Opinion

Politicians’ Salary Review : A Misplaced Priority

Published

1 year ago

August 1, 2025

Quote:” ...the clamour for salary increases for political office holders appears not just misplaced, but morally indefensible. The national minimum wage is a paltry ?70,000 per month—barely enough to sustain a modest family for a week.”

Few days ago, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) hinted at plans to review the salaries of political, public, and judicial office holders in Nigeria. The Commission, which is constitutionally empowered to determine the remuneration of these categories of officials, through its chairman, Mr. Mohammed Usman, argued that the current pay structure of these people is “inadequate, unrealistic, and outdated” given rising responsibilities and economic challenges. While the Commission’s mandate is clear, the timing and reasoning for the salary raise are troubling. In the face of widespread poverty, mass unemployment, and an ever-widening gap between the ruling class and ordinary Nigerians, the proposition to review politicians’ salaries upward is not only insensitive but also counterproductive.

The country is currently battling a serious economic challenge. Inflation continues to erode the value of incomes, with food inflation alone crossing record highs. Millions of households are struggling to afford basic necessities, and the poverty index shows that a significant percentage of the citizens live below the internationally recognised poverty line. The removal of fuel subsidies, rising energy tariffs, and a volatile foreign exchange regime have all conspired to make life unbearable for the average Nigerian. Against this backdrop, the clamour for salary increases for political office holders appears not just misplaced, but morally indefensible. The national minimum wage is a paltry ?70,000 per month—barely enough to sustain a modest family for a week.

Even more concerning is that several states remain unable or unwilling to pay this wage consistently, leaving workers in prolonged hardship, pensioners are owed arrears; teachers and health workers embark on strikes due to unpaid salaries. For about four month this year, primary school teachers in the six area councils of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, were on strike because the council chairmen failed to implement the N70,000 minimum wage. Yet, the political class enjoys allowances, estacodes, duty tours, and other hidden benefits that far outweigh their basic salaries.To describe the current remuneration of political office holders as “inadequate” is to ignore the mountain of privileges that accompany public office in Nigeria. These officials do not merely receive salaries; they benefit from a vast array of allowances—housing, transport, wardrobe, entertainment, and hardship allowances, among others.

They are provided with official residences, security details, medical care abroad, and fleets of vehicles maintained at public expense. Lawmakers collect what has been controversially described as “constituency allowances,” while governors and ministers maintain access to opaque security votes running into billions. As an official of the Nigeria Labour Congress stated, the real problem is not the official salary figures but the allowances and perks of office that remain hidden from public view. “The President’s salary may be about N1.5m a month, but when allowances are added, the total package can exceed N100 million”, he disclosed. The truth, therefore, is that our political office holders do not suffer financial inadequacy. Instead, they live in conditions far removed from the everyday realities of the citizens they claim to serve. It is unsurprising that Nigeria consistently ranks among the countries with the highest cost of governance in the world.

In 2020, the World Bank estimated that recurrent expenditure on salaries, allowances, and administrative costs accounted for more than 70 percent of Nigeria’s federal budget, leaving a fraction for capital development. At the heart of this debate lies the issue of social and economic inequality. Political leaders, who are already among the best remunerated in the country, seek to further widen the gap between themselves and ordinary workers. A federal legislator reportedly earns salaries and allowances that dwarf those of university professors, medical doctors, or senior civil servants, even though the latter groups provide essential services that sustain the economy and save lives daily. The contrast is even starker when compared with the minimum wage earner. A senator’s monthly earnings, by various estimates, amount to hundreds of times the monthly wage of a primary school teacher.

When political leaders call their pay “unrealistic,” they fail to recognise the indignity of subjecting workers to wages that cannot cover rent, food, transportation, and medical bills in a single month.This disparity breeds resentment and undermines trust in governance. It creates a political culture in which public office is not about service but about access to wealth. The constant struggle for political positions—often marred by violence and corruption—can be traced to the overcompensation of politicians relative to the economic reality of the nation. Some defenders of the proposed salary review have argued that political office holders worldwide are well-compensated, given the enormous responsibilities they bear. While this is true, such comparisons should be made within the context of each country’s economic realities. For instance, legislators in advanced democracies like the United States or the United Kingdom earn significant salaries, but these are proportionate to the average incomes of citizens and are backed by robust social welfare systems.

