Editorial

Learning From Kenya’s Protests

Published

1 year ago

July 26, 2024

In an effort to consolidate the fiscal framework and strengthen Kenya’s economy, President William Ruto introduced a controversial bill laden with punitive taxes. This bill targets essential commodities, inflating the cost of living through increased fuel prices, imposing additional duties on exports, and controversially taxing sanitary pads, a move that is antithetical to gender equity. This legislative measure, intended as an economic panacea, instead thrusts the dagger deeper into the vitals of an economy already reeling from decadent living standards and systemic inequality.
The incremental taxes included in the bill are in line with Keynesian economic principles, where government intervention is required to regulate economic activity. However, such intervention is intended to be facilitative, not oppressive. In the case of Kenya, the controversial taxes would have reverberated through the socioeconomic strata, exacerbating unemployment, increasing inflation, and squeezing the already meagre incomes of the working class.
In the face of these oppressive measures, the streets have become a place where Kenyans are strongly protesting against the oppressive actions of the government. The youth, who represent the future of the country, are passionately exercising their democratic right to protest against the injustice they face. This is not just a reaction to economic troubles, but a powerful statement of their fundamental right to live with dignity and free from poverty.
Following weeks of peaceful demonstrations against the proposed legislation, protesters rampaged through the parliament in Nairobi. Subsequently, Ruto authorised the deployment of both police and military forces to suppress the unrest. Regrettably, it has been reported that 13 protesters were killed and many others injured by the police. Such excessive force against civilians is completely unjustifiable. Rather than engaging in finger-pointing, the security officials responsible should face appropriate sanctions.
In 2022, the Ruto’s administration emerged victorious in the general elections in Kenya, coming into power with a commitment to enhance the living standards of the underprivileged and improve the overall conditions of millions of citizens. Notwithstanding the initial promises made during the election campaigns, the government faced the stark challenges of limited financial resources, considerable debts, and the consequent inability to promptly execute its promised agenda.
Undoubtedly, the sombre economic conditions compelled the government to implement the financial bill last year, introducing a housing tax and elevating the top personal income tax rate. This action incited dissatisfaction among substantial portions of the population, leading to public displays of outrage, street demonstrations, and in some cases, legal challenges against the government’s policies.
This bill that caused a lot of public demonstrations and unrest may suggest that Kenya’s political system is not properly representing and including all groups in society. This also raises questions about the role of parliament in making sure proposed laws are thoroughly discussed and debated, to prevent protests from turning violent. However, attacking the seat of legislative power does not help the cause of protestations. Instead, it undermines the very structures that allow people to participate in the political process and seek change.
Despite the withdrawal of the bill by Ruto and his accusation towards security forces for inaccurate intelligence, the protests have continued without pause. This situation highlights the lack of genuine democratic principles in Africa. The crisis is primarily related to the economy, as the government, with a GDP of $113.4 billion and a population of 54.03 million, has acknowledged being in debt and facing financial constraints. To address its $78 billion debt, the government contemplated raising taxes.
The government said the country would have a $31.1 billion budget deficit if it cancelled the planned tax increase. This is made worse by the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) recommendation that the country should expand the number of people and businesses that pay taxes; improve how well people and businesses pay their taxes and have a stricter financial policy to reduce the country’s debt problems. Similar to numerous African nations, Kenya is closely connected to the IMF.
Regrettably, many African leaders exhibit poor management of their nation’s economies, resulting in appalling hardships for the populace. The citizens are left to bear the consequences of their irresponsible handling of both domestic and international loans. It is necessary that African citizens exercise their voting power to remove ineffective and incompetent governments from office.
Nigeria has faced challenges due to past IMF advisories, like the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in the 1990s. The actions taken based on IMF recommendations, such as removal of petrol subsidy and floating of the naira, have harmed the economy and led to negative impacts like job losses and poverty. African leaders should give priority to implementing locally-developed policies to drive economic growth rather than relying on external financial agencies like the IMF and World Bank.
Regardless of President Ruto’s concession, some protesters still insist on continuing demonstrations until the government collapses. This would be unwise as it could lead to a disproportionate use of force, escalating tensions and potential fatalities. Protesters should avoid creating conditions for anti-democratic forces to disrupt the democratic system that allows citizens to peacefully demonstrate. In a democratic society, political change can be sought through the ballot box in the next elections.

Editorial

Charge Before New Rivers Council Helmsmen

Published

12 hours 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.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

7 days 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.