Editorial

US-Iran Crisis

Published

7 years ago

January 13, 2020

Since after the chain of events that led to the invasion of the United States Embassy in Teheran and the holding of 52 embassy staff hostage by irate Iranians in 1979, relations between the two countries have remained largely volatile.
The US had since designated the Islamic Republic as a state sponsor of terrorism which often uses its foreign-based militia formations to attack American citizens and sabotage Western interests, particularly in the Middle East. For this reason, Washington DC had rallied other Western nations to impose series of economic sanctions and travel bans against Teheran and some of its top state functionaries.
America and its major allies, including Israel and European Union member-countries have been at the forefront of moves to ensure that Iran does not develop its nuclear capabilities beyond the limit allowed for civilian purposes. International nuclear experts had always visited the Arab nation to monitor its nuclear projects development. And previous US Presidents had also worked with the international community to pursue any nuclear agreements reached with Iran.
Then enter President Donald Trump in 2017, riding on his ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign slogan. The tough-talking US leader would brook no nonsense from any rival world power, let alone Iran. He wasted no time in pulling out of the international nuclear deal with the Gulf State. What’s more, he is currently embroiled in trade disputes with China, Canada and Mexico, among others. Domestically, there has been no respite for Trump as opposition Democratic Party members of the US Congress are daily plotting to impeach him out of the White House via a Senate trial.
Just a few months ago, President Trump came close to unleashing US might on Iran when he ordered a military strike against the latter in retaliation for the downing of a US drone over the Strait of Hormuz. He was, however, reported to have recalled the mission at the last minute on the excuse that no American life was lost in the drone tragedy.
But the situation was different penultimate Friday, as the world was shaken by news of the killing of an Iranian military commander and head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps elite Quds Force (the corps’ foreign operations arm), Lt-General Qasem Soleimani, along with Iranian-backed Iraqi militia leader, Abu Mahdi Muhandis, near Baghdad airport.
Ordered by Trump, the killings which sparked massive street protests both in Iraq and Iran were carried out by a drone strike over the accusation that Soleimani had previously killed thousands of peaceful Iranian protesters and the suspicion that he was planning an attack on four embassies in the Persian Gulf region.
While Iran saw the elimination of one of its finest military officers as an act of war and, therefore, swore to retaliate, their equally angry Iraqi counterparts, fearing that Iraq would naturally become the theatre of any military confrontation between the two muscle-flexing nations, demanded that the US withdraws its forces from their land.
Iran made good its threat on Tuesday by firing more than 15 missiles at US military bases inside Iraq, despite the United Nations’ and other sovereign calls for the exercise of restraint by both sides. Iran’s action came after its parliament placed a bounty on Mr. Trump and unanimously designated the US Army and its defence chiefs at the Pentagon as terrorist entities.
Trump who had earlier threatened to hit 52 Iranian targets, including cultural sites, in the event of an Iranian reprisal, scaled down his threat with the claim that the Iranian missiles did not cause any collateral damage, after all. But analysts think that his capitulation may have resulted from international condemnations by those who feared that his Iranian targets could include UN-designated World Heritage Sites.
He would rather tighten the sanctions noose on Teheran while calling on his compatriots in the Middle East to leave the region immediately. US ships and airliners were also advised to steer clear of the region.
The implication of all this is that Trump, who recently boasted that the US was now less dependent on foreign crude oil and, as such, didn’t need to station so many troops abroad is now being forced to consign more American soldiers and equipment to Iraq.
Also, many gainfully employed US citizens in the Middle East will now have to suffer the inconvenience of having to abandon such jobs and hastily relocate with their families in response to their President’s recent directive.
Again, back in the US homeland, travelling Iranian-Americans are said to have come under demeaning security scrutiny, particularly by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officials.
Elsewhere, there is this growing apprehension that any further escalation of the crisis may result to yet another world war.
Iran is known to have the largest population of Shia Muslims in the world. And, as such, anything affecting the country is very likely to resonate in places with sizeable Shia populations across the globe. Apparently thinking in this direction, the Nigerian government was reported to have beefed up security, especially at the US and Israeli Embassies and Consulates in the country.
The Tide joins the UN and other peace-loving countries to demand a de-escalation of hostilities between the US and Iran while efforts should be stepped up toward exploring an enduring diplomatic solution to any sticking issues. Already, the current crisis has led to the loss of about 56 lives during a stampede at Soleimani’s funeral. This was quickly followed by the 176 victims of a Ukrainian airliner which crashed immediately after take-off from Teheran airport on Wednesday. After initial denials, an Iranian military outfit has finally admitted responsibility for the tragedy, blaming it on human error. This has prompted a massive anti-government demonstration in the nation’s capital.
As a region with the world’s highest reserve of hydrocarbons, situations in the Middle East often act to influence the global price of petroleum. Nigeria’s economy, being highly dependent on revenue from the sale of this product, remains pitiably vulnerable.
Just as we fear that the current US-Iran crisis may embolden Iran to revive its secret uranium- enrichment programme, we can only pray and hope that the situation does not escalate as to claim more human lives and hurt global oil and gas prices any further.

