Opinion

Niger Delta: Between Ministry And NDDC

Published

14 years ago

August 31, 2011

There is no disputing the fact that the challenges of developing the Niger Delta are enormous and perhaps intimidating. This gargantuan task, no doubt, requires the concerted efforts of all stake holders. The indications are that the Federal Government understands this, which explains why it adopted a multi-faceted strategy in tackling the challenges, realising that it is not an undertaking for only one or two development agencies. The justification, of course, is that undoing the damage wrought by decades of neglect and injustice would need team work.

Thus, the creation of the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs tallies with the reasoning that all hands must be on deck to fast-track the development of the region that produces the oil-wealth of the nation. The ministry was supposed to lead and co-ordinate the infrastructural and environmental development as well as the youth empowerment programmes of the Federal Government in the region.

Despite this good intension, the ministry took off amidst controversies and apprehensions. Those who had reservations about the ministry feared that it would add another avoidable layer of bureaucracy to the effort at speeding up the development of the Niger Delta. However, those who supported its creation were hopeful that it would attract additional funds and expertise for the rapid development of the region.

A lot of premium was placed on the advantage of having two ministers who, as members of the Federal Executive Council would have a platform to articulate the development needs of the Niger Delta. Those who were still not convinced were told that the ministers would have easy access to Mr. President to ensure that he never loses sight of the Niger Delta question.

Today, however, the story appears to be different. The ministry which many had thought was coming to add value to the fortunes of the region is now confirming the worst fears of critics who predicted that it would slow down rather than enhance the activities of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) that it was supposed to complement.

This is contrary to the general expectations that the ministry and the NDDC would team up to implement the Niger Delta Regional Development Master Plan. This unpleasant turn of events is, to say the least, shocking. You can be sure that political and community leaders who had justified the creation of the ministry are not amused.

Most people in the region had thought that a massive inflow of funds would follow the creation of the ministry to translate the lofty goals of the Master Plan into projects and programmes that would make significant impact on the lives of the people of the oil-bearing communities spread across the Niger Delta region. In fact, some people had suggested a Marshall Plan approach in addressing the developmental challenges in the region.

It is rather sad that this has not happened. To make matters worse, the ministry appears to be in a contest for superiority in its relationship with the NDDC. While other stake holders are looking up to them to play a leading role in coordinating the implementation of the widely applauded Master Plan, the ministry seems intent on bringing NDDC under its control. The power tussle is uncalled for and the ministry should know that it was not put in place to reinvent the wheel. Basically, it was created to add more impetus to the activities of other agencies of government that are already on ground and partnering with them for the benefit of the region.

Senator Ndoma-Egba, a strong voice in the Upper Legislative House of the National Assembly, puts it this way: “My understanding of the decision by the executive to create a ministry for the Niger-Delta was to empower it to help in the infrastructural development of the area in addition to, not as a replacement for ,what the NDDC is doing.”

Another lawmaker, representing Warri Federal constituency in the House of Representatives, Hon. Daniel Reyenieju, noted that the commission was established by an Act of Parliament. “On no account should the commission be merged with the ministry because the Niger Delta Ministry was created by an executive fiat while the commission came to life via an Act of Parliament which is far stronger than that of the ministry,” he said.

Again, the ministry should be conscious of the fact that up to this day, many people still believe that it is a superfluous political contraption. Only recently, for instance, the former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Mallam Nasir el-Rufia said “the creation of the Niger Delta Ministry is a political gesture and unnecessary bureaucracy that will fail to solve the problems facing the troubled region.”

Unfortunately, the ministry seems to be preoccupied with annexing more powers and extending its spheres of influence, especially over other statutory agencies. The Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Elder Godsday Orubebe, has never hidden his disdain for an autonomous NDDC. He has argued at every opportunity that the commission should be supervised by his ministry.

Here is what he said in a recent interview published in a national newspaper: “There is no correlation between the NDDC and the Niger Delta Ministry. If you go and attend a meeting anywhere in the world, people are talking to you about the NDDC, people are talking to you about development and as a minister, you have little or no information about what the NDDC is doing; does that present any meaningful reasoning? A minister of the Niger Delta should be able to tell development partners and whoever that is concerned what is being done by the NDDC. But today, there is no correlation.”

