economic opportunity.

The question Nigerians will inevitably ask is: when will the promised prosperity become visible in their homes and communities?

That question should not be dismissed as impatience. It is the legitimate demand of citizens who have been asked to endure sacrifice in anticipation of better times. If reforms are to retain public confidence, their benefits must progressively become tangible. Lower production costs should ultimately mean lower prices. Increased investment should create jobs. Higher agricultural output should improve food availability. Economic growth should broaden opportunity rather than remain concentrated in statistics and balance sheets.

President Tinubu’s declaration that “the age of reform has done its work” therefore carries a heavy responsibility. The next phase must demonstrate that the sacrifices of Nigerians were not merely endured but converted into lasting national benefits.

Nigeria’s journey since independence has been marked by repeated promises of a better future. At 66, the country cannot afford another cycle in which hope rises with political declarations only to fade under the weight of everyday hardship. The promised age of prosperity must be measured by the quality of life of ordinary Nigerians.

The President has declared that Nigeria has passed through its own “Red Sea” and that the destination is now in sight. The road ahead must therefore be one of delivery, accountability and inclusion. Prosperity must reach the farmer in Rivers, the trader in Kano, the manufacturer in Lagos, the student in Enugu and the young entrepreneur in every part of Nigeria.

The age of prosperity, if it is to mean anything, must not remain a presidential phrase. It must become an experience Nigerians can see, feel and confidently pass on to the next generation.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

The NBA’s Triumphant Return to Port Harcourt Justice Whyte

Published

2 weeks ago

October 5, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”…the decision to return was not “compensatory” but a fulfillment of a promise: if democratic normalcy returned to Rivers State, the NBA would return with it.

The ancient city of Port Harcourt recently played host to a momentous gathering of legal minds as the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) convened its 66th Annual General Conference, themed “Beyond Limits.” The event, which brought together over 23,000 lawyers and delegates from across Nigeria and beyond, was more than just a professional assembly; it was a powerful symbol of Rivers State reclaiming a significant opportunity lost to the turbulent tides of political crisis.

In 2025, Port Harcourt was initially slated to host the NBA’s flagship event. However, the political landscape of Rivers State was thrown into disarray when President Bola Tinubu declared a state of emergency, suspending Governor Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials. In response, the NBA, citing the unconstitutional and undemocratic nature of the emergency rule, made the difficult decision to relocate the conference to Enugu.

This decision was a significant blow to Rivers State, which had prepared to welcome the legal community. The economic and prestige loss was huge

The Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) Annual General Conference (AGC) represents one of the high profile gatherings of legal professionals in Africa, generating huge economic benefits and prestige for its host city. In a dramatic turn of events that underscores the intersection of politics and institutional integrity, Rivers State lost the opportunity to host the 2025 NBA Conference to Enugu State—a direct consequence of the political crisis engulfing the state.

This decision, stemming from President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency and suspension of elected officials in Rivers State, illustrates how unhealthy political dynamics can undermine economic development. The relocation of the conference, not only deprived Rivers State of an estimated N7 billion in economic activity but also served as a powerful statement from Nigeria’s legal community against unconstitutional governance practices.

The Nigerian Bar Association’s historic decision to relocate the conference from Port Harcourt to Enugu was announced in April 2025, just four months before the scheduled event. This made the then-administrator of Rivers State even demanding the return of the N300 million support fund provided by Governor Fubara’s administration for the aborted conference. Thank God for the NBA’s triumphant return to portharcourt and opportunity reclaimed.

However, the NBA was resolute in its principles. As NBA President, Afam Osigwe, SAN, clarified, the relocation was not punitive but a direct consequence of a constitutional breach. “We left Port Harcourt because we said the declaration of state of emergency… was unconstitutional,” Osigwe stated. He emphasized that the decision to return was not “compensatory” but a fulfillment of a promise: if democratic normalcy returned to Rivers State, the NBA would return with it.

When democratic governance was restored under Governor Fubara’s reinstatement, the NBA honoured its pledge. This return in August 2026 for the “Beyond Limits” conference was heralded not just as a professional event but as a symbolic victory for constitutionalism. The return of the NBA conference injected a significant economic boost into the state. With an estimated 23,000 lawyers and support personnel converging on the city, the hospitality, transportation, and food sectors experienced a major upswing in business.

This influx of delegates represented a tangible demonstration of the state’s stability and its readiness to host events of national and international scale.

While the event was a celebration of legal practice and national development, it was impossible to ignore the political context that had nearly derailed it. The long-running, bitter feud between Federal Capital Territory Minister Nyesom Wike and Governor Siminalayi Fubara hung over the conference like a spectre.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara, in his address to the conference, struck a tone of resilience and a call for justice. He used the platform to charge lawyers and judges to defend the rule of law and hold governments accountable, reflecting on his administration’s experience of walking “through the furnace of power.” Fubara urged judges to be “courageous as the ultimate guardians of democracy and good governance,” emphasizing that the legal profession must prevent the abuse of power.

In a display of commitment to judicial development, he highlighted his administration’s efforts in expanding access to justice, appointing more judges, and constructing a new Federal High Court facility.

Despite the historic nature of the return, the conference was not without its critics. A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Monday Onyekachi Ubani, described the event as “lacklustre, uninspiring and deeply disappointing,” particularly criticizing the quality of conference materials and logistics.

Furthermore, the keynote address by former Liberian President George Weah drew criticism from human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN. Falana blasted the NBA for inviting Weah, whom he labelled a “dictator,” and accused the NBA of inviting “African dictators” to address Nigerian lawyers. He cited alleged human rights abuses and the weakening of democratic institutions during Weah’s tenure, questioning his suitability as a speaker on the rule of law.

Conclusively, the NBA’s 2026 Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt was a multi-layered event. It was a triumphant return for the legal profession, showcasing the resilience of democratic institutions in Rivers State. For Rivers State, it marked the reclaiming of a significant national platform that had been lost to “unhealthy politics.” Yet, the echoes of the political conflict that caused the loss were still present.

It represented both the restoration of lost opportunity and a reminder of the delicate political peace that now prevails.

By: Justice Whyte