Editorial

Stretching Amnesty To Absurd Limits

Published

15 years ago

May 26, 2010

The Abia State government last week Monday pronounced amnesty for all common criminals, among them kidnappers, armed robbers, and all other underground anti-social elements. Apparently, trailing the federal government’s path after a long armed confrontation with Niger Delta militants, the Theodore Orji administration last week urged miscreants to submit their arms within 14 days in exchange for an opportunity to live a normal life.

Although details of the package still remains foggy, we do hold that pardon for repentant felons, anywhere in the world is nothing new but the Abia State example of pampering unknown common criminals raises more questions than the problem of a running siege which it seeks to solve.

For instance, what informed amnesty for criminals like armed robbers and kidnappers? What pre and or post-amnesty plan has been put in place? What do the criminals stand to gain from the Abia offer, as distinct from the federal government’s package for Niger Delta militants?

We ask because the federal government’s decision followed a lingering civil protest against the systematic neglect of the oil rich Niger Delta. For this, in over three decades, opinion leaders, pressure groups, elected political representatives, civil society groups, the Ijaw National Congress (INC) and indeed several proactive youth bodies repeatedly protested the poor state of affairs and daily called for a review of the derivation formula. When that yielded no tangible fruits, the people, at some point demanded for fiscal Federalism which was roundly misinterpreted to be total resource control.

When all attempts to engage the federal government in civilized dialogue failed, youths in the region met at Kaiama, Bayelsa State about a decade ago where, they spelt out the needs, hopes and fears of the peoples of the oil rich Niger Delta and which produced what became known as the Kiama Declaration, a document that gave birth to the second phase of the struggle which was to include armed resistance if need be, but even before actual take-off, the new agenda attracted the ire of the Federal Government resulting in the roundly condemned Odi massacre in the early days of the Obasanjo Presidency.

The ensuing armed militancy against the federal government became protracted and was so debilitating that Nigeria’s foreign earnings were hampered, oil producing companies forced to close shop in some areas, and expatriates virtually scared off the region.

It was to check that steady drift that the federal government, which had originally engaged the Niger Delta militants with a Joint Military Task Force of the Army, Air Force, Navy and other para-military corps, later had a re-think and agreed that the struggle of the militants deserved positive re-appraisal.

That consideration, informed, among other proactive measures, the Yar’Adua government’s decision to establish the Niger Delta Affairs Ministry, and the pronouncement of amnesty for all those who had taken up arms against the Nigerian nation. To succeed, the federal government put in place a comprehensive amnesty package that included arms surrender, rehabilitation, re-integration, re-orientation and empowerment, all key elements that are absent in the Abia example.

The Tide is at a loss as to what the demands of the common criminals were that informed government’s amnesty option. What is government planning for the criminals in exchange for their arms? Another Arms By-back?

We ask because the chain effects and negative impact of the Obasanjo/Odili Arms for cash programme in Rivers State, rather than check armed militancy, emboldened some miscreants who, hiding under Niger Delta militancy later used the funds to enrich their lethal armoury. In the end, the federal government inadvertently empowered supposed enemies of the state. And it was with such advanced combat weapons acquired with public funds that some low-lives were able to engage the Joint Military Tasks Force, using gorilla ware fare.

This is why The Tide feels that plausible as the Abia State government’s intention maybe, the idea must be done away with because, not only does it lack the much desired moral backing, it inadvertently legitimizes criminality and may encourage many other youths to consider same felonous path for quick recognition.

Besides, since the criminals have made no known ideological direction or justification for their criminal choices except that of greed, laziness and the desire for quick wealth, the Abia government should use available funds to equip the police and other security forces to help check crime in the state and punish convicts according to law.

To do otherwise and move forward to buy-off arms from common criminals is to waste scarce resources on frivolities, except the state government has in place a pre- and post amnesty plan that will reintegrate such criminals into the civil society.

Even so, rather than contemplate such idea, the Abia government should invest in job creation initiatives, beef-up security, improve surveillance and involve the citizenry in the fight against crime. Amnesty for unrepentant felons like armed robbers, rapists and kidnappers in our view, is stretching state pardon to very ridiculous limits.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

42 minutes ago

September 22, 2025

The Tide

Nigeria’s Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) has unveiled a gratuitous proposal to increase the salaries of political and public office holders in the country. This plan seeks to fatten the pay packets of the president, vice-president, governors, deputy governors, and members of the National and State Assemblies. At a time when the nation is struggling to steady its economy, the suggestion that political leaders should be rewarded with more money is not only misplaced but insulting to the sensibilities of the ordinary Nigerian.