The minister is right in insisting on collaboration between his ministry and the NDDC. But who or what are the hindrances to this very necessary partnership? Before the ministry came on board, the NDDC had already set up a clearing house called the Partners for Sustainable Development (PSD) Forum. This important organ brings together representatives of federal and state governments of oil-bearing states, youth and women leaders, traditional rulers as well as the organized private sector, civil society, the mass media and international development agencies such as the UNDP and the World Bank. Its main function is to ensure that the developmental activities in the Niger Delta by all stakeholders are synchronized. This important organ is all that the ministry needs to key into the development programmes of the region.

Indeed, it is surprising that the ministry has not adopted the Master Plan facilitated by the NDDC as its own road map, since the Federal Government gave its blessings for the production of the comprehensive plan. The 15-year period of the plan must not be allowed to run out without any significant impact on the Niger Delta.

There is no need for this distractive schism in what should be a collective effort to rescue Niger Deltans from the pits of squalor and want. The Act setting up the NDDC clearly puts the supervision of the commission directly under the President. Note, not under the Presidency. This means that there are no obstructive go-between for the commission and the President to ensure expeditious implementation of decisions. The framers of the law were conscious of the fact that the interventionist agency must be freed of all the encumbrances of ministries which are usually weighed down by bureaucratic red tape.

Part II, Section 7 of the Niger Delta Development Commission (Establishment) Act 2000 states that: “The Commission shall be subject to the direction, control or supervision in the performance of its functions under this Act by the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Royal fathers in the region, under the aegis of Association of Traditional Rulers of Oil Mineral Producing Communities of Nigeria, have given their wise counsel to President Goodluck Jonathan on this matter. Their warning: “Don’t contemplate merging the commission with the ministry. Such action will be detrimental to the entire people of the area.”

The urgent task now is to secure more finds for the full implementation of the Master Plan for the region. There is enough room for both the ministry and the NDDC to operate and collaborate for the benefit of Niger Deltans.

Agbu, a seasoned journalist, writes from Port Harcourt.

Ifeatu Agbu

Opinion

Trans-Kalabari Road: Work In Progress

Published

3 days ago

January 12, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”This Dream project is one of the best things that have happened to the people and residents of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas in recent times.”

This is the concluding part of this story featured in our last edition.

Good road network helps farmers to convey their agro-allied products to commercial hubs where buyers and sellers meet periodically to transact business. Road network engineers and motivates people resident in unfriendly geographical terrains, like riverine areas, to own property and shuttle home with ease. Some people will prefer living in their own houses in a more serene and nature-blessed communities to living in the city that is fraught with pollution, and other environmental, social and economic hazards. Prior to the cult epidemic that ravaged parts of Rivers State, the Emohuas, Elemes, Ogonis, and Etches were known for rural dwelling. Most public servants from these areas do their official and private transactions from their villages. For them it was comparatively easier to live in the village and engage in a diversified economic endeavours through farming, fishing or other lucrative business without outrageous charges and embarrassment associated with doing business in Port Harcourt, where land is as scarce as the traditional needle.

That is why the decision to construct the Trans-Kalabari Road by the administration of Dr. Peter Odili was one of the best decisions that administration took. When Dr. Odili vacated office as the Rivers State Governor, Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi took over and awarded contracts for continuation of the road project which in my considered view is the felt need of the people of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas. Unfortunately, Rt. Hon. Amaechi’s efforts to drive the project was sabotaged by some contractors some of whom are Kalabari people. The main Trans-Kalabari Road is one project that is dear to the people and residents of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas of Rivers State. This is because through the road commuters can easily access several communities in the three local government areas. For instance, the road when completed will enable access to eight of the ten communities in Degema Local Government Area, namely: Bukuma, Tombia, Bakana, Oguruama, Obuama, Usokun, Degema town and the Degema Consulate. It will also link 15 of the 16 communities in Asari Toru Local Government Area. The communities are: Buguma, the local government headquarters, Ido, Abalama, Tema, Sama, Okpo, Ilelema, Ifoko, Tema, Sangama, Krakrama, Omekwe-Ama, Angulama. The road will also connect 14 of 17 wards in Akuku Toru Local Government Area, and other settlements. It is interesting to note that It is faster, and far more convenient and economical for the catchment Communities on the Trans-Kalabari Road network to go to the State Capital than the East West Road. The people of the three local government areas will prefer to work or do their transactions in Port Harcourt from their respective communities to staying in Port Harcourt where the house rent and the general cost of living is astronomically high.

