Connect with us

Editorial

Expectations From New Revenue Formula

Published

on

Thursday, April 7, 2022, the Chairman of Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission
(RMAFC), Elias Mbam, presented the report of the proposed new revenue allocation formula for Nigeria to President Muhammadu Buhari. This is coming 30 years after the last exercise was carried out in 1992, during the military regime of Ibrahim Babangida.
Highlighting the key recommendations in the report, Mbam said the proposed vertical revenue distribution formula suggested 45.17 per cent for the Federal Government, 29.79 per cent for state governments and 21.04 per cent for local governments. Under the current sharing arrangement, the Federal Government receives 52.68 per cent of the revenue share, the states get 26.72 per cent and the local governments 20.60 per cent.
Under the special fund, the commission’s report recommended 1.0 per cent for ecology, 0.5 per cent for stabilisation, 1.3 per cent for natural resource development and 1.2 per cent for the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). According to him, the new sharing formula was reached after extensive consultations with key stakeholders, public hearings across the country, administering of questionnaires, and a study of several other countries with similar fiscal structures to draw useful lessons from.
The commission also visited the 36 states, the FCT, and all the local government areas including the six area councils in Abuja to sensitise and obtain inputs from stakeholders, according to the RMAFC chairman. The chairman added that literature reviews were conducted on the revenue allocation formula in Nigeria dating back to the pre-independence duration.
Memos were reportedly received from the public sector, individuals and private institutions across the country. Mbam further noted that the country’s political structure had altered since the last review in 1992, with the addition of six more states in 1996, bringing the number of states to 36. At the same time, the number of local government councils also increased from 589 to 774.
The revenue allocation formula is the fraction of resources accruing to the federation that goes to each component of the nation. It also specifies the resources conserved in the areas where they are produced, as well as the proportions of the revenue accruing to the collecting agencies of government. The lack of justice and fairness in the distribution of the resources often results in tension and controversies in the polity.
President Buhari’s reaction to the new income distribution formula is commendable. In particular, he said he would await the outcome of the constitutional review process before submitting the report to the National Assembly. He assured the commission’s members that the Federal Government would conduct an internal review and approval process for the report shortly.
Buhari said, ‘‘Considering the changing dynamics of our political-economy, such as privatisation, deregulation, funding arrangement of primary education, primary health care and the growing clamour for decentralisation, among others, we must take another look at our revenue sharing formula, especially the vertical aspects that relate to the tiers of government.”
If the new revenue-sharing procedure gets approval, the Federal Government will have its allocation reduced by 3.33 per cent. However, the most important issue with Nigeria is not how revenue is shared, but the revenue itself. Nigeria’s revenue to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is about 8 perc ent while the average for Africa is 18 perc ent. Hence, it is more productive to concentrate efforts on improving revenue generation across the board than the fixation on sharing. We have a huge revenue problem.
The National Assembly should step up efforts to amend the relevant section of the Constitution for quick implementation of the new revenue formula. The Federal Government must immediately subject the report to its review and approval processes. We hail RMAFC for the meticulous work in carrying out its constitutional tasks. Nigerians, particularly state and local governments, are applauded for contributing to this development through the extensive stakeholder engagement processes.
At the height of the negotiating process of the current minimum wage of N30,000, the states (under the aegis of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum), proposed a fresh formulation to give them more resources. Governors cited their inability to pay. However, most of the governors have been reckless with the allocations they have been receiving, resulting in several states owing workers’ salaries and pension arrears. While state and local governments deserve to get more, the derivation on natural resources should also be jacked up with legally binding provisions on regular upward adjustments.
Nevertheless, the new sharing format is not the universal remedy for Nigeria’s stunted economic outlook. For now, Nigeria is a poor country. The World Bank estimates its Gross Domestic Product at $375.8 billion, the largest in Africa, but it is a deceptive narrative. At 200 million, its population far outstrips that of any other country on the continent. Our nation has been described by the World Poverty Clock as the global poverty capital, where 93 million people live below the $1.90 per day threshold.
The continuous sharing of oil resources currently generated will not be of significant help. The three tiers of government will permanently be bogged down in a financial crisis, primarily because Nigeria’s current structure is a dangerous aberration. For the nation to be progressive and dynamic, equity and justice have to be promoted in our federal system. Also, the retrogressive culture of entitlement to oil revenue should end. Ideally, the states should strive to become centres of development.
Across Nigeria today, the consensus is that there is an urgent need to devolve more financial resources from the centre to the states and local governments. This is to ensure that the tiers of government can carry out their functions and improve economic growth and development. While we endorse that agitation, we strongly believe that Nigeria could only attain its dream of development by operating true fiscal federalism, where every tier of government generates its revenue and controls the bulk of it, just as it was in the First Republic.

