Editorial

Averting Third World War

Published

3 years ago

October 11, 2022

President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of parts of Russian-occupied Ukraine, after sham referendums there,
is at least as dangerous a moment in the war as the marathon televised spectacle that prefaced Russia’s invasion in February this year. Russia annexed four regions of Ukraine, namely; Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Together with Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, Russia now claims 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory.
With the invasion in February, Russia planned to quickly behead Kyiv’s political leaders, seize large swathes of territory, and exert influence over Ukraine, perhaps, leaving some troops there. Ukraine’s dogged resistance culminating in the lightning recapture of territories in the Kharkiv region has put the Kremlin on the back foot, compelling it to surge forward willy-nilly with what has ensued as its plan B.
Days earlier, Putin had warned Ukraine and the international community: “When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened … we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” adding, “it’s not a bluff.” The World should not squeeze at the implied nuclear weapons blackmail, but continue to push back at Putin’s megalomania. His strategy is no surprise, given his history of occupying and claiming for Russia territories that do not belong to it.
Many world leaders and security experts see the annexation and the threats to use nuclear weapons as acts of desperation. The myth of the unstoppable Russian army vanished on the battlefield. Putin and his generals, and even Western security experts, had expected Russian forces to defeat Ukraine within a month, but the conflict has stretched into eight months and the invaders have suffered humiliating reversals.
Putin is disadvantaged. His carefully cultivated image of masculinity as a winner and strategist has been tarnished both domestically and internationally. Desperate, armed with the world’s second-largest military, and the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and without effective institutional rail guards in the country, Putin is a dangerous cannon.
His latest tactic is to create a pretext for a full-scale mobilisation of the Russian people, rallying them to defend an imaginary invasion of Russia when Ukraine attacks invaders and pro-Russian rebels in the “annexed” areas. Using the same “defend the motherland” logic, he says the use of nuclear weapons is legal.
The vacuousness of annexation is evident on the ground. With Moscow formalising incorporation, Zaporizhzhia’s provincial capital and more than 40 per cent of Donetsk are under the control of Ukraine’s intrepid army, which has been reclaiming occupied territories. Unable to subdue Ukraine by conventional force, he is wielding the nuclear option.
But the United States National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has warned of “catastrophic consequences for Russia” if it crosses that red line, emphasising that the United States “will respond decisively.” “World peace is in jeopardy,” stated the European Union’s Head of Foreign Policy, Josep Borrel. “Threatening with nuclear weapons is unacceptable and a real danger to all.” This unassailable fact is underlined by the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Use of Nuclear Weapons, a legally binding instrument of the world body.
Ironically, Russia chairs the Security Council, the United Nations-mandated body for peace, just as many see it as the biggest threat to peace. Ukrainian Ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya even suggested removing Russia from the Security Council. But will this happen? That would require a vote of the United Nations General Assembly based on the recommendation of the Security Council. This has never been done. And given that Russia has a veto on the Security Council, the Council cannot recommend Russia’s removal without its approval.
The dictator clarified that his military was in Ukraine, but his war was against the post-Soviet global order as a whole, and he could not accept a world dominated by the United States and European allies, describing his crusades as one of “anti-colonialism”. It is ludicrous to imagine a figure like Putin building a better world. This language, as well as the madman’s recent dark warning that threats of nuclear retaliation were “not a bluff,” should worry us all.
Putin knows the power of spectacle, but he also knows it is not enough. Not a week after his annexation choreography, Ukrainian forces further routed his troops in the very areas Russian forces were supposed to now fully control. The attempt to draft men to replenish his dwindling forces is going terribly, with hundreds of thousands having fled already. Putin is running out of options, except for the most drastic one – the lever he can pull when all else fails.
Unfortunately, the unprecedented combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions, and exclusion from major international sporting events, has yet to produce the expected deterrent effect but has exacerbated economic problems for Russians and the rest of the world. Under the current circumstances, the international community has few options besides the potentially lethal path signalled by the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and European Union (EU) allies.
China can help intervene in Putin’s war against Ukraine. As the only country that still has leverage over Russia, it can do so by engaging constructively with belligerents and by avoiding overt support for Moscow’s military adventurism. President Xi Jinping and the ruling Communist Party need to look beyond their ongoing rivalry with the United States and NATO and their preoccupation with China’s geostrategic calculations, especially unification with Taiwan and control of the South China Sea.
No one will be free from nuclear war; once hostilities escalate beyond Ukraine, its course and outcome will be unpredictable. It is therefore crucial now to cut off Putin’s power. That means supporting Russians’ rejection of his corrupt leadership. He can always fight the outside powers he feels besieged by, but he cannot survive a collapse in his domestic authority. The Russian dictator should be persuaded not to use Russia’s nuclear stockpile of nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads.
This war must end. The West should intensify sanctions. China, recognising its role in the global economy, its slowing growth and long-term interests, should get rid of Putin to complete his isolation and impel him to withdraw. The United States, NATO, and the European Union should continue to support Ukraine, resist and work with the United Nations to seek a quick solution through enhanced tact.