In contrast, Nigeria ranks among the countries with the highest pay for lawmakers, even though it struggles with high poverty levels, infrastructural decay, and weak public services. According to some reports, Nigerian legislators are among the top five best-paid in the world, even though Nigeria is not among the top 50 economies by per capita income. This contradiction underscores the need for moderation, not escalation, in political pay structures. What the country needs at this time is not an upward review of political salaries, but a comprehensive reduction in the cost of governance. The nation is heavily indebted, with debt servicing consuming over 90 percent of government revenue in recent years. The government should devise ways of plugging leakages and cutting waste and strengthening the Naira instead of embarking on salary increment for politicians.

The idea that politicians need more money to function effectively is simply untenable. Efficiency in governance is not a function of higher pay but of integrity, accountability, and commitment to service. Increasing political pay at this time will only further alienate leaders from the people and deepen the crisis of legitimacy that already plagues Nigeria’s political system. As a matter of fact, if there is to be any serious conversation about salary review in Nigeria, it should begin with workers who form the backbone of the economy. Nigerian workers should be paid a living wage that reflects the realities of today’s inflationary environment. Teachers, health workers, police officers, soldiers, and civil servants deserve better compensation, not just because of their critical roles but also because their current pay is grossly insufficient for survival.

Leadership, especially in a developing country like ours, demands sacrifice. The first duty of public office holders is to inspire confidence and trust among the citizenry. At a time when the citizens are asked to tighten their belts, leaders must demonstrate solidarity by tightening theirs even further.It would send a powerful message of empathy if the political class voluntarily subjected itself to pay cuts, reduced allowances, and streamlined privileges. Such a move would not only save resources but also signal to citizens that their leaders are willing to share in their struggles. Without this kind of solidarity, governance risks becoming an exclusive club of privilege, detached from the pain of ordinary people. The path to sustainable governance lies not in bloating the pay of politicians but in reducing the cost of governance, investing in infrastructure, improving public services, and ensuring that every worker earns a wage that can sustain a dignified life.

The RMAFC must therefore rethink its priorities. The Commission should heed the advice of the NLC, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and other well-meaning individuals and organisations and abandon any plans for upward salary reviews for political office holders and instead channel its influence towards achieving fair and just wages for the majority of Nigerians. We need no soothsayer to tell us that if RMAFC fails to listen to all wise counsel and goes ahead with its plan, it may trigger mass upheaval and industrial actions. The nation sure does not need this now.\

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Checking Voter Apathy In Nigeria’s Electoral Process

Published

2 days ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Quote:“Apathy may express frustration, but surrendering our votes only gives others greater power to determine our future. Nigeria needs credible elections, accountable leaders and citizens who refuse to abandon their democratic rights.”

“I actually don’t know what is wrong with this country called Nigeria. Nothing will ever make me go out under the scorching sun to vote for anybody again. After all, my vote doesn’t count. “We go out and vote, but in the end, they announce whatever result they want and tell the opponents to go to court. Is this the Nigeria we all want?” These are the frustrations of many Nigerians who have lost faith in the electoral process. For them, elections have become a cycle of high expectations, alleged irregularities and disappointing outcomes. Consequently, many are becoming indifferent to how political leaders emerge and what they do after assuming office. This growing voter apathy poses a serious threat to Nigeria’s democracy and must be addressed before the 2027 general election.

Some politicians, including councillors, local government chairmen, members of the House of Representatives, senators and governors, have disappointed the people they were elected to represent. Constituents who expect their representatives to address pressing community needs often complain of neglect, poor performance and limited engagement after elections.bAs Chinua Achebe’s celebrated novel, “Things Fall Apart”, suggests, things appear to be falling apart in Nigeria’s electoral system. Yet, withdrawing from the electoral process is not the solution. Rather, it could worsen the situation by allowing a relatively small proportion of voters to determine the country’s political future. Recently, the National Orientation Agency (NOA) launched a nationwide grassroots mobilisation campaign to address voter apathy, vote buying and electoral violence ahead of the 2027 general election.

The campaign, themed “Your Vote, Your Voice, Our Future: Say No to Apathy, Vote Buying and Violence. Let’s Build a United Nigeria in 2027,” was inaugurated in Abuja. Speaking at the event, the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, commended the agency for the initiative, emphasizing that citizens must recognize the importance of their votes in determining the country’s political leadership and future. He warned that voter apathy, vote buying and electoral violence threatened democratic development, calling for stronger collaboration among government institutions, electoral authorities, security agencies, community leaders and citizens. The Director-General of the NOA, Mallam Lanre Issa-Onilu, explained that the agency would deploy its state directorates across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory to promote responsible electoral participation.

