Opinion
Farewell to democracy in Nigeria
By Mon-Charles Egbo
While Nigeria is championing the concerted efforts at restoring democracy in the Niger Republic, democracy is dying off in Nigeria.
Ironically, it is not the military, being the conventional enemy of democracy, that is culpable, but the people whom democracy is meant to protect are killing democracy. Put succinctly, democracy is killing democracy in Nigeria.
And instructively as well, the weapon for this self-destruction is as potent as it is delicate. By its ideal value, this instrument is a shield for democracy. It is the principal offering of democracy which incidentally distinguishes democracy as the best form of governance. It is a key principle both in constitutional and international human rights laws. In short, this tool is the bedrock of democracy. Yet, it has turned out to be the albatross and the existential threat to democracy in Nigeria.
When the founding fathers of constitutional democracy, notably John Milton, conceived the freedom of expression as a fundamental right of everyone, they had envisioned an enlightened society where law and order reign supreme, where individuals would not be prevented from speaking and acting according to their respective convictions; and also, where citizens are at liberty to condemn and even protest against bad leadership or governance including injustice of any kind.
For emphasis, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, reads that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.
However, in building this essential foundation for a liberal democratic society, those humanists and visionaries innocently left this freedom borderless. Understandably, in their broadmindedness, they did not envisage the likelihood of abuse or the eventual advent of the internet as well as the inherent dangers of social media.
The consequences of this harmless oversight would later become overwhelming. The freedom was rather being deployed to the detriment of national unity and development.
This prompted a review and subsequent caveat in 1952, which notes that “the exercise of this freedom, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties, as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, (among others) for the protection of the reputation or rights of others”. This necessitated the laws prohibiting defamation, sedition, obscenity, and incitement to violence or crimes as domesticated by countries including Nigeria. But despite this intervention aimed at limiting the scope of this civil right, the issues are still far from being effectively addressed.
Today in Nigeria, this hallmark of democracy is being mindlessly weaponized to stifle the very essence of democracy. The legislature is gasping for breath in the hands of the very people to whom it is meant to offer fresh air. And it is more perplexing to see that it is the same constitution that guards this cornerstone of democracy that still guides its misapplication, more sadly, through social media.
For instance, spurious allegations against individuals and institutions, including subjective criticisms and sundry demeaning public remarks respectively enjoy the implied protections of the freedom of expression in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, in prosecuting this onslaught against democracy under the cloak of exercising this right to freedom of expression, the people, particularly the elites, who are versed in the workings of democracy, feign ignorance of some fundamental facts about governance. They seemingly forget that while democracy is about the people, it is the legislature that delivers the dividends of democracy to the people. Also, they pretend not to know that democracy and the legislature, like two sides of a coin, owe their existence to each other; meaning that one is dead without the other. And again, none remembers that an injury to the legislature is an injury to democracy, and by extension, an injury to Nigeria.
So once again, democracy is killing democracy in Nigeria. And certainly, the death is imminent. It is no longer about if it will come but it is about when it will occur.
We brazenly ridicule our symbol of democracy and the conscience of the nation merely for political expediency. We allow our emotions to overwhelm us in our criticisms. We forget that the disparaging remarks are not just about the legislators. It is about their families and constituencies. It is about the offices they occupy. It is about the totality of these Nigerians who have sacrificed their privacies and liberties to serve us. It is about the legislature as an institution and bastion of democracy. It is about the sustainability of democracy. It is about our future and posterity.
What we say or write about the legislature is a reflection of what the world thinks about Nigeria as a country. Foreign investment opportunities are threatened. The zeal to serve and passion for patriotism in public office decline with attendant increases in poverty and corruption.
If only we could ponder the harm done to the image and reputation of Nigeria, how our flags and passports are viewed and how our nationals studying abroad feel among their peers, in the face of what exists on the internet about our legislature!
Whenever there is a manifestation of governance deficit, irrespective of the cause and source, the legislature is singled out for petty attacks. Every perceived anti-people policy is blamed on the legislature for not defending the people, at least, by engaging in hostilities with the executive. Even when natural disasters strike, the legislature is roundly vilified and accused of earning much and doing little.
Everyone seems to forget that the salaries and allowances of the public officials in the three arms of government are all determined centrally, and above all, that the legislature does not fix its remuneration. Again, it is immaterial whether or not the vehicles being procured by the presidency, state governors, ministers and heads of agencies as well as council chairmen are expensive and aides unreasonably excessive. Apparently, the clamour for a reduction in the cost of governance is only targeted at the legislators just to blackmail them into forfeiting their statutory entitlements in solidarity with the suffering masses. The executive and judiciary are deliberately exempted from the lopsided scrutiny because nothing much is known about their expenditures.