Editorial

A Fair Wage for Difficult Times

Published

3 weeks ago

July 3, 2026

The Tide

The latest demand by the Federal Workers Forum (FWF) for an upward review of the national minimum wage from N70,000 to N300,000 should not be dismissed as another routine labour agitation. Rather, it should be seen as a reflection of the deep economic pain confronting millions of Nigerian workers whose purchasing power has been severely eroded by inflation, rising living costs, and a struggling economy. Whether or not the figure being demanded is attainable, the message behind it cannot be ignored.

The decision of the Forum to proceed with a nationwide protest also underscores the growing frustration among federal workers who believe that repeated appeals have produced little meaningful action. Their complaints over unpaid entitlements, wage awards, promotion arrears, and other outstanding benefits deserve prompt attention from the authorities. A government that expects dedication and productivity from its workforce must also fulfil its obligations to them.

It is significant that the Chief of Staff to the President recently acknowledged that federal workers are poorly remunerated. Such an admission is welcome because it confirms what workers have consistently argued for years. However, acknowledgement alone is insufficient. Nigerians expect practical measures that will improve workers’ welfare rather than statements that only recognise the obvious.

The economic realities confronting workers are doubtlessly harsh. Food prices have climbed beyond the reach of many families, transportation costs have risen sharply, rents continue to increase, and the cost of healthcare and education has become unbearable for many households. Salaries that appeared modest a few years ago have become grossly inadequate in today’s economic environment.

Compounding the hardship is the persistent challenge of insecurity across the country. Many workers travel daily under difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions to earn incomes that barely sustain their families. The emotional and financial burden of this situation has created widespread frustration and anxiety, contributing to the tense atmosphere that now pervades the nation.

Against this background, the call for a living wage is both reasonable and urgent. The purpose of a minimum wage is not just to keep workers employed but to enable them to live with dignity. When full-time workers cannot adequately feed their families, pay school fees, access healthcare, or meet basic living expenses, it becomes clear that existing wage structures require serious review.

The Federal Government should, therefore, approach this matter with the seriousness it deserves. It should immediately commence purposeful discussions with organised labour and representatives of the Federal Workers Forum to examine realistic options for improving workers’ welfare. Delaying action or relying on promises will only deepen public dissatisfaction and erode confidence in the government.

Equally important is the need for the government to honour existing commitments. Reports of outstanding wage awards, unpaid allowances, and promotion arrears should be independently verified and settled without unnecessary delay. Keeping faith with agreements already reached would demonstrate sincerity and rebuild trust between the authorities and their employees.

That said, the workers must also appreciate the importance of sustained dialogue. While peaceful protest remains a constitutional right, industrial disputes are more productively resolved through negotiation than confrontation. Every effort should be made to avoid actions capable of disrupting essential public services or escalating national tension.

The leadership of organised labour also has a crucial role to play. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) must rise and provide united, responsible, and strategic leadership. Workers need strong representation that combines firmness with wisdom and places national interest alongside legitimate labour demands.

There is no doubt that the government faces enormous fiscal challenges. Declining revenues, mounting debt obligations, and competing development needs make public finance increasingly difficult. Nevertheless, these realities cannot become excuses for allowing civil servants to sink deeper into poverty. Sound economic management must ultimately translate into improved living conditions for citizens.

In truth, paying workers a fair and sustainable wage is not only a social obligation; it is an economic necessity. Better-paid workers stimulate consumer spending, enhance productivity, reduce corruption arising from financial desperation, and contribute to greater national stability. Investment in workers is an investment in economic growth.

Nigeria can ill afford another prolonged confrontation between government and labour at a time when insecurity, inflation, and public discontent already threaten social cohesion. Both sides should exercise restraint, avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and demonstrate genuine commitment to finding common ground. Nigerians expect solutions, not endless disputes.