Editorial

Making Rivers’ Seaports Work

Published

3 days ago

October 17, 2025

The Tide

When Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, received the Board and Management of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), led by its Chairman, Senator Adeyeye Adedayo Clement, his message was unmistakable: Rivers’ seaports remain underutilised, and Nigeria is poorer for it. The governor’s lament was a sad reminder of how neglect and centralisation continue to choke the nation’s economic arteries.
The governor, in his remarks at Government House, Port Harcourt, expressed concern that the twin seaports — the NPA in Port Harcourt and the Onne Seaport — have not been operating at their full potential. He underscored that seaports are vital engines of national development, pointing out that no prosperous nation thrives without efficient ports and airports. His position aligns with global realities that maritime trade remains the backbone of industrial expansion and international commerce.
Indeed, the case of Rivers State is peculiar. It hosts two major ports strategically located along the Bonny River axis, yet cargo throughput has remained dismally low compared to Lagos. According to NPA’s 2023 statistics, Lagos ports (Apapa and Tin Can Island) handled over 75 per cent of Nigeria’s container traffic, while Onne managed less than 10 per cent. Such a lopsided distribution is neither efficient nor sustainable.
Governor Fubara rightly observed that the full capacity operation of Onne Port would be transformative. The area’s vast land mass and industrial potential make it ideal for ancillary businesses — warehousing, logistics, ship repair, and manufacturing. A revitalised Onne would attract investors, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth, not only in Rivers State but across the Niger Delta.
The multiplier effect cannot be overstated. The port’s expansion would boost clearing and forwarding services, strengthen local transport networks, and revitalise the moribund manufacturing sector. It would also expand opportunities for youth employment — a pressing concern in a state where unemployment reportedly hovers around 32 per cent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Yet, the challenge lies not in capacity but in policy. For years, Nigeria’s maritime economy has been suffocated by excessive centralisation. Successive governments have prioritised Lagos at the expense of other viable ports, creating a traffic nightmare and logistical bottlenecks that cost importers and exporters billions annually. The governor’s call, therefore, is a plea for fairness and pragmatism.
Making Lagos the exclusive maritime gateway is counter productive. Congestion at Tin Can Island and Apapa has become legendary — ships often wait weeks to berth, while truck queues stretch for kilometres. The result is avoidable demurrage, product delays, and business frustration. A more decentralised port system would spread economic opportunities and reduce the burden on Lagos’ overstretched infrastructure.
Importers continue to face severe difficulties clearing goods in Lagos, with bureaucratic delays and poor road networks compounding their woes. The World Bank’s Doing Business Report estimates that Nigerian ports experience average clearance times of 20 days — compared to just 5 days in neighbouring Ghana. Such inefficiency undermines competitiveness and discourages foreign investment.
Worse still, goods transported from Lagos to other regions are often lost to accidents or criminal attacks along the nation’s perilous highways. Reports from the Federal Road Safety Corps indicate that over 5,000 road crashes involving heavy-duty trucks occurred in 2023, many en route from Lagos. By contrast, activating seaports in Rivers, Warri, and Calabar would shorten cargo routes and save lives.
The economic rationale is clear: making all seaports operational will create jobs, enhance trade efficiency, and boost national revenue. It will also help diversify economic activity away from the overburdened South West, spreading prosperity more evenly across the federation.
Decentralisation is both an economic strategy and an act of national renewal. When Onne, Warri, and Calabar ports operate optimally, hinterland states benefit through increased trade and infrastructure development. The federal purse, too, gains through taxes, duties, and improved productivity.
Tin Can Island, already bursting at the seams, exemplifies the perils of over-centralisation. Ships face berthing delays, containers stack up, and port users lose valuable hours navigating chaos. The result is higher operational costs and lower competitiveness. Allowing states like Rivers to fully harness their maritime assets would reverse this trend.
Compelling all importers to use Lagos ports is an anachronistic policy that stifles innovation and local enterprise. Nigeria cannot achieve its industrial ambitions by chaining its logistics system to one congested city. The path to prosperity lies in empowering every state to develop and utilise its natural advantages — and for Rivers, that means functional seaports.
Fubara’s call should not go unheeded. The Federal Government must embrace decentralisation as a strategic necessity for national growth. Making Rivers’ seaports work is not just about reviving dormant infrastructure; it is about unlocking the full maritime potential of a nation yearning for balance, productivity, and shared prosperity.