By the orchestration of the elites, all the valid narratives to the effect that the annual allocation of the national assembly revolves around the 3 per cent of the entire federal budget are not enough to even minimize the sustained campaign of calumny against the legislature. Furthermore, it does not make any difference if the other public officials have corruption allegations against them or if they justify their ‘humongous’ earnings. But the legislators must be taken to the cleaners for every reason.
Also because it is only the legislature that has its proceedings and other official activities done in the open, legislators have become sitting targets for open attacks always. They are taken up on virtually everything that transpires on the floor, whether informal or otherwise. Specifically, it is not the business of anyone if the other arms make jokes during their sessions or if announcements about their statutory allowances for annual vacations are made whenever necessary.
And pathetically in all these, calculated infringements, the legislator is helpless. It is at the mercy of the judiciary and the executive for constitutional respite that either takes too long or in most cases, does not come at all.
Hence, how would the legislature be alive to its responsibilities in the absence of a fair balance of powers among the arms towards institutional stability and relative independence? Or, are we not persuaded that anarchy is inevitable, given the prevalent executive domination of the legislature supported by the weak constitution?
Except one is living in denial, democracy is killing democracy in Nigeria.
However, it must be acknowledged that those public attitudes towards the legislature are not completely misplaced. Frustrations arising from certain past misdeeds account for most of the scepticism and hostile criticisms. Arguably, some legislators cut the image of poor ambassadors of the legislature.
But then, there are more meaningful ways to engage them, still with the instrumentality of the freedom of expression. Once recognized as a recipe for good governance and deployed accordingly, the set objectives are achieved.
Admittedly, again, the legislature suffers from self-inflicted challenges. Though all its duties are discharged in the open, the legislature, in a sheer display of limited understanding of the media landscape, often leaves its information management largely at the discretion of the elites who are mostly of subjective dispositions. The result ultimately, is that the majority of the legislative accomplishments are diminished by public demonstrations of hostility and apathy. For the umpteenth time, democracy is killing democracy in Nigeria.
Nonetheless, it is in our best interest that this unfortunate trend is reversed.
Whereas the popular rejection of attempts at regulating social media subsists, the occasion now calls for deliberate attitudinal change across the board. Both the government and the people should be circumspect in their conduct and also conscious that the worst of democracies is by far, better than the best of dictatorships the world over. If the Nigerian project fails, we all shall go down, irrespective of partisanship, tribe and religion.
Thankfully on his part, the president of the senate, Godswill Akpabio, has been consistent in pursuing the legislative commitment of the 10th National Assembly to raising the bar of empathy, openness and transparency towards public trust and confidence. He has been explicit in his resolve to make the necessary sacrifices for the overall benefit of the people and country. Beyond rhetoric, he has a pragmatic blueprint. And verifiably, so far, he has steadfastly walked the talk.
Therefore, rather than using the freedom of expression enablement to undermine the legislature, nay democracy, there should be agenda-setting and evaluation mechanisms driven by dispassionate advocacies.
And again, for effectiveness in legislative business, there has to be a smooth and steady information flow between representatives and their constituents. Similar cooperation is equally necessary from the other arms and tiers of government if governance must be optimal. Politics should end with the elections to avoid a dysfunctional system. No legislature can deliver good governance in a hostile environment.
So in conclusion, if Nigerian democracy is to survive, the legislature is to be rescued first, and then importantly, the right to freedom of expression should be exercised in due consideration of “the reputation or rights of others”.
Egbo is a parliamentary affairs analyst
By Abiodun KOMOLAFE
The concepts of power, privilege and governance are complex and multifaceted. Power refers to the ability to influence others, while privilege denotes unearned advantages.
Governance encompasses institutions, structures and processes that regulate these dynamics. Together, these concepts raise fundamental questions about justice, equality and resource distribution.
It emphasizes the importance of considering marginalized groups’ experiences and perspectives. The main problem in Nigeria today is its political economy, which is rooted in rent-seeking and fosters a mindset that prioritizes patronage over production.
The country’s politics are characterized by a patron-client relationship, where everything revolves around government handouts rather than effective governance. This has led to a situation where “politics” in Nigeria is essentially a scramble for resources in a country with severely limited opportunities for self-improvement.