The campaign will use local languages, radio programmes, town hall meetings, community dialogues, drama and digital platforms to reach Nigerians in both urban and rural communities. The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, also reaffirmed the commission’s commitment to conducting free, fair, transparent, inclusive and credible elections in 2027. He stressed the importance of early preparation, stakeholder collaboration and active citizen participation. These initiatives are commendable. However, their success will depend on sustained implementation rather than public announcements alone. Voter education must continue beyond election periods, while electoral institutions must demonstrate through their conduct that citizens’ votes deserve protection.

The government, political parties, electoral authorities and civil society organisations (CSOs) all have important roles to play. First, governments must demonstrate genuine commitment to credible elections by rejecting electoral manipulation, vote buying and the use of thugs to intimidate voters. Electoral offences must be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the law. Security agencies must also remain professional and impartial throughout the electoral process. Beyond elections, elected officials must deliver the dividends of democracy. Reliable electricity, accessible healthcare, quality education, good roads and employment opportunities can help restore public confidence in governance. Citizens are more likely to participate when they see that democracy can improve their lives.

Political officeholders must also change their attitude towards their constituencies. Representatives should maintain regular contact with their constituents, explain their activities and demonstrate how they address local concerns. Representation should not end with election campaigns, nor should elected officials remember their constituents only when another election approaches. CSOs and political parties must intensify voter education, helping citizens understand that voting is a fundamental democratic right and an important means of holding leaders accountable. Voters should also learn to verify electoral information, report irregularities through appropriate channels and reject inducements that compromise their choices.

The electorate, too, has responsibilities. Voters must resist the temptation to sell their votes for money, food or other temporary benefits. Although economic hardship makes such inducements attractive to some, selling a vote undermines the opportunity to demand accountable leadership. Equally important is the rejection of electoral violence and misinformation. Nigerians must learn to disagree politically without becoming enemies. Citizens should verify claims before sharing them, particularly on social media, and report suspected electoral malpractice to the appropriate authorities. Participation also extends beyond voting. Citizens can attend community meetings, question elected representatives, monitor public projects and demand transparency between elections.

Nevertheless, citizens cannot be expected to sustain enthusiasm when credible complaints are ignored or electoral processes lack public confidence. INEC must therefore strengthen transparency, improve election logistics, communicate promptly and ensure that electoral complaints are handled in accordance with the law. Where disputes arise, the courts must provide lawful remedies. Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive when eligible voters surrender their voices out of frustration. Restoring participation requires more than urging people to turn out on election day. It demands credible elections, responsible leadership, effective civic education and accountability. The 2027 general election presents an opportunity to rebuild public trust.

The NOA campaign is a welcome step, but all stakeholders must translate its message into action. Every eligible Nigerian should understand that a vote is not merely a mark on a ballot paper; it is an opportunity to influence the country’s future. Apathy may express frustration, but active and responsible participation offers a better chance of achieving change. The time to restore confidence in Nigeria’s electoral process is now. The earlier we act, the better for our democracy and future generations.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Oil Exploration Mustn’t Cost Lives

Published

2 days ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “No oil vessel, commercial contract or operational deadline is worth the loss of innocent lives; where environmental grievances are ignored and dialogue gives way to confrontation, the entire society pays a price that no compensation can adequately erase.”

The recent boat tragedy in Kula Kingdom, Akuku-Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State, has highlighted the troubling relationship between petroleum operations, environmental grievances and the safety of oil-producing communities. The reported loss of lives during a confrontation over an oil vessel is a painful reminder that commercial interests must never overshadow human life. The incident occurred on October 20, 2026, along the Robertkiri waterways of Kula, when a community boat capsized amid tensions surrounding the movement of the ANAMBRA BASIN Floating Storage and Offloading (FSO) vessel. Community members were reportedly protesting unresolved concerns over an alleged oil spill, environmental remediation and other outstanding obligations. Reports initially indicated that 10 people were feared dead. However, TheCable reported on October 23 that seven people had died, with five bodies recovered and two others missing. Investigations are needed to establish the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The tragedy raises fundamental questions about how disputes between oil-related businesses and host communities are managed. Why should disagreements over environmental concerns and contractual obligations escalate into situations involving loss of lives? What mechanisms exist to address grievances before they develop into dangerous confrontations? These questions demand urgent and impartial answers. For decades, communities across the Niger Delta have complained about oil pollution, damaged fishing grounds, declining livelihoods and inadequate environmental remediation. In riverine settlements such as Kula, fishing sustains many households. Pollution therefore threatens not only the environment but also food security, family income and children’s welfare.