Consequently, development will seamlessly spread to the 28 out of 34 communities of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas. The only Communities that are not linked by the road project are Oporoama in Asari Toru, the Ke and Bille Communities in Degema Local Government Area and the “Oceania” communities of Abissa, Kula, Soku, Idama, Elem Sangama of Akuku Toru Local Government Area. But because of the economic value of the unlinked Communities to Nigeria, (they produce substantial oil and gas in the area), the Federal, State Governments and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), can extend the road network to those areas just as Bonny is linked to Port Harcourt and the Lagos Mainland Bridge is connecting several towns in Lagos and neighbouring States.Kudos to previous administrations who had constructed the Central Group axis.

However, what is said to be the First Phase of the Trans-Kalabari Road project is actually a linkage of the “Central Group” Communities which consists of Krakrama, Angulama, Omekwe. Ama, Omekwe Tari Ama, Ifoko, Tema, Sangama. It is the peripheral of the Trans-Kalabari Road. The completion of the Main Trans Kalabari project will free Port Harcourt and Obio/Akpor areas from congestion. It will motivate residents and people of the three local areas to contribute to the development of their Communities. If the Ogonis, Etches, Emohuas, Oyigbos, Okrikas, Elemes can feel comfortable doing business in Port Harcourt from home, residents and people whose communities are linked to Port Harcourt through the Trans-Kalabari Road will no doubt, do likewise. The vast arable virgin land of the Bukuma people can be open for development and sustainable agricultural ventures by Local, State and Federal Government.

It is necessary to recall that the Bukuma community was host to the Federal Government’s Graduate Farmers’ Scheme and the Rivers State Government moribund School-to-Land Scheme under Governor Fidelis Oyakhilome. Bukuma was the only community in Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas that has the capacity to carry those agricultural programmes. However the lack of road to transport farm produce to Port Harcourt and facilitate the movement of the beneficiaries of the scheme who lived in the community which is several miles away from the farms, hampered the sustainability of the programme. The main Trans-Kalabari Road remains the best gift to the people of Degema, Asari Toru, and Akuku-Toru Local Government Areas. Kudos to Sir Siminilayi Fubara.

By: Igbiki Benibo

Opinion

That U.S. Capture of Maduro

Published

3 days ago

January 12, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Strategic convenience does not nullify sovereignty. Political frustration does not authorise military abduction.”

The first part of this story was published in our last edition.

In Africa and the Middle East, regime change—whether by invasion, proxy warfare, or sanctions—has often left behind fractured states, weakened institutions, and prolonged instability. Washington’s motivations in Venezuela are widely understood: vast oil reserves, alliances with U.S. rivals, and symbolic defiance of American influence in the Western Hemisphere. But none of these reasons confer legal or moral legitimacy. Strategic convenience does not nullify sovereignty. Political frustration does not authorise military abduction. If every powerful nation acted on its grievances in this manner, global chaos would inevitably follow. International law provides mechanisms for accountability. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), individuals accused of crimes against humanity or other grave offences are subject to investigation and prosecution through judicial processes.

Likewise, extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance agreements, and Interpol mechanisms exist to ensure accountability while respecting due process. These frameworks were designed precisely to prevent unilateral enforcement of “justice” by military force. The most profound consequence of America’s action may not be in Caracas, but in the precedent it sets. If the world accepts that a superpower can unilaterally depose another country’s president, then the foundation of the international system is weakened. Sovereignty becomes conditional—no longer a right, but a privilege tolerated at the discretion of the powerful. Going forward, if another country invades its neighbour, will the United States retain the moral authority to impose sanctions or demand restraint? Some analysts already warn that parallels between Russia’s actions in Ukraine and America’s conduct in Venezuela risk further eroding global norms. Selective adherence to international law breeds cynicism and accelerates the drift toward a world governed by force rather than rules.