The message from the current agitation is unmistakable. The Federal Government must heed the legitimate demands of workers by urgently pursuing a new living wage that reflects present economic realities and restores hope to millions of households. At the same time, workers should keep engaging the government through peaceful dialogue, mutual respect, and responsible negotiation. At this critical moment in our country’s history, compromise, compassion, and decisive leadership offer the surest path to industrial harmony and national progress.

Editorial

Getting State Police Right

Published

3 weeks ago

June 29, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria appears closer than ever to embracing state police, a transformative reform that has dominated national security discourse for years. Such a move, however, requires constitutional amendment to eliminate existing legal obstacles. The National Assembly deserves commendation for expediting work on the necessary legislation to amend Section 214 of the 1999 Constitution, which currently provides for a single, centralised national police force. Having secured passage in both chambers, the amendment bills should now be transmitted without delay to the state Houses of Assembly for prompt consideration.

The urgency of this reform is indisputable. Nigeria has been grappling with terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence, and organised crime, all of which have overstretched the existing security architecture. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Nigerians paid an estimated N2.23 trillion in ransom between May 2023 and April 2024, while about 51.9 million crime incidents affected households during the same period. These disturbing figures underline the necessity of strengthening policing through a more pragmatic and responsive system.

State police could remarkably complement the efforts of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), bringing law enforcement closer to local communities. Officers recruited from within their areas are often better acquainted with the terrain, languages, and cultural dynamics that shape criminal activity. Such local knowledge could produce a more perspicacious approach to crime prevention, intelligence gathering, and rapid emergency response.

Critics rightly fear that state police could become instruments of political persecution if left unchecked. Unscrupulous governors may be tempted to intimidate opponents, suppress dissent, or influence elections through the misuse of security agencies. Any constitutional amendment must, therefore, establish firm precautions that guarantee operational independence and prevent such capricious abuse of authority.

Another serious concern is finance. Running a modern police organisation requires sustained investment in personnel, equipment, technology, training, and welfare. Many states already struggle to pay salaries and pensions promptly. Without reliable funding, state police could deteriorate into poorly equipped institutions that weaken rather than strengthen public safety. Fiscal prudence must accompany political ambition.

Nigeria’s ethnic and religious diversity also demands careful reflection. Minority communities in several states have legitimate concerns that locally controlled police could be manipulated against them during periods of political or communal tension. Recruitment based on ethnicity, family ties, or political loyalty would further undermine professionalism. Only transparent procedures founded on merit can cultivate an equitable policing culture.

Equally important is the need for a comprehensive legal framework to regulate state police operations. Clear provisions are required to define jurisdiction, disciplinary procedures, civilian complaints, accountability mechanisms, and the limits of operational authority. Without such legal clarity, disputes and uncertainty could quickly overwhelm the new institutions.

The relationship between state police and the Nigeria Police Force also deserves meticulous attention. Cross-border crimes, insurgency, and organised criminal networks rarely respect state boundaries. Unless command structures, operational responsibilities, and emergency coordination are carefully defined, jurisdictional rivalry could produce dangerous ambiguity at critical moments.

A fragmented security system presents another risk. Thirty-six separate police commands operating under different priorities and standards may complicate coordinated national responses to terrorism, banditry, and other transnational threats. Intelligence sharing between federal and state agencies must be seamless, timely, and cohesive, leaving no room for avoidable security gaps.

Human rights protection should occupy a central place in the reform agenda. Nigeria’s experience during the #EndSARS protests exposed deep concerns about police brutality, impunity, and excessive force. Establishing additional police formations may merely multiply opportunities for abuse. Independent complaint commissions, judicial oversight, and regular human rights training are indispensable guarantees.

Political transitions pose another challenge. Changes in state administrations should never trigger wholesale dismissals of police leadership or politically motivated appointments. Professional continuity, rather than partisan loyalty, must define career progression. Uniform training standards, ethical codes, and promotion procedures will help preserve the integrity of the institution regardless of who occupies government office.

History also offers a critical lesson. Nigeria operated regional police forces before 1966, but their widespread political misuse contributed to their eventual abolition. That experience should not automatically condemn present reforms, yet neither should it be ignored. Policymakers must undertake a judicious assessment of past failures and design institutions capable of preventing their recurrence.

Ultimately, state police represent an opportunity to strengthen security, but only if reform is pursued with wisdom rather than haste. Constitutional amendment alone will not guarantee success. Strong oversight institutions, transparent recruitment, sustainable funding, effective intelligence sharing, respect for human rights, and genuine accountability must accompany decentralisation. If these essential conditions are fulfilled, state police could become a valuable pillar of national security instead of another source of instability.