 

Continue Reading

Editorial

That Call to End Girl-Child Marriage

Published

on

Nigeria joined the world in commemorating the International Day of the Girl-Child on 11 March 2026, an observance dedicated to advancing girls’ rights and amplifying their voices. This year’s theme, “End Child Marriage and Invest in Girls’ Rights,” confronts a deep-rooted injustice and demands an end to sacrificing girls’ futures to prejudice and expediency.

The focus is child marriage, not as an unavoidable misfortune but as a preventable injustice. Though prevalent in many societies, the practice remains particularly troubling in parts of northern Nigeria, where it has become normalised. Reports of girls aged 10 to 13 being married off are disturbing. The controversy surrounding a Nigerian senator and former governor who married a 13-year-old girl further exposed the practice to global scrutiny, yet accountability at home appeared limited. When lawmakers disregard the law, society’s moral compass is compromised.

UNICEF’s statistics reveal the scale of the crisis. Globally, an estimated 650 million women and girls alive today were married before turning 18, while more than 12 million girls enter marriage annually before adulthood. In Nigeria, about 33 per cent of girls marry before 18 and 11 per cent before 15. The prevalence reportedly reaches 63 per cent in Jigawa and Zamfara States and 61 per cent in Sokoto and Katsina. These figures represent millions of childhoods interrupted and futures imperilled.

These statistics explain why the United Nations continues to campaign against child marriage and advocate investment in girls. The consequences are devastating. Girls whose bodies are not fully developed face increased risks of maternal death, obstetric fistula, sexually transmitted infections and psychological trauma. The economic cost is equally significant. A 2017 World Bank and International Centre for Research on Women Study estimated that ending child marriage could generate an additional $7.6 billion in earnings and productivity for Nigeria, as early marriage deprives girls of education, skills, and opportunities to contribute to national development.

Educating a woman benefits the entire society. As a mother, she often becomes her children’s first teacher and a vital influence on their character. An educated mother helps raise enlightened children, just as one candle can light many others without losing its flame. Denying women education undermines families and communities. To expect wisdom while deliberately withholding knowledge is to demand the impossible.

Several reasons are offered for marrying off young girls, including economic hardship, cultural practices and religious beliefs. In some households, daughters are treated as commodities, married early so that their bride price can finance their brothers’ education. While boys enter classrooms, their sisters are sent to matrimonial homes. This discriminatory practice is shortsighted, depriving the nation of half its human potential. A country cannot expect to run effectively after deliberately crippling one side of its capacity.

Beyond these justifications lies the entrenched belief that women ultimately belong in the kitchen, regardless of their education. This outdated notion is demonstrably false. Countries where women lead governments, businesses, research institutions and other sectors show what investment in female talent can achieve. Rwanda’s substantial female parliamentary representation is one example. Confining women to domestic roles limits not only their ambitions but also the nation’s progress.

A girl-child must not surrender her childhood to poverty or prejudice. Some traditions discourage women from attaining educational heights comparable to or greater than those of men, driven by the baseless fear that educated women will disrespect their husbands. Such thinking equates enlightenment with insubordination and empowerment with threat. This patriarchal mindset perpetuates inequality and keeps society trapped in backwardness.

Consequently, some parents consider educating their daughters a waste of resources, likening it to watering another man’s garden. This attitude is deeply misguided. Every girl deserves the opportunity to learn, grow and pursue her dreams. Early marriage mortgages her future, stifles her potential and traps her in circumstances she might otherwise overcome. No society can justify sacrificing a child’s prospects to outdated customs or immediate financial gain.

Ending child marriage must, therefore, go hand in hand with investing in girls’ education, safety and rights. Every girl should have the opportunity to realise her potential. This requires more than annual declarations, billboards, posters and seminars held in air-conditioned halls. Awareness without action is like a cloud without rain: promising, yet incapable of nourishing the ground.

The campaign must move beyond tokenism to practical intervention, particularly at the state level, where the problem is acute. Governments should formulate policies that protect girls and make education accessible. Scholarships, bursaries, conditional cash transfers, school feeding programmes and other incentives can help keep girls in school. When education is affordable and adequately supported, more girls can choose the classroom over the bridal chamber.