What makes the proposal even more opprobrious is the dire economic condition under which citizens currently live. The cost of living crisis has worsened, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of workers, and the naira continues to tumble against foreign currencies. The majority of Nigerians are living hand to mouth, with many unable to afford basic foodstuffs, medical care, and education. Against this backdrop, political office holders, who already enjoy obscene allowances, perks, and privileges, should not even contemplate a salary increase.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has stepped in to challenge this development. SERAP has filed a lawsuit against the RMAFC to halt the implementation of this salary increment. This resolute move represents a voice of reason and accountability at a time when public anger against political insensitivity is palpable. The group is rightly insisting that the law must serve as a bulwark against impunity.

According to a statement issued by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the commission has been dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja. Although a hearing date remains unconfirmed, the momentous step of seeking judicial redress reflects a determination to hold those in power accountable. SERAP has once again positioned itself as a guardian of public interest by challenging an elite-centric policy.

The case, registered as suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1834/2025, specifically asks the court to determine “whether RMAFC’s proposed salary hike for the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers in Nigeria is not unlawful, unconstitutional and inconsistent with the rule of law.” This formidable question goes to the very heart of democratic governance: can those entrusted with public resources decide their own pay rises without violating the constitution and moral order?

In its pleadings, SERAP argues that the proposed hike runs foul of both the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and the RMAFC Act. By seeking a judicial declaration that such a move is unlawful, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the rule of law, the group has placed a spotlight on the tension between self-serving leadership and constitutionalism. To trivialise such an issue would be harum-scarum, for the constitution remains the supreme authority guiding governance.

We wholeheartedly commend SERAP for standing firm, while we roundly condemn RMAFC’s selfish proposal. Political office should never be an avenue for financial aggrandisement. Since our leaders often pontificate sacrifice to citizens, urging them to tighten their belts in the face of economic turbulence, the same leaders must embody sacrifice themselves. Anything short of this amounts to double standards and betrayal of trust.

The Nigerian economy is not buoyant enough to shoulder the additional cost of a salary increase for political leaders. Already, lawmakers and executives enjoy allowances that are grossly disproportionate to the national average income. These earnings are sufficient not only for their needs but also their unchecked greed. To even consider further increments under present circumstances is egregious, a slap in the face of ordinary workers whose minimum wage remains grossly insufficient.

Resources earmarked for such frivolities should instead be channelled towards alleviating the suffering of citizens and improving the nation’s productive capacity. According to United Nations statistics, about 62.9 per cent of Nigerians were living in multidimensional poverty in 2021, compared to 53.7 per cent in 2017. Similarly, nearly 30.9 per cent of the population lives below the international poverty line of US$2.15 per day. These figures paint a stark picture: Nigeria is a poor country by all measurable standards, and any extra naira diverted to elite pockets deepens this misery.

Besides, the timing of this proposal could not be more inappropriate. At a period when unemployment is soaring, inflation is crippling households, and insecurity continues to devastate communities, the RMAFC has chosen to pursue elite enrichment. It is widely known that Nigeria’s economy is in a parlous state, and public resources should be conserved and wisely invested. Political leaders must show prudence, not profligacy.

Another critical dimension is the national debt profile. According to the Debt Management Office, Nigeria’s total public debt as of March 2025 stood at a staggering N149.39 trillion. External debt obligations also remain heavy, with about US$43 billion outstanding by September 2024. In such a climate of debt-servicing and borrowing to fund budgets, it is irresponsible for political leaders to even table the idea of inflating their salaries further. Debt repayment, not self-reward, should occupy their minds.

This ignoble proposal is insensitive, unnecessary, and profoundly reckless. It should be discarded without further delay. Public office is a trust, not an entitlement to wealth accumulation. Nigerians deserve leaders who will share in their suffering, lead by example, and prioritise the common good over self-indulgence. Anything less represents betrayal of the social contract and undermines the fragile democracy we are striving to build.

Editorial

Rivers’ Retirees: Matters Arising

Published

2 weeks ago

September 8, 2025

The Tide

The Rivers State Government deserves commendation for the manner in which it conducted the last biometric exercise for pensioners in the state. For the first time in many years, the verification process was not only efficient but also humane, a development that has brought relief to a category of citizens that often bears the brunt of neglect.