Power—military, economic, or political—should serve human progress and collective well-being, not domination and destruction. For African nations, many of which emerged from colonial rule through bitter struggle, this precedent is especially alarming. Sovereignty is not an abstract legal concept; it is a hard-won shield against external domination. Any erosion of that principle anywhere weakens it everywhere. Africa’s painful history of foreign interference makes this lesson especially urgent. For me, the real issue is not whether Nicolás Maduro is a good or bad leader. That judgment belongs, first and foremost, to the Venezuelan people. The larger issue is whether the international system still operates on law—or has quietly reverted to hierarchy. If America insists it is defending global order, it must ask itself a difficult question: can an order survive when its most powerful guardian feels entitled to violate it? Until that question is answered honestly, the capture of a foreign president will remain not a triumph of justice, but a troubling symbol of a world drifting from law toward force.

If the United States felt so strongly about the allegations of terrorism, drug trafficking against Maduro, were there no other lawful options? Judicial accountability, diplomacy, regional mediation, and multilateral pressure may be slow and imperfect, but they reflect respect for international law and sovereign equality. Military seizure is a blunt instrument. It humiliates institutions, radicalizes populations, and hardens resistance. It may remove a leader, but it rarely resolves the underlying crisis. History teaches that military interventions seldom result in stable democratic outcomes. More often, they breed resentment, resistance, and long-term instability. For the sake of global order and the rule of law, the United States should reconsider this path and recommit to diplomacy, legal cooperation, and respect for the sovereign equality of states. Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly described the invasion of Venezuela as “unlawful and unwise,” warning that such actions “do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable.” Her words reflect a growing recognition, even within the United States, that force without legitimacy undermines both moral authority and global stability.

Should what happened in Venezuela serve as a wake-up call for corrupt African leaders who undermine the people’s right to choose their leaders? The answer is yes. The capture of Maduro should alarm African leaders who manipulate elections, weaken institutions, suppress opposition, undermine citizens’ rights, or cling to power at all costs. Venezuela faced widespread criticism over disputed elections and repression long before this episode, and that context shaped how the world reacted. This does not justify foreign military intervention, but it highlights an uncomfortable truth: prolonged democratic decay isolates nations and invites external pressure—from sanctions to diplomatic censure. Global opinion matters, and legitimacy at home strengthens sovereignty abroad. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and several African leaders have rightly condemned the events in Venezuela, invoking the principles of sovereignty and non-interference enshrined in international and regional law.

Beyond condemnation, however, African leaders must look inward. The continent’s future cannot be built on repression, constitutional manipulation, and personal greed. Leadership must reflect the will of the people, not desperation for power. Two days ago, a social commentator on a radio station argued that Trump’s action—though condemnable—demonstrates how far a leader can go for his country’s interest. According to this view, he did not intervene in Venezuela for personal enrichment, but to strengthen his nation. In stark contrast, many African leaders plunder their own countries. They siphon public resources, impose crushing taxes and harmful policies, and leave their citizens poorer—all for selfish gain. That contradiction is the deeper lesson Africa must confront.True sovereignty is protected not only by international law, but by accountable leadership at home.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Kudos Gov Fubara

Published

2 weeks ago

January 2, 2026

The Tide

Please permit me to use this medium to appreciate our able governor, Siminalayi Fubara for the inauguration of the 14.2-kilometre Obodhi–Ozochi Road in Ahoada-East Local Government Area. This inauguration marks a significant milestone in the history of our communities and deserves commendation. We, the people of Ozochi, are particularly happy because this project has brought long-awaited relief after years of isolation and hardship.

The expression of our traditional ruler, His Royal Highness, Eze Prince Ike Ehie, JP, during the inauguration captured the joy of our people. He said, “our isolation is over.” That reflects the profound impact of this road on daily life, economic activities, and social integration of the people of Ozochi and other neighbouring communities. The road will no doubt ease transportation, improve access to markets and healthcare, and strengthen links between Ahoada, Omoku, and other parts of Rivers State.

The people of Ahoada, Omoku, and indeed Rivers State as a whole are grateful to our dear governor for this laudable achievement and wish him many more successful years in office. We pray that God endows him with more wisdom and strength to continue to pilot the affairs of the state for the benefit of all. As citizens, we should rally behind the governor and support his development agenda. Our politicians and stakeholders should embrace peace and cooperation, as no meaningful progress can be achieved in an atmosphere of conflict. Sustainable development in the state can only thrive where peace prevails.

Samuel Ebiye