Editorial

Matawalle’s Call For Self-Defence

Published

3 years ago

July 6, 2022

Following the inability of the Nigerian security agencies to ensure the safety of lives and property of citizens and residents of Zamfara State against overwhelming killings, abduction for ransom and raiding of communities by bandits and terrorists, the governor, Bello Mohammed Matawalle, has decided to resort to self-help by encouraging the people of the state to take up arms and begin to defend themselves. This provoked mixed reactions among Nigerians.
While admitting that it is apprehensive about terrorism, the state government said the directive was part of its commitment “to ensure adequate security and protection of lives and property of the citizenry in the state”. Matawalle subsequently asked the Commissioner of Police to develop terms and conditions for the licensing of firearms to residents who were prepared to carry weapons to protect themselves. The military high command has, however, denounced the call.
The Chief of Defence Staff, Lt-General Leo Irabor, said it was appropriate for stakeholders to follow the rules and Constitution accordingly. “We do not take instruction from the state governments. We have a Commander-in-Chief. The constitution gives the right and powers to the C-in-C for the use of the Armed Forces, and I believe what we are doing in Zamfara State and across the states of the federation are not different from the provisions of the Constitution.
“We are there to give support to the civil authority in this case, the police. We are there to ensure that peace returns to Zamfara. The governor does not have the power to ask the Commissioner of Police to issue licences. I am yet to get the details but I do not think that is the right thing to do”, he was quoted to have said. The Defence Chief added that the Federal Government, through the Attorney General of the Federation, was charged with resolving the matter.
The directive not only denies the spirit of the social contract, but shows to what extent the crisis of insecurity in the country has become elusive. Before now, the state government had taken several steps including dialoguing with bandits, banning the use of motorcycles, shutting down petrol stations, markets, blocking phone and Internet services, suspending some traditional rulers suspected to have aided the bandits, including sending people to Saudi Arabia to hold prayers, among other measures.
These steps have failed to address superfluous killings, hence, this latest despairing action to arm citizens who are called upon to be answerable for their safety. Assuming without conceding that this call is apposite in the circumstances, do the citizens have the means to procure multifaceted weapons that can correspond with those handled by the bandits? Perhaps, in frustration, the Zamfara government has deemed that calling people to arm themselves for self-defence is the last resort.
Matawalle was not the first governor who advocated self-defence. Before him, the sullen Governor Aminu Bello Masari, whose state, Katsina, is also in the eye of the storm, made a comparable call after he bargained and extended amnesty to bandits that later infringed on their promise to lay down arms. Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom, also called on his citizens to arm themselves as part of efforts to rein in banditry in his state. Moreover, Lt-General Theophilus Danjuma made a similar appeal to his Taraba State citizens to take up arms and stand up for themselves against killer-herdsmen.
What is unusual is that Matawalle went one step further by requesting firearms licences to be authorised. Once people comply with this request, there will be a great circulation of small and light weapons with all the aftermath, including the possibility of an anarchic situation. We recognise that the state government has a dilemma. But then, the governor of Zamfara, like some of his colleagues who have issued similar appeals, must fathom that the distress signal is a reflection of a collapse of governance.
This is an unwholesome development that is pointing more and more to a failed state. While the Zamfara State governor’s counsel to citizens of the state to bear arms could be looked upon as a recipe for mayhem, does he have an alternative course of action in the face of the Federal Government’s atrocious flop to secure lives and properties? It must be a serious situation for the governor. But if people are allowed to carry weapons, terrorists could pass themselves off as citizens to get permits. What does the government intend to do about this?
Although Section 33 (2) of the 1999 Constitution allows citizens to defend themselves, the Zamfara situation signals a terrible omen for residents and Nigerians in its entirety. The Firearms Act (2004) provides procedures for citizens who wish to carry firearms. Permits for the use of personal firearms may only be issued by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP). The IGP is to issue such licences upon the principles decided by the President. He can also delegate this power to Commissioners of Police.
Egregiously, the Federal Government’s failure to protect citizens leaves the public with only one choice: to defend themselves. After all, self-preservation is nature’s first rule. Our fear, however, is that we may have finally arrived at the gates of the Hobbesian “state of nature” where human life is “solitary, poor, wicked, brutal and short”. Terrorists who kill, kidnap and occupy people’s land have unconstrained control because this government is not doing enough to keep people safe.
The premonitory signs of the failures of the Nigerian state luxuriate and are conspicuous all over the place. It is usually easier to ask people to arm themselves than to retrieve the projectiles when anarchy boils over. Even if guns in the hands of the common people ultimately result in the trouncing of the terrorists, it might also lead to the emanation of warriors who could divide the space among themselves, as was encountered in Somalia.
It is a severe denouncement of the Federal Government that some heads of subnational governments, out of resentment, are contemplating self-help as an attainable alternative to secure lives and properties within their jurisdictions. This represents a precarious signal for citizens and the global community. The Federal Government has to step up. Undoubtedly, the security situation in the country is tremendous, and it can only get worse unless germane actions, supported by essential political will, are brought to bear on the jeopardy to curb the increasing wave.