Civil society organisations, faith-based groups, and traditional institutions must intensify efforts to challenge child marriage and dismantle harmful beliefs disguised as religious or cultural obligations. Parents must also uphold their responsibility to protect and educate their daughters, despite economic pressures. A society that educates its girls invests in its future; one that marries them off in childhood mortgages that future at an incalculable cost.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Restructure the UN Power Arrangement

Published

on

When Vice-President Kashim Shettima rose in New York on behalf of President Bola Tinubu to address the general debate of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, he carried a message that Africa has whispered, petitioned and pleaded for far too long: the world’s highest table of peace and security must make room for the continent. Nigeria’s demand is unambiguous: at least two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, with full rights, including the veto, alongside five non-permanent seats. It is a demand that deserves a fair hearing and a decisive response.
The President’s argument rests on a simple proposition: the architecture erected in 1945 cannot credibly govern the world of 2026. Reform of the United Nations, he insisted, must begin with the Security Council, where African representation remains grossly inadequate. Nigeria’s position, he reminded delegates, is anchored in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, which together articulate the African Union’s common position on Security Council reform. His most compelling point was also his simplest: Africa cannot continue to dominate the Council’s agenda while remaining absent from its permanent membership.
Consider how exclusive the club remains. Since the organisation’s founding, only five countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union’s seat, and China—have held permanent membership, with the privilege of the veto. When the UN Charter entered into force, the United Nations had 51 member states; today, it has 193. The organisation’s membership has nearly quadrupled, yet its inner sanctum has admitted no new permanent member in eight decades. A body that refuses to evolve invites the charge that it remains a monument to the victors of a long-concluded war.
The imbalance becomes even more striking when viewed through the lens of geography. Europe has two permanent seats held by European states, while Asia has one held by China. The United States holds another, and Russia, whose territory spans Europe and Asia, occupies the fifth. Africa, home to 54 countries and more than a quarter of the General Assembly’s membership, has none. We are entitled to ask why the historical circumstances of 1945 should continue to determine who sits permanently at the head of the table in the third decade of the twenty-first century.
The irony is bitter. According to Security Council Report, an independent monitoring organisation, Africa accounts for a substantial share of the Council’s formal meetings, while many of its peacekeeping and Chapter VII enforcement mandates concern African states. The Council, in effect, helps determine the fate of African nations without a permanent African voice in its deliberations. To make decisions with far-reaching consequences for a continent while excluding it from permanent decision-making is unjust, outdated and corrosive of the very legitimacy the Council claims.
Nor does the existing arrangement for African participation offer much consolation. Three non-permanent seats are allocated to Africa, but their occupants serve two-year terms, have no veto and enjoy no guaranteed continuity. The so-called A3 must repeatedly learn the corridors of power just as their tenure expires, while the permanent five enjoy continuity, influence and the power to block decisions. How can the United Nations credibly claim to represent the world equitably when an entire continent is excluded from permanent membership? If it is truly a global institution, Africa must have a seat at the table as of right, not at the discretion of others.
Demography reinforces the case. Africa is home to about 1.5 billion people, roughly a fifth of humanity, and its share of the global population is projected to rise. Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country, has an estimated population of more than 230 million and a long record of contributing to peacekeeping and regional stabilisation. Africa’s permanent representatives must be chosen through a process that reflects the continent’s collective interests, and Nigeria, by virtue of its population, diplomatic standing and record of service, is well placed to be considered for one of the two seats. We, therefore, endorse the Federal Government’s position that Africa should have at least two permanent seats on the Security Council.
The vexed question of the veto deserves equal candour. Our considered view is that the veto should be abolished. Where four members agree, a single dissenting voice should not be allowed to frustrate the will of the majority. Time and again, the veto has paralysed the Council in the face of atrocities and aggression, turning deliberation into deadlock and undermining collective action.
The African Union’s formal position is pragmatic: if the veto is abolished for all, so be it; but for as long as it survives, Africa must not be saddled with second-class membership without the same privilege. This is a logical and defensible position, even if the complete abolition of the veto remains the more desirable goal.
The lopsided composition of the Council helps explain why the international community has struggled to make meaningful progress on some of the world’s gravest conflicts. A chamber in which a handful of powers pursue their strategic interests, with limited accountability to the regions most affected by its decisions, can hardly be described as democratic. Legitimacy is the currency of any international institution. When that legitimacy is squandered, confidence in the Council’s decisions weakens, and the cause of multilateralism suffers.
Several practical steps should follow. First, Abuja and the African Union must speak with one voice, agreeing on the criteria for selecting Africa’s representatives and establishing a credible process for identifying candidates for the two seats. This would prevent internal divisions from being exploited by opponents of reform. Second, Nigeria should build alliances beyond the continent, notably with Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, as well as Caribbean and Pacific states that share an interest in reforming the international system. Third, Nigeria must continue to strengthen its credentials through sustained contributions to peacekeeping, sound democratic governance, and timely financial contributions to international institutions.
The Security Council was fashioned for a world that has long since vanished. To pretend otherwise is to court irrelevance. Africa is asking not for charity but for representation commensurate with its population, its responsibilities and its potential. Reform is long overdue, and the international community can no longer afford to ignore the issue. President Tinubu has set out Nigeria’s case with clarity; it is now incumbent on the major powers to demonstrate that the United Nations is a community of nations, not a private club reserved for the victors of a bygone era. History will judge them by how seriously and swiftly they respond.
Continue Reading

Editorial

Time To Resolve The Pension Crisis In Rivers

Published

on

The prolonged suffering of Rivers State pensioners who have remained unpaid since retiring in July 2025 demands urgent executive and legislative intervention. The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has rightly put its finger on the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) as the root cause of this crisis. The state government must now bite the bullet, dismantle this failed experiment, and bring the pensioners’ protracted ordeal to an end.