When French agronomist René Dumont wrote ‘False Starts in Africa’ in 1962, he inadvertently described Nigeria’s current state in 2025. Nigeria’s missteps have magnified themselves in the theatre of the absurd, such as the construction of a new vice presidential residence and Governor Chukwuemeka Soludo’s boasts about the lavish official residence for the governor of Anambra State, currently under construction.
It is to be noted in contradistinction that the newly sworn-in Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, is looking for somewhere to live. The official residence of the prime minister, 24 Sussex Drive, the Canadian equivalent of 10 Downing Street, is in disrepair and uninhabitable. No Canadian government can dare ask the parliament to appropriate the $40m needed to refurbish the residence.
Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) exceeds $2 trillion, while Nigeria’s GDP is less than $400 billion. Still, Nigeria claims to be a giant! With an electricity generation capacity of less than 6,000 megawatts, Nigeria’s proclamation seems absurd, especially when compared to cities like Johannesburg, Singapore, Hong Kong and Mumbai. Even Lagos State alone should be generating, transmitting and distributing at least 15,000 megawatts, which would be a basic expectation rather than an achievement.
Nigeria today needs a comprehensive overhaul of its governance crisis to build a new political economy and social services that are fit for purpose. Although the government is on the right path in some ways, a root-and-branch transformation is still necessary.
A notable breakthrough is the decision to recapitalize development finance institutions, such as the Bank of Industry and, crucially, the Bank of Agriculture. This move is significant in a rent-seeking state, as it addresses the need for long-term capital – a prerequisite for achieving meaningful progress.
The development finance institutions require annual recapitalization of at least N500 billion, ideally N1 trillion. Achieving this necessitates a thorough cost evaluation of the government’s machinery, starting with the full implementation of the Oronsaye Committee’s recommendations.
The resulting cost savings can then be redirected to development finance institutions and essential social services like primary healthcare. Furthermore, the government should be bolder, if it can afford to be so, especially since there’s no discernible opposition on offer At the moment, the Nigerian political establishment across the board appears to be enamored by the position put forward by the leader of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin, after the failed putsch. Lenin wrote the classic, ‘What is to be done?’
His observation is that revolutions do not take place at times of grinding poverty. They do so during periods of relatively rising prosperity. Significant sections of the Nigerian establishment believe that relatively rising prosperity could trigger off social discontent.
In their own interest, they had better be right. The caveat is that Lenin wrote ‘What’s to be Done’ in 1905. The world has moved on and changed since the conditions that led to the failure of the attempted takeover of government in Russia in 1905. Therefore, the Nigerian political establishment, for reasons of self-preservation, had better put on its thinking cap. Addressing power and privilege in governance requires collective action, institutional reforms and a commitment to promoting social justice. Nigeria currently lacks a leadership recruitment process, which can only be established if political parties are willing to develop a cadre. Unfortunately, the country is dealing with Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) instead. It’s rare to find leadership in Nigeria operating political boot camps to recruit and groom youths for future leadership roles.
This might be why many young people have a misguided understanding of politics, viewing it as merely a means of sharing the nation’s commonwealth. Mhairi Black was elected to the British House of Commons at 20 years old.
However, the key point is that Black had started becoming involved in politics at a young age. By the time she was elected, she had already gained significant experience, effectively becoming a veteran in the field. In Nigeria, politics is often seen as one of the few avenues for self-fulfillment. However, the economy is stagnant, with few jobs created in the public sector and limited investment opportunities.
This is a far cry from the 1950s and 1960s, when political parties were more substantial. Today, it’s worth asking how many Nigerian political parties have functional Research Departments. Besides, what socialization into any philosophy or ideology do our politicians have? Similarly to former Governor Rotimi Amaechi, many of those who currently hold power are motivated to stay in politics due to concerns about economic stability.
Of course, that’s why the Lagos State House of Assembly has had to revert itself. It is the same challenge that has reduced the traditional institution to victims of Nigeria’s ever-changing political temperature. It is the reason an Ogbomoso indigene is not interested in what happened between Obafemi Awolowo and Ladoke Akintola.
It is also the reason an Ijebuman sees an Ogbomoso man as his enemy without bothering to dig up the bitter politics that ultimately succeeded in putting the two families on the path of permanent acrimony. Of course, that’s why we have crises all over the place! May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!
KOMOLAFE wrote from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08033614419)
Byabiodun KOMOLAFE
Rivers State is now under emergency rule, and it’s likely to remain so for the next six months, unless a drastic change occurs.
If not managed carefully, this could mark the beginning of a prolonged crisis.
In situations like this, opinions tend to be divergent. For instance, some people hold the notion that the security situation and the need to protect the law and public order justified President Bola Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency in, and the appointment of a sole administrator for Rivers State.