Editorial

Rivers’ Retirees: Matters Arising

Published

6 days 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

3 weeks 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.

Editorial

Addressing Unruly Behaviours At The Airports

Published

4 weeks ago

August 18, 2025

The Tide

It began as a seemingly minor in- flight disagreement. Comfort Emmason, a passenger on an Ibom Air flight from Uyo to Lagos, reportedly failed to switch off her mobile phone when instructed by the cabin crew. What should have been a routine enforcement of safety regulations spiralled into a physical confrontation, sparking a national debate on the limits of airline authority and the rights of passengers.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) wasted no time in condemning the treatment meted out to Emmason. In a strongly worded statement, the body described the incident as “a flagrant violation of her fundamental human rights” and called for a thorough investigation into the conduct of the airline staff. The NBA stressed that while passengers must adhere to safety rules, such compliance should never be extracted through intimidation, violence, or humiliation.

Following the altercation, Emmason found herself arraigned before a Magistrate’s Court and remanded at Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison, a location more commonly associated with hardened criminals than with errant passengers. In a surprising turn of events, the Federal Government later dropped all charges against her, citing “overriding public interest” and concerns about due process.

Compounding her woes, Ibom Air initially imposed a lifetime ban preventing her from boarding its aircraft. That ban has now been lifted, following mounting public pressure and calls from rights groups for a more measured approach. The reversal has been welcomed by many as a step towards restoring fairness and proportionality in handling such disputes.

While her refusal to comply with crew instructions was undeniably inappropriate, questions linger about whether the punishment fit the offence. Was the swift escalation from verbal reminder to physical ejection a proportionate response, or an abuse of authority? The incident has reignited debate over how airlines balance safety enforcement with respect for passenger rights.

The Tide unequivocally condemns the brutal and degrading treatment the young Nigerian woman received from the airline’s staff. No regulation, however vital, justifies the use of physical force or the public shaming of a passenger. Such behaviour is antithetical to the principles of customer service, human dignity, and the rule of law.

Emmason’s own defiance warrants reproach. Cabin crew instructions, especially during boarding or take-off preparations, are not mere suggestions; they are safety mandates. Reports suggest she may have been unable to comply because of a malfunctioning power button on her device, but even so, she could have communicated this clearly to the crew. Rules exist to safeguard everyone on board, and passengers must treat them with due seriousness.

Nigerians, whether flying domestically or abroad, would do well to internalise the importance of orderliness in public spaces. Adherence to instructions, patience in queues, and courteous engagement with officials are hallmarks of civilised society. Disregard for these norms not only undermines safety but also projects a damaging image of the nation to the wider world.

The Emmason affair is not an isolated case. Former Edo State Governor and current Senator, Adams Oshiomhole, once found himself grounded after arriving late for an Air Peace flight. Witnesses alleged that he assaulted airline staff and ordered the closure of the terminal’s main entrance. This is hardly the conduct expected of a statesman.

More recently, a Nollywood-worthy episode unfolded at Abuja’s Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, involving Fuji icon “King”, Wasiu Ayinde Marshal, popularly known as KWAM1. In a viral video, he was seen exchanging heated words with officials after being prevented from boarding an aircraft.

Events took a dangerous turn when the aircraft, moving at near take-off speed, nearly clipped the 68-year-old musician’s head with its wing. Such an occurrence points to a serious breach of airport safety protocols, raising uncomfortable questions about operational discipline at Nigeria’s gateways.

According to accounts circulating online, Wasiu had attempted to board an aircraft while he was carrying an alcoholic drink and refused to relinquish it when challenged. His refusal led to de-boarding, after which the Aviation Minister, Festus Keyamo, imposed a six-month “no-fly” ban, citing “unacceptable” conduct.

It is deeply concerning that individuals of such prominence, including Emmason’s pilot adversary, whose careers have exposed them to some of the most disciplined aviation environments in the world, should exhibit conduct that diminishes the nation’s reputation. True leadership, whether in politics, culture, or professional life, calls for restraint and decorum, all the more when exercised under public scrutiny.

Most egregiously, in Emmason’s case, reports that she was forcibly stripped in public and filmed for online circulation are deeply disturbing. This was an act of humiliation and a gross invasion of privacy, violating her right to dignity and falling short of the standards expected in modern aviation. No person, regardless of the circumstances, should be subjected to such degrading treatment.

Ibom Air must ensure its staff are trained to treat passengers with proper decorum at all times. If Emmason had broken the law, security personnel could have been called in to handle the matter lawfully. Instead, her ordeal turned into a public spectacle. Those responsible for assaulting her should face prosecution, and the airline should be compelled to compensate her. Emmason, for her part, should pursue legal redress to reinforce the principle that justice and civility must prevail in Nigeria’s skies.