Since July 2025, the affected retirees have been left high and dry, their monthly pensions unpaid, and their dignity worn away. The NLC, under the leadership of Comrade Alex Agwuanwon, has also linked this deplorable situation to the political storm that engulfed the state, while expressing cautious optimism that the prevailing calm will pave the way for the payment of outstanding arrears. The Tide shares that optimism. However, optimism alone will not put food on the table for men and women who gave the best years of their lives to the service of the state.

The genesis of this crisis is not shrouded in mystery. The CPS was introduced in Rivers State in 2012 under the administration of former Governor Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, pursuant to the Rivers State Pension Reform Law of that year. The scheme was ostensibly designed to bring the state into line with the federal Pension Reform Act of 2004, which had established a contributory framework for retirement benefits across the country. What was sold as a progressive reform has, in truth, become a millstone round the neck of the very workers it was meant to protect.

The CPS has failed in the state, and it has failed spectacularly. Its fundamental flaw lies in the government’s chronic inability, or unwillingness, to honour its counterpart funding obligations. The arrangement was meant to be a joint endeavour: employees contribute a portion of their salaries, and the employer matches it. But the state has consistently failed to keep its side of the bargain, leaving the pension fund anaemic and unable to meet its obligations. The result is as predictable as it is unconscionable. Retirees are left with only their own contributions to fall back on, a mere pittance that cannot see them through their twilight years.

The human cost of this institutional failure is staggering. Men and women who devoted decades to the civil service now find themselves cast adrift, their legitimate expectation of a secure retirement shattered. The psychological toll of such betrayal is beyond measure. A pension is not an act of charity. It is a contractual obligation, a deferred wage for services already rendered. To withhold it is to break a sacred trust. The authorities must understand that every delay in resolving this crisis costs lives, both in the literal sense as elderly retirees struggle to pay for healthcare and sustenance, and in the figurative sense as the social contract between the state and its workforce wears thinner with each passing month.

This development does not show the government in a favourable light. For a state to allow people who served it with dedication and integrity to languish in penury after retirement is morally indefensible. It sends a chilling message to serving civil servants that loyalty will be repaid with abandonment. This is precisely why organised labour must not rest on its oars. The NLC’s call for the termination of the CPS is not mere grandstanding. It is a necessary corrective. The scheme, as presently administered, is irredeemably broken and must be done away with.

The most damning indictment of the CPS since its inception is its one-sidedness. The government has failed to pay its counterpart funding, reducing the scheme to a hollow shell. Of what use is a contributory arrangement when only one party contributes? Retirees cannot be expected to live on the meagre sums they themselves set aside, sums which have been steadily eroded by inflation and administrative charges. Workers have been short-changed, left to carry the can while the government looked the other way. It is a quiet expropriation of their future.

The time to put this right is now in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness. The NLC should push harder for the swift implementation of its committee’s report to Governor Siminalayi Fubara. That report contains a sensible and pragmatic recommendation: that the CPS should apply only to those employed in the year it was enacted, thereby allowing existing civil servants to remain under the Defined Benefit Scheme (DBS) to which they were originally entitled. This is not a radical proposal. It is a reasonable compromise that recognises the legitimate expectations of long-serving workers and rights the wrongs of the past.

The authorities must act with dispatch. Governor Fubara should, without further ado, send a draft amendment of the Pension Law to the House of Assembly for passage into law. With such legislative intervention, those who retired from July 2025 to date would be returned to the DBS, receiving pensions calculated on their terminal salaries and years of service rather than the paltry sums available under the failed contributory arrangement. The NLC, for its part, should keep its foot on the pedal through dialogue, advocacy, and, if necessary, peaceful protest. Pensioners deserve not just fine words but concrete action.

Rivers State cannot lay claim to be progressive while its retirees are forced to go cap in hand for their rightful entitlements. The measure of any civilised society is how it treats its elderly. By that yardstick, the present situation is a blot on the state’s escutcheon. The government must clear the backlog of arrears, scrap the CPS for the category of workers it should never have applied to, and restore the DBS in full. Nothing less will suffice.

Continue Reading

Trending