However, others view this act as ‘unconstitutional’, ‘reckless’, ‘an affront on democracy’, and ‘a political tool to intimidate the opposition’. When we criticize governments for unmet expectations, we often rely on our own perspectives and biases.
Our individual identities and prejudices shape our criticism. However, it’s essential to recognize that not all criticism is equal. Protesting within the law is fundamentally different from protests that descend into illegality. Once illegality creeps in, the legitimacy of the protest is lost.
As John Donne wrote in ‘Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions’, “Never send to know for whom the bell tolls.” A protest is legitimate when it aligns with societal norms, values and laws. But when protests are marred by violence or sabotage, they lose credibility. Without credibility, protests become ineffective.
Regarding the validity or otherwise of the emergency rule in Rivers State, it is imperative that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors approach the Supreme Court immediately. They should seek a definitive clarification on whether the proclamation is ultra vires or constitutional.
For whatever it’s worth, they owe Nigerians that responsibility!May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!
Abiodun KOMOLAFE,ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08033614419 – SMS only.
Abba Dukawa
The political crisis began in December 2023, when Governor Fubara ordered the demolition of the state House of Assembly complex, which remains unrebuilt to this day. This act has effectively paralyzed the legislative arm, disrupting the state’s system of checks and balances.
The Supreme Court highlighted the severity of this situation on February 28, 2025, emphasizing the absence of a functional government in Rivers State and the executive’s role in collapsing the legislative arm, thereby creating a governance void
Additionally, recent reports indicate that militants have been vandalizing pipelines and issuing threats without any intervention from the state government, raising concerns about the state’s security and economic stability.Given Rivers State’s crucial role in the country’s economy, this situation necessitates urgent and cautious intervention from the federal government.Despite interventions from various stakeholders, including Tinubu himself, the crisis has persisted
.It’s worth noting that Tinubu is the third president to invoke Section 305 of the Constitution, after Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo and Former President Goodluck Jonathan.
President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State has sparked intense debate about its necessity and potential motivations. During his nationwide speech, Tinubu warned that this decision could set off a chain of unpredictable events, potentially leading to radical ideologies and extremist tendencies.
Critics argue that Tinubu’s decision was unnecessary and politically motivated, particularly given his connection to Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Nyesom Wike, who is accused of being the “arrowhead” of the crisis. Some believe that Tinubu’s administration aims to remove Governor Fubara, perceived as hostile to the 2027 Tinubu/Wike project.Ultimately, the motivations behind Tinubu’s decision remain unclear, and its implications for Rivers State and Nigeria as a whole are yet to be fully seen.
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has strongly opposed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and his suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara, his deputy, and members of the Rivers State President Tinubu, in his national address, cited rising political tensions and recent acts of pipeline vandalism as justification for the emergency declaration.House of Assembly. President Tinubu, in his national address, cited rising political tensions and recent acts of pipeline vandalism as justification for the emergency declaration.
The NBA pointed to Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution, which governs the procedure for declaring a state of emergency. While this section grants the President emergency powers, it does not allow for the removal or suspension of elected officials. The NBA stressed that the only constitutional method for removing a governor or deputy governor is through impeachment as outlined in Section 188.
Furthermore, the removal of lawmakers must adhere to electoral laws and constitutional provisions insisted that a state of emergency does not equate to an automatic dissolution of an elected government, and any attempt to do so is an overreach of executive power.
Also Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has strongly condemned President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, calling it an “assault on democracy” that must be denounced in the strongest possible terms . Wazirin Adamawa argues that Tinubu’s administration is responsible for the chaos in Rivers State, either by enabling it or failing to prevent it. He emphasizes that the President should bear full responsibility for any compromise of federal infrastructure in the state, rather than punishing the people of Rivers State with a state of emergency.
Abubakar also accuses president Tinubu of being a partisan actor in the political turmoil in Rivers, and his refusal to prevent the escalation is seen as “disgraceful to the people of Rivers” The former Vice President believes that the destruction of national infrastructure in Rivers State is a direct result of the President’s failure to act, and punishing the people of Rivers State would be undemocratic.
In his statement, former vice president asserts that the declaration of a state of emergency “reeks of political manipulation and outright bad faith. He urges that the people of Rivers State should not be punished for the political gamesmanship between the governor and Tinubu’s enablers in the federal government. Other analyst believes that the situation in Rivers State, though politically tense, does not meet the constitutional threshold for the removal of elected officials.