Unlike previous verification exercises that left pensioners exhausted and unattended, the latest exercise set a refreshing precedent. Retirees were given proper and sumptuous meals, and in addition, the government paid the sum of N10,000 into their accounts to cushion their transportation costs. Such gestures go a long way in demonstrating that those who had laboured for the state are not forgotten in their twilight years.

The measure was particularly necessary given that some pensioners had to travel long distances to reach their verification centres. For elderly men and women, such journeys come with physical and financial strain. By recognising these realities and easing the burden, the government has shown that pensioners deserve dignity, not disdain.

Beyond this laudable act of consideration, the authorities must reflect on the very structure of pension verification. The era of compelling retirees to be physically present for routine verification should be reconsidered. With digital tools and innovation, the government can adopt systems that capture and confirm data without the stress of physical assembly. This is crucial for pensioners residing in other states or even abroad.

While we acknowledge the importance of verification in cleaning up pension records, we cannot ignore the darker side of the matter. It is regrettable that some allowances continue to be paid to deceased pensioners, with relatives fraudulently collecting the funds. The latest biometrics, thankfully, exposed some of these sharp practices. The exercise, therefore, is not only about order but also about justice.

We urge families of deceased pensioners to be patriotic enough to inform the government of the deaths of their loved ones. It is deeply shameful that in some instances, individuals attempted to impersonate late pensioners during the biometrics. Such behaviour undermines the spirit of honesty and deprives genuine retirees of their due entitlements.

The exercise also revealed another important area of concern: the health of pensioners. It is reassuring to learn that the state government has reportedly promised to take over the medical treatment of some retirees who arrived for the biometrics in critical condition. This is a step in the right direction. Elderly citizens, after years of service, should have access to special health care facilities in the state. Setting aside hospitals or designated centres for the aged is not just desirable but necessary.

While pension payments in Rivers State have remained consistent, attention must now be directed towards gratuities. Senior citizens deserve to receive their retirement benefits without the bureaucratic hitches that have often marred the process. After years of loyal service, nothing is more demoralising than to see retirees languish for want of their gratuities. Every worker, as Scripture reminds us, is worthy of his wage.

Retirement, in any civilised society, should not be reduced to a sentence of suffering. In dealing with pensioners, government must consistently wear a human face. The humane manner displayed during this verification exercise should not be a one-off. It must become the norm in all dealings with retirees. Measures must continually be put in place to ensure that they do not feel abandoned by the state they served.

One welcome innovation has already been introduced. The Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral (Rtd) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas, has altered the method of gratuity payment. Pensioners now receive their monies directly into their bank accounts, eliminating the cheque-based system that for years served as fertile ground for corruption. This reform is both pragmatic and forward-looking. Similarly, the implementation of the N32,000 pension harmonisation is also commendable.

Direct payments gratuities ensure transparency and drastically reduce the possibility of diversion of funds. More importantly, they restore confidence in the system and assure pensioners that their entitlements will reach them without interference. In this way, the government has not only safeguarded the process but also upheld the principle of accountability.

Seamless gratuity payment has a ripple effect on the workforce as a whole. When workers are confident that retirement will not plunge them into hardship, the temptation to falsify age in order to remain in service is eliminated. Such reforms, therefore, enhance efficiency, honesty, and productivity in the public service.

In sum, the Rivers State Government has struck a refreshing chord in its handling of pension verification. It has shown empathy, innovation, and accountability. However, the momentum must be sustained, and the focus must shift towards modernising verification methods and prioritising retirees’ welfare in health, gratuity, and dignity.

When retirees are treated with compassion and fairness, the message to those still in service is clear: faithful service to the state will not go unrewarded. The humane verification exercise, though a single event, offers a hopeful glimpse of what governance can look like when people, especially the elderly, are placed at the heart of policy.

Editorial

That FEC’s Decision On Tertiary Institutions

Published

1 month ago

August 22, 2025

The Tide

The recent decision of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) to impose a seven-year moratorium on the establishment of new federal tertiary institutions in Nigeria has generated considerable consternation. While the government justifies this embargo as a corrective measure to address chronic underfunding and infrastructural decay, the policy appears more palliative than transformative. Indeed, the moratorium risks exacerbating regional inequalities and stifling legitimate educational aspirations.

