Editorial

Why Presidential Candidates Must Debate

Published

7 years ago

January 25, 2019

Last Saturday, the Nigerian Election Debate Group (NEDG) and Broadcasting Organisations of Nigeria (BON) held a debate for presidential candidates of some political parties for the 2019 elections without the participation of the incumbent President, Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the candidate of the main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. The group had earlier on December 14, 2018, held a debate for the vice presidential candidates of the selected parties in the election, which aroused a lot of interest of Nigerians in the February and March polls.
Although Atiku Abubakar and some other candidates had earlier indicated their readiness to participate in the debate, Muhammadu Buhari, had subtly shown indications he would skip the debate. and true to speculations, he did.
There is no gainsaying the fact that interesting televised debate of the pre-2011 presidential election involving Muhammadu Buhari of the then Congress for Political Change, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu of the then Action Congress of Nigeria and Mallam Ibrahim Shekarau of the then All Nigerian Peoples Party, showed it was one culture that was gradually taking root in Nigeria.
The Tide thinks that the issues in this year’s presidential election are many and the major candidates ought to talk through them in a debate for the people to make an informed choice. However, incumbent Presidents have largely ignored the opportunities provided by the platform for the parties and Nigerians. Unfortunately, what should ordinarily excite the people has rather exuded huge indifference, because the average Nigerian politician, especially at the presidential level is always avoiding debates. And the reason is simple: they hardly can understand the issues let alone able to sell them.
The very essence of such debates is to identify a candidate with the competence and sanity to promote, protect and defend the national interest, which is the very reason a nation exists. The purpose of an election campaign debate is to give candidates a chance to share their views and attract possible voters. There is no over-estimating the importance and value of debates in any electoral process. They expose the intuitive and cognitive skills and capacities of the candidates. They help the candidates to set their own agenda as well as analyse their strengths and weaknesses. They expose the attitudinal dispositions of the candidates in different ways. They allow the people to know their candidates well and better. They increase the knowledge of the people on issues defining the election. They enrich the electoral process and make the eventual choice deserving of their votes. The advantages are legion and cannot be glossed over.
But when leaders start to avoid debates, then, the electoral culture of such a people is doomed. It is true that a person can’t give what he/she doesn’t have. But why seek to give what you don’t have? These are the abnormalities that presidential debates, or any debates at all, unearth and take care of. And except Nigerians begin to embrace this critical culture with huge impact in the choice of leaders, to even begin to discuss progress and development is impossible, because they cannot even stand before Nigerians to define what development is.
With a good understanding of the role presidential debates had played in virtually all of United States elections since 1960, save for the 2016 election, the culture of debate has unarguably become an integral part of the US electoral tradition, which even in the face of certain reservations, cannot be taken for granted. Many other developed societies, including the United Kingdom in 2010, have also etched this culture into their electoral tradition.
There is no debating the importance of giving voters the opportunity to hear candidates discuss and debate key issues prior to elections. Although there have been controversies on the role of presidential debates in modern election cycles particularly, if the current format of debates helps or hurts the very objective, no stronger argument has, so far been advanced on why debates should not hold.
Yes, election debates could reinforce partisan positions, with partisans merely becoming more critical in their choice. However, one thing has not been taken away from the culture of debates in a presidential bout and it is the fact that it is helpful in decision-making for undecided voters. The run-up to this year’s elections has been paved with many intrigues and familiar political shenanigans, and the level of fluidity and uncertainty are almost inestimable. This is why Nigerians must insist on presidential debates in subsequent election cycles and every intending candidate must be ready to defend his or her policy agenda.
Unfortunately, majority of Nigerians play to bigotry and primordial sentiments. Regrettably, the vast majority of Nigerians have no access to television and electricity, the culture of televised presidential debates has crept in and should be warmly embraced. Even so, we think that going forward, presidential candidates must debate their opponents to give the Nigerian electorate ample opportunity to decide who to vote for, given their policy positions.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Uchechukwu Okwum

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

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

The Tide

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.