Editorial

Addressing The State Of Roads In PH

Published

2 weeks ago

October 6, 2025

The Tide

The current state of roads in Port Harcourt is nothing short of deplorable. Each passing day, commuters and residents are confronted with worsening conditions that threaten both livelihoods and safety. It is evident that the past six months of administrative inactivity left the city’s infrastructure unattended, a neglect that has now returned to haunt the state capital.

When the former sole administrator was in charge, the promise of good roads appeared to have been placed on hold. Little or nothing was done to repair or rehabilitate the crumbling road network. Port Harcourt residents bore the brunt of this neglect, enduring long hours in traffic, damaged vehicles, and endless frustration.

Now that Governor Siminalayi Fubara has returned to the saddle, urgent steps must be taken to mobilise contractors back to project sites. Abandoned road construction projects must not be allowed to wither into oblivion. The governor’s return should mark a revival of the momentum once witnessed when roads were given prominence in the development agenda.

But the issue is not simply about new construction. Maintenance remains an essential component of sustainable infrastructure. The Road Maintenance Agency, established by a previous administration, was designed as an interventionist outfit to address minor potholes before they degenerated into major hazards. Today, residents are left to wonder if that agency still exists. If it has become comatose, then the time has come to revive it.

The importance of roads in economic growth cannot be overstated. Smooth and accessible roads facilitate movement, reduce transport costs, and open up communities for trade. In a commercial hub like Port Harcourt, where businesses thrive on logistics, the lack of functional roadways translates directly into stifled productivity.

Equally troubling is the security dimension. Bad roads provide fertile ground for criminals to operate. Robbers and kidnappers exploit traffic gridlocks and broken stretches of road to target unsuspecting motorists. Repairing these roads is not just a matter of convenience but one of safety and protection of lives.

It is worth recalling that before the declaration of the emergency rule, Rivers State was experiencing a boom in road construction. That momentum, however, was abruptly truncated in the past six months. Roads that should have been nearing completion are now left in ruins, with residents left at the mercy of potholes and impassable stretches.

Governor Fubara should not be discouraged by the distractions of the emergency rule. He must, instead, pick up from where he stopped, breathing fresh life into stalled projects. More than ever, his resolve is needed to restore confidence in governance and demonstrate that promises made will indeed be promises kept.

Sadly, most of the roads today are in worse condition than they were before the emergency declaration. The problem is compounded by the peculiar geography of Rivers State. With Port Harcourt being a city that experiences heavy rainfall, flooding frequently worsens the challenges on the roads. Poor drainage leaves highways waterlogged, further eroding asphalt and inconveniencing commuters.

Specific areas demand urgent attention. The Ikwerre and NTA Roads, Elioparanwo Road, Rukpokwu Roundabout, Rumuokwuta Road and Airport Road are crying out for repairs. The potholes on these roads not only slow movement but also damage vehicles and expose pedestrians to danger. These black spots deserve priority action before they become completely impassable.

The identity of Port Harcourt as the “Garden City” is being eroded by these infrastructural failures. A city once renowned for its beauty risks descending into the unflattering tag of a “Garbage City”. Sadly, several abandoned construction sites have degenerated into refuse dumps. The St John’s/Ogbogoro Road stands as a shameful example of this neglect.

To make matters worse, residents have begun encroaching on areas designated for the Ring Road project. Such encroachments are a direct sabotage of development efforts. The authorities must rise to the occasion by protecting public infrastructure from illegal occupation and ensuring that earmarked sites serve their original purpose.

What the state requires now is a dual approach: prompt utilisation of earmarked construction areas and the simultaneous rehabilitation of existing roads riddled with potholes. Fubara must ensure that while new road projects are pursued, old roads do not completely collapse. Both efforts can and must go hand in hand.

Rivers people also deserve clarity on the status of the Road Maintenance Agency. If defunct, it should be reactivated without delay. Neglecting small potholes only leads to bigger, costlier problems in future. In line with his promise upon his return from suspension that “no loss is irretrievable”, the governor must retrieve every abandoned project and restore hope to weary residents.

Roads in Port Harcourt are the arteries through which the city breathes. Leaving them broken is to suffocate its economy, endanger its people, and tarnish its reputation. What is now required is decisive action—swift, consistent, and sustained.