Nigeria’s higher education sector is currently in a state of palpable disrepair. With about 68 Federal universities, 42 polytechnics, and 28 CoEs, 29 specialised institutions, 5 uniformed universities, serving a population of over 200 million, the capacity deficit is glaring. UNESCO recommends that 26 per cent of a nation’s annual budget be allocated to education, yet Nigeria routinely spends less than 10 per cent. This fiscal parsimony has engendered dilapidated facilities and perpetuated academic stagnation.

It is incontrovertible that existing universities are underfunded and underutilised. For instance, according to the National Universities Commission (NUC), some federal institutions have enrolment figures below 5,000, a paltry number when compared with their infrastructural potential. This inefficiency is not merely a result of proliferation but of inadequate strategic planning and insufficient capital injection.

The moratorium, though ostensibly pragmatic, seems reactionary and counterproductive. The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has embarked on over 16 strikes since 1999, each rooted in the government’s failure to honour financial commitments. Instead of resolving these contractual breaches, the authorities now prefer a sweeping ban which penalises prospective students. Such a posture appears both disingenuous and myopic.

Chronic underfunding has also produced alarming lecturer-student ratios. In some universities, a single lecturer shoulders over 400 students, undermining pedagogical integrity and academic rigour. Laboratories remain ill-equipped, libraries are antiquated, and hostels overcrowded. To deny new institutions in underserved regions on this basis is to mistake symptoms for causes.

The fulfilment of existing funding agreements is indispensable for sustainable reform. Without honouring these compacts, any moratorium becomes a cosmetic intervention. Nigerians are weary of rhetorical promises; they crave empirical results and tangible improvements. The government must therefore demonstrate fiscal discipline and administrative accountability in addressing these long-standing grievances.

While the argument for consolidation rather than proliferation is persuasive, an outright embargo for seven years is injudicious. Nigeria’s demography is youthful, with nearly 70 per cent under the age of 30. Each year, over 1.7 million candidates sit for the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), yet only about 600,000 secure admission. A moratorium, therefore, aggravates exclusion and fuels disillusionment.

Although Nigeria already boasts a significant number of higher institutions, geographic imbalances remain. Several states, particularly in the North-East and North-West, still lack adequate federal presence. Denying these regions new universities in the name of consolidation perpetuates educational inequity and widens socio-economic disparities.

Higher institutions should thus be established on the basis of meticulous need assessment, not political expediency. Where demand outstrips supply, expansion is inevitable. For example, the nation’s law schools are woefully inadequate, accommodating fewer than 6,000 students annually, despite tens of thousands graduating from faculties of law nationwide. This bottleneck delays the professional progression of aspiring lawyers.

If the moratorium inadvertently covers law schools, the consequences will be deleterious. Thousands of law graduates will remain in limbo, unable to be called to the Bar, thereby forestalling their professional careers. Such an outcome contradicts the principles of justice, fairness, and national productivity. Needs-based expansion, rather than wholesale prohibition, is the rational approach.

To guarantee quality, clear and transparent criteria must be articulated for new institutions. Accreditation, staffing, infrastructure, and sustainability must become the touchstones of expansion. Nigeria must shift from quantity-driven proliferation to quality-oriented growth. This requires rigorous evaluation mechanisms and non-negotiable standards.

Meanwhile, the unregulated proliferation of private universities also warrants scrutiny. Over 111 private universities exist, many of which operate below minimum academic standards. Driven largely by pecuniary motives, these institutions prioritise profit over pedagogy. Consequently, the marketisation of education erodes quality and exploits unsuspecting families.

Therefore, a dual policy is required: stringent criteria for public institutions and robust regulation of private ones. This balanced approach ensures that higher education remains both accessible and credible. The pursuit of profit should never eclipse the sanctity of learning. Public interest must remain paramount.

Going forward, Nigeria needs a roadmap anchored in prudence and accountability. Rather than an indiscriminate moratorium, the government should invest in rehabilitating existing universities while selectively establishing new ones where demonstrable needs exist. This pragmatic equilibrium would reconcile efficiency with inclusivity.

Ultimately, education is the bedrock of national development and the crucible of civic enlightenment. By imposing a blanket ban, the Federal Government risks undermining the intellectual capital of the nation. What is required is not a moratorium, but a renaissance—an education system that is adequately funded, strategically expanded, and globally competitive. Anything less would be an abdication of responsibility and a betrayal of posterity.