Editorial

June 12: The Faltering Democratic Journey

Published

1 month ago

June 12, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria today marks Democracy Day, an occasion set aside to celebrate the country’s democratic journey and reflect on the sacrifices made by citizens in the struggle for representative government. The day is both a celebration and a reminder that democracy is not merely about periodic elections. It is also about freedom, justice, accountability, security, and the welfare of the people.

June 12 occupies a special place in Nigeria’s political history because it commemorates the presidential election of June 12, 1993, widely regarded as the freest, fairest, and most credible election ever conducted in the country. The election was won by late Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, but the military government of General Ibrahim Babangida annulled the results, plunging the nation into political turmoil and a prolonged struggle for democratic rule.

For many years, Nigeria celebrated Democracy Day on May 29 because that was the date when military rule ended and power was handed over to a democratically elected government in 1999. However, in 2018, the administration of late President Muhammadu Buhari officially moved Democracy Day from May 29 to June 12. The change was intended to honour the sacrifices of those who fought against military dictatorship and to recognise the importance of the annulled 1993 election.

More than two decades after the return to civilian rule, Nigeria’s democratic record presents a mixture of progress and disappointment. The country has maintained uninterrupted civilian government since 1999, making it the longest democratic period in its post-independence history. Yet, the quality of governance and democratic institutions remains a matter of concern.

On political rights, Nigeria has made modest gains. Citizens have the constitutional right to vote and contest elections, and political parties operate freely. However, concerns have always been about voter apathy, political violence, and the influence of money in politics. In the 2023 general election, fewer than 30 per cent of registered voters cast their ballots, highlighting declining public confidence in the electoral process.

Civil liberties have improved compared with the military era, but challenges persist. Citizens enjoy greater freedom to express opinions, organise groups, and participate in public debates. Nevertheless, reports of unlawful arrests, harassment of activists, and restrictions on peaceful protests raise questions about the full protection of civil freedoms.

Electoral integrity has shown some improvement through the deployment of technology by the Independent National Electoral Commission. Yet disputes over election management, vote buying, rigging, logistical failures, and prolonged litigation undermine public trust. Many Nigerians still believe electoral reforms have not gone far enough to guarantee completely transparent elections.

Freedom of expression and association are relatively vibrant. Traditional and social media platforms provide citizens with avenues to criticise government policies and mobilise public opinion. However, journalists, activists, and media organisations occasionally face intimidation, legal pressures, and threats that create concerns about press freedom and democratic openness.

Security is one of Nigeria’s weakest democratic indicators. Insurgency in the North East, banditry in the North West, farmer-herder conflicts in parts of the Middle Belt, separatist tensions in the South-East, and widespread kidnapping have created a climate of fear. Thousands of lives have been lost in violent attacks over the past decade, while many communities live under constant security threats.

The rule of law and judicial independence present a mixed picture. Nigerian courts have delivered landmark judgments that have strengthened democracy and resolved electoral disputes peacefully. Yet allegations of political interference, delays in the justice system, and concerns over selective application of the law affect public confidence in the judiciary.

Protection of individual rights and checks on executive power are among areas requiring improvement. Although constitutional safeguards exist, enforcement is often inconsistent. Institutions responsible for oversight, including the legislature and anti-corruption agencies, sometimes face accusations of weakness or partisanship. Strong democratic systems require institutions that can operate independently of political influence.

On accountability and transparency, Nigeria has made some progress through public procurement reforms, digital financial systems, and increased access to information. Yet corruption remains a major obstacle. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has consistently ranked Nigeria among countries facing serious corruption challenges. The misuse of public resources undermines development and public trust.

Citizen participation in governance has expanded through civil society organisations, community groups, and digital engagement. However, many citizens still feel disconnected from decision-making processes. Economically, democracy has not delivered the level of prosperity many expected. Despite being Africa’s most populous nation, Nigeria has been struggling with high inflation, unemployment, poverty, and a rising cost of living. Effective and responsive government remains a challenge as many Nigerians demand better public services, infrastructure, healthcare, and education.

As Nigeria marks Democracy Day, the path forward is clear. Electoral reforms must be strengthened to improve transparency and public confidence. Security agencies must be better equipped and held accountable. Judicial independence should be protected, while anti-corruption institutions must be empowered to act without fear or favour. Governments at all levels should embrace transparency, respect human rights, and prioritise economic policies that create jobs and improve living standards.

Above all, citizens must actively engage in governance. Democracy flourishes not only through elections but also through continuous participation, vigilance, and accountability. The promise of June 12 will be fully realised only when democratic governance delivers freedom, justice, security, and prosperity to all Nigerians.