For a state of emergency to be declared, Section 305(3) of the Constitution outlines specific conditions, including:
1. War or external aggression against Nigeria. Imminent danger of invasion or war. A breakdown of public order and safety to such an extent that ordinary legal measures are insufficient.
Other reasons for such decisions to be enforced are clear danger to Nigeria’s existence and Occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity affecting a state or a part of it. Where public danger constitutes a threat to the Federation.
Since the state of the emergency in Rivers state has been promulgation, political watchers questions whether the political crisis in Rivers State has reached the level of a complete breakdown of law that has warranting the removal of the Governor and his administration. Political disagreements, legislative conflicts, or executive-legislative tensions do not constitute a justification for emergency rule.
Had been the president remain filmed Such conflicts should have been resolved through legal and constitutional mechanisms, including the judiciary, rather than executive fiat.
A state of emergency is an extraordinary measure that must be invoked strictly within constitutional limits. The removal of elected officials under the pretext of emergency rule is unconstitutional and unacceptable.Tinubu’s administration decision to declare a state of emergency has been met with mixed reactions. Some argue that it was necessary to restore sanity to the state and ensure the country’s stability. Others,, believe that it was an unnecessary decision that could have dire economic and security implications for the state and Nigeria at large.
Was declaration for Rivers state is necessary or political motivation? President Bola Amed Tinubu is fully aware that the declaration of State of Emergency in a prevalent democratic system is not the solution to the self-inflicted crisis bedeviling the State.
What Tinubu needed most was to call Wike, his Minister of FCT, to order. The former governor Wike is the arrowhead of the crisis bedeviling the State.
Now what the president Tinubu decision for the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State was an unnecessary decision” that could have dire economic and security implications for the state and Nigeria at large.
Other views whether president decisions of keeping his ally, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory Nyesom Wike, is worth jeopardizing Nigeria’s economy.The keen watcher of events regarded the decision as a display of unpardonable mediocrity and diabolic partisanship geared towards 2027.
Tinubu administration wants to use the excuse of the political instability and other security challenges in Rivers to remove Governor FUBURA from the POWER considered hostile to the minister of the Federal Capital Territory or TInubu/Wiki diabolic partisanship geared towards 2027 election.
During his speeches Mr. President, blaming only the state governor and House of Assembly for the crisis in Rivers State is like expecting one iron to make a loud sound – it’s unrealistic and ignores the roles of others, including the former governor and a cabinet member in your administration.
Let us not forget; The situation in Rivers state is indeed complex, with President Tinubu’s intervention aiming to restore order, but also raising important questions about the balance between federal intervention and state autonomy. Invoking a state of emergency to suspend elected officials is a drastic measure that may set a worrying precedent, especially if not handled carefully.
The appointment of a retired military officer as the state’s administrator also raises concerns about the militarization of a democratic government. This move may be perceived as an attempt to exert federal control over the state, rather than allowing democratic processes to unfold, the initial six-month period of emergency rule, with provisions for extension, could lead to prolonged federal control. This is why it’s essential to establish clear timelines and measurable objectives to ensure a timely return to democratic governance.
Some of the key concerns that need to be addressed include: The potential for abuse of power*: The suspension of elected officials and the appointment of a military administrator could be seen as an attempt to consolidate federal power.
– *The impact on democratic institutions*: The emergency rule could undermine the democratic institutions in Rivers state and set a precedent for future interventions.
– *The need for transparency and accountability*: The federal government must ensure that the emergency rule is transparent, accountable, and subject to regular review. Ultimately, finding a balance between restoring order and respecting democratic institutions is crucial. The federal government must tread carefully to avoid exacerbating the situation and ensure a peaceful resolution.
Dukawa public affairs commentator and can be reached at abbahydukawa@gmail.com
-
News6 days agoBill to establish National Cashew Production and Research Institute in Kogi passes first reading in Senate
-
News6 days agoReport of attack on Wike’s Port Harcourt residence false, misleading – Police
-
News6 days agoShehu Sani debunks Governor Uba Sani’s alleged diversion of LG funds, challenges El-Rufai to publicly tender evidence
-
News5 days agoPlateau gov’t expresses concern over violence in Shendam LGA, calls for calm
-
Sports1 week agoMerino gives Arsenal win over Chelsea
-
Interview7 days agoSenators Natasha-Akpabio saga should have been resolved privately – Rev. Mrs Emeribe
-
Politics3 days agoOpposition leaders announce coalition to challenge Tinubu in 2027
-
News1 week agoAs Committee Chairman, I did not authorise Natasha to petition IPU over her suspension from Senate – Jimoh Ibrahim