Allegations of oil spills must not be dismissed as routine complaints or obstacles to petroleum operations. They require prompt investigation, independent environmental assessment and appropriate remediation wherever pollution is established. Disputes over compensation or contractual obligations should be resolved transparently, using verifiable records rather than confrontation. The incident also highlights the need to clarify responsibilities among vessel owners, contractors, petroleum operators and other parties. Max Shipping Services Limited, owner of the ANAMBRA BASIN vessel, has denied responsibility for the underlying oilfield operations and explained that the vessel was hired to Menal Technical Services Limited. These claims must be examined alongside community allegations and available evidence. No company should be condemned without proof, but contractual arrangements must not shield anyone from established responsibility.

Equally important is the reported involvement of armed security personnel in the confrontation. Security agencies have a legitimate duty to maintain law and order and protect lives. However, their operations require professionalism, restraint and sound judgement, especially in tense communities. Armed personnel deployed to manage disputes should help de-escalate tensions, protect civilians and facilitate peaceful resolution. Investigators must establish the circumstances surrounding their deployment, the sequence of events leading to the boat’s capsizing and whether reasonable precautions were taken. All parties deserve a fair hearing, and anyone found culpable should face appropriate legal consequences. The Rivers State Government must not treat the incident merely as a marine accident without examining its underlying grievances.

Beyond expressing sympathy, government should support a credible investigation, assist affected families and facilitate engagement among the community, companies and regulatory agencies. Every necessary effort should also be made to locate the missing persons. Environmental and petroleum regulators must independently investigate the alleged spill and determine whether remediation is necessary. Where pollution is confirmed, responsible parties must fulfil their legal obligations. The Petroleum Industry Act provides a framework for host-community development and environmental responsibilities; these provisions must deliver practical protection for affected communities. Community leaders and youths must equally pursue legitimate demands through peaceful and lawful channels. This does not require silence in the face of pollution or alleged breaches of agreements. Rather, petitions, negotiations, peaceful protests and legal remedies can advance accountability without exposing residents to avoidable danger.

Companies and contractors must maintain effective communication with host communities and address complaints promptly, rather than engage only when disputes threaten operations. Government must intervene early, not wait until tensions erupt. Transparent agreements, independent assessments and accessible grievance mechanisms can prevent misunderstandings from escalating into deadly confrontations. The Niger Delta has endured decades of environmental concerns and disputes over the benefits and burdens of petroleum extraction. Its people should not have to risk their lives to secure attention to legitimate grievances. Oil revenue cannot justify preventable deaths or the neglect of communities where extraction takes place.

The Kula tragedy must become a turning point. Authorities must establish the truth, determine responsibility based on evidence, support bereaved families and ensure legitimate environmental concerns receive attention. Ultimately, petroleum operations should be judged not only by revenue generated or crude oil transported, but also by whether host communities enjoy environmental protection, economic opportunity and personal safety. Oil profits must never cost lives. Kula deserves justice, transparency and lasting solutions. The deaths on its waterways must not become another statistic in the Niger Delta’s troubled history. They must remind every responsible institution that no commercial interest is more valuable than human life.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

Gift Or Will: Why Wait Until Death To Give?

Published

1 week ago

October 19, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”The value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?”

Will and gifts are subjects that many people, particularly in this part of the world, are reluctant to discuss. This may be due to the misconception that they are matters reserved for the dying and that talking about them could somehow invite death. Yet, both are important subjects that everyone, young and old alike, should understand. Every property owner should ask a fundamental question: Why wait until death before allowing the people we love to enjoy the fruits of our labour? Many parents spend their productive years acquiring houses, land, businesses and other valuable assets, yet postpone sharing these blessings with their children and loved ones until they are no longer alive. They prepare Wills, appoint executors and hope their wishes will eventually be fulfilled. But is there a case for giving more generously during one’s lifetime?