Editorial

Charge Before New Rivers Council Helmsmen

Published

3 weeks ago

September 29, 2025

The Tide

On the 30th of August, Rivers people trooped out to participate in local government elections conducted across the state. These elections, which produced new chairmen and councillors for the 23 local government areas (LGAs), were organised by the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC). The exercise has ushered in a new crop of grassroots leaders whose shoulders now bear the responsibility of steering the affairs of their respective councils. With the polls concluded and winners duly announced, the time has come for the newly elected officials to roll up their sleeves and begin the hard work of governance.

According to the results declared by RSIEC, the All Progressives Congress (APC) secured a dominant lead, winning chairmanship seats in 20 of the 23 local government councils, while the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) clinched the remaining three. This outcome not only reflects the current political dynamics in the state but also places a significant weight of expectation on the shoulders of the APC-led councils to justify the confidence reposed in them by the electorate. It is imperative that political rhetoric now gives way to tangible development, especially at the grassroots level where government is felt most directly.

Following the elections, the successful chairmen were officially sworn into office by the former Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral (rtd) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas. The solemn ceremony marked a transition from campaign promises to the reality of public service. With their inauguration complete, the time for celebration has ended; the time for delivery has commenced. The electorate now awaits meaningful action that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the voting public.

As helmsmen of their various LGAs, these leaders must quickly settle down to work. Their constituents expect them to provide direction, formulate policies, and execute programmes that will uplift communities long neglected. The local government tier is closest to the people and, as such, must rise above politicking to meet the everyday needs of the citizenry. It is not enough to occupy office; they must make their impact visibly and positively felt across their domains.

The Supreme Court ruling mandating direct allocation of funds to local governments—although not yet fully implemented—is a welcome development that underscores the autonomy of the third tier of government. Once this is operationalised, the excuses often cited for underperformance will no longer hold water. With funds directly accessed from the Federation Account, council administrations will be better empowered to meet the developmental needs of their localities, if only they manage resources judiciously and prioritise the right projects.

The onus is now on the chairmen to contribute meaningfully to the broader development of Rivers State. The state government cannot and should not be expected to do everything. Local government councils have defined responsibilities—ranging from rural infrastructure, primary healthcare, and basic education to waste management and local security—that must be adequately addressed. It is high time they stopped passing the buck and started acting as the elected leaders they are.

We extend our congratulations to all who emerged victorious in the elections. However, with this victory comes great responsibility. It is no longer about party affiliations or electoral campaigns; it is about governance. The chairmen must launch people-centred projects that will genuinely improve the lives of the rural populace—projects in water supply, road maintenance, school renovation, and youth empowerment, among others. Let their tenure be remembered for its impact, not its slogans.

Central to their mandate should be the welfare of workers. Council employees form the engine room of local governance, and their morale significantly affects service delivery. The new chairmen must ensure regular payment of salaries, staff training, and a conducive working environment. Neglecting this vital aspect will only hinder whatever grand plans they may have for their LGAs.

It is also essential to institute a robust peer review mechanism. The new LG officials should not operate in isolation; rather, they should learn from one another, share ideas, and compete constructively in a bid to outperform each other in service delivery. Healthy competition among council areas will drive innovation and foster accelerated development. Such a system will also help the public identify high-performing councils for emulation.

Given the typically short tenure of council administrations, it is crucial that they focus on projects that are realistic and impactful. Time and resources should not be wasted on white elephant ventures that are neither sustainable nor beneficial to the people. Instead, chairmen should pursue programmes that match their timelines and address immediate community needs.

Peace and security must remain a cardinal objective for all council steersmen. Regardless of who facilitated their election or what political loyalties they hold, they must ensure peace reigns in their areas. Development cannot thrive in an atmosphere of tension and distrust. These leaders must work closely with traditional rulers, youth groups, and civil society organisations to maintain law and order.

A critical understanding must also prevail—that chairmen are leaders of the people, not just leaders of political parties. They must conduct themselves as impartial administrators serving all constituents, irrespective of political affiliations. Additionally, they must work harmoniously with the state governor, who remains the leader of the state. Petty rivalries and political infighting serve no purpose in the development agenda.

Now that the elections are over and governance has begun, it is essential for these chairmen and councillors to adopt an inclusive approach. They must carry everyone along—party members and opposition alike—in their development plans. Creating division or playing favourites will only fracture communities and stall progress. Leadership at the grassroots demands fairness, equity, and a listening ear.

Rivers people have played their part by coming out to vote. The baton has now been passed to the new council helmsmen. They must seize the opportunity to leave lasting legacies in their communities. History will not judge them by the number of rallies they held or the speeches they gave, but by the quality of life they brought to their people. Let them not squander this moment.