A Will is an important legal instrument, and nobody should be discouraged from making one. However, lifetime gifts deserve greater attention because they allow property owners to witness the benefits of their generosity and, where properly completed, transfer ownership before death. One practical difficulty with inheritance is that writing a Will does not automatically make the property available to beneficiaries upon the testator’s death. Ordinarily, executors must obtain a grant of probate from the appropriate Probate Registry before administering the estate under the Will. The process may involve producing the original Will and death certificate, identifying executors and beneficiaries, preparing an inventory and valuation of assets, completing prescribed forms, paying applicable fees and satisfying other registry requirements. Procedures vary across jurisdictions in the country and depend on the circumstances of each estate.

Where documentation is incomplete, the estate is complex or questions arise about the Will, administration may be delayed. Matters become more difficult when a relative or beneficiary challenges the Will, enters a caveat or commences litigation. Legal expenses accumulate, family relationships deteriorate, and intended beneficiaries may wait for years before receiving their inheritance. A child expecting to inherit a house may be unable to deal freely with the property while administration remains outstanding. Similarly, a beneficiary hoping to use inherited funds to establish a business may be frustrated by delays. Across Nigeria, families have experienced difficulties accessing their late parents’ estates because of disputes over Wills and prolonged legal proceedings. See Dan Jumbo v Dan Jumbo. Where a court declares a Will invalid, those named as beneficiaries may lose their entitlement under that document, and the estate may instead be distributed under the applicable intestacy rules. Consequently, people the deceased deliberately intended to benefit may receive nothing under the disputed Will. Ajibaiye v Ajibaiye

This does not mean every challenge will succeed or that all beneficiaries will necessarily be excluded. It nevertheless highlights a risk in postponing every act of generosity until death: the intended beneficiaries may have to establish their entitlement through a process whose outcome is uncertain. A lifetime gift, commonly called a gift inter vivos, is a gift intended to take effect during the donor’s lifetime. Where validly completed, ownership of the transferred interest generally passes to the beneficiary, and the property ordinarily ceases to form part of the donor’s estate.This distinction is significant. A beneficiary who acquires valid ownership of property during the donor’s lifetime does not ordinarily have to establish entitlement to that property through the donor’s Will. The claim rests on the completed transfer rather than a testamentary promise. For instance, a parent with several properties may transfer a house to a child who needs accommodation or give land to another who wishes to build a home. A business owner may transfer an interest in a business to a child already involved in its management. These arrangements provide practical support while allowing the giver to witness the benefits.

Properly completed lifetime gifts may also reduce the assets that must subsequently pass through probate, potentially simplifying the administration of the remaining estate. However, such transfers must comply with applicable law. A mere declaration or unfulfilled promise to give land may not be sufficient. Depending on the circumstances, a gift may require an appropriate deed, acceptance, execution, registration and any necessary consent. Sections 21 and 22 of the Land Use Act 1978 regulate certain dealings involving statutory and customary rights of occupancy. Lifetime gifts are not immune from disputes though. Transfers may be challenged on grounds such as fraud, undue influence, incapacity or failure to comply with legal formalities. Proper legal advice and documentation are therefore essential. Encouraging lifetime gifts does not mean abandoning Wills. A Will remains useful for assets an owner wishes to retain throughout life, property acquired later and assets not transferred before death. It also allows the testator to appoint executors and give instructions for distributing the remaining estate.

Property owners must also avoid giving away assets indiscriminately. Adequate provision should be made for personal upkeep, accommodation, healthcare and other financial responsibilities. Parents should never be pressured into transferring their entire estates or surrendering their financial independence. Where a donor wishes to retain the right to occupy a gifted house, that arrangement should be properly structured and documented. Ultimately, the value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. A gift of land may enable a child to build a home; financial assistance may help a young person establish a business; and a properly transferred property may provide security while the donor is still alive to share in the beneficiary’s joy. Probate is a necessary safeguard, not a reason to dismiss Wills. Nevertheless, where appropriate, lifetime gifts can reduce the property left for administration and help beneficiaries avoid waiting for assets that could have been transferred earlier.

My appeal is simple: let us cultivate a culture of thoughtful giving. Make a Will, but also consider what you can responsibly give today. Seek legal advice, document your intentions and ensure every transfer is properly completed. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?

By: Calista Ezeaku