Connect with us

Opinion

Should Indians Manage The Model Schools In Rivers?

Published

on

Iheanyi Ezinwo,

Publisher

First of all, I want to start by saying that the system of government we have makes it possible for a sitting governor to decide on whatever he wants to do, and also to do it whether it is right or wrong.

Now, the governor before this time had not hidden his intention to hand over the management of the model schools to Indians. As a person, I would want to see that as a novel development.

It is a new one because many of us had thought that there is hardly any category of personnel that we don’t have in Rivers State. But from the face of it, the first thing that will come to mind on hearing this is that there are no qualified people in Rivers State to do the job.

As an individual, I would say that it would have been better to allow our people here to do the job. It is a matter of evolving the appropriate structure that will make it possible that school visitations and monitoring are properly done. But since they have decided to do it, it will not be easy for us to just say what the governor is doing is wrong or right.

We need to know at what cost are they going to do the job? For how long? Remember that for some time payment of salaries in Rivers State was handed over to Zenith Bank. But within a short time, it was discovered that they were not doing better than those who were doing it before. But now, from what we read from the papers, the assignment has been returned to the civil servants. So, I would have preferred a situation whereby they would look at how the system was working before, identify the weaknesses, then come up with ways and means of strengthening the monitoring mechanism.

But since they are insisting to go and contract the job, it is only time that will determine or justify that decision. Since the work has not started, I cannot tell you now that it is a right decision or not. It is the outcome that will determine whether the decision is right or not.

I think the assumption is that these Indians have the capability to properly run the schools. But the worry there is for how long are they going to run those schools? Who are going to take over from them, is it not the same our people that are going to take over from them? As a person, I may have my reservations but I believe that the governor knows certain things that I may not know that motivated him to go for that.

But I want to see it generally as a political decision because the day he leaves office, it is most  likely that the next governor will reverse that decision. So, as a person, by saying it is good or not cannot change anything. I would prefer that we let it be and watch to see how the whole thing would go.

I would not call the decision an indictment on the enlightened class.  I will call it a vote of no confidence on local hands. In other words, it is a demonstration of lack of confidence in our people to do the job very well. That is the way a disinterested third party will see it.

 

Iwu Remigeus,

Businessman

To me, this is a welcome development in a way because Indians that I know are very thorough people who do things well. If the model schools are given to them to manage, they will manage them well and produce results.

Although I believe we have capable hands here to manage the model schools, the Indians will do it better. If our own people are asked to manage the schools, they may have the Nigerian factor to contend with. Even if they are good, they may be influenced by corrupt Nigerians to water down the standard the Indians may set.

But my concern about the policy is the cost implication. Has the government actually thought out what it will cost to bring these Indians to manage all the model schools in the state?

The policy is good on paper, but I hope we will not have problems in implementing it. I think the government should consult a little more.

 

Patrick George,

Businessman

First of all, let us look at the motives behind the state government bringing Indians to manage the schools. I don’t know what are their motives. But if you ask me, I would say that we have indigenous managers or school managers that can handle all these. But I think we have people that will be there to manage these schools,  and not the Indians. They are good in their own way but I prefer indigenous managers and indigenous teachers.

You pay these Indians in foreign currency, you pay them based on the salary agreement. It is like somebody importing goods. You pay more to the country where you import the goods. So, in our case, in terms of salary and maintenance, the state government will have to pay more, and in that case, some employed to manage these schools before now will now go back to the labour market.

I don’t know why the state government decided to bring Indians to manage the schools. To me, it is not good; I don’t like it. Let our people do the managing first. If after  two or three years, it is not working, they might think of another way out. Every problem has a solution.

If the next government comes and does not like it, they might ask them to go.

 

Jude Akaraonye,

Businessman

Actually, this is a surprise in the sense that in Rivers State even before the schools were built to a standard like this, where were the Indians before the innovations? Does it mean that our teachers cannot perform in a more beautifully built schools? Why must it just be the Indians now that the schools have been properly renovated, at  least, to standard? Why must it be the Indians that will now come and take over and manage the schools?. These are just a few of the questions.

Now, another thing is this: does  it mean we don’t have good enough academia? I mean classic ones in the entire state? We have professors, eminent professors that are well read all over. Does it mean we cannot involve such people to take charge of management or leadership of such schools, even if it involves sending them abroad for training, for proper training? Let it be that they are indigenous teachers.

So, based on that, I don’t think it is proper to involve the Indians to come over and manage our resources in this case, which means we don’t have good teachers.

 

Mrs. Atemie Sanipe,

Teacher

My opinion is that if the Indians will come and spot out the quacks and sanitise the model schools, let them come. Most teachers are not fit to be in our school system. May be the Indians will add value to the running of these model schools, otherwise I will say no to their coming.

I believe if Indians are engaged to run these schools, it will affect the employment of staff into the schools. Quality staff will be employed. If they employ the right persons, they will be laying a proper foundation. I believe it will take time before they deviate.

What I am saying is that the Indians will do better than our people if asked to manage the model schools. They are competent and they are the people that we emulate.

 

Theophilus Daerego,

Civil Servant

For Indians as usual to manage the schools, I think they can do better than our people here. What is there is that they have to manage the schools properly, and may be, after sometime, our people can undergo training and learn the job. Because right now, our standard of education has fallen. Sometimes, if you look at the way we Nigerians manage, we find it difficult.  So, that is where the problem lies.

If the Rivers State government says that they want experts or foreigners to manage the schools, I see nothing bad in it.

It is a welcome development. Because already, Indians during the seventies, or eighties were here with us, teaching us. I could remember when I was a student at Enitonna High School, Port Harcourt, it was Indians who taught us. And they taught us well.

I do not think bringing the Indians mean our people cannot do the work. They are bringing them because they are more advanced than we are educationally. They are also less corruptible. So, bringing them is a good thing for us to learn from them. You know we are learners and a Third World country. They are more than us in terms of technology, in terms of civilization and educationally. So, Indians managing the schools is very good.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Trans-Kalabari  Road:  Work In Progress 

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Opinion

That  U.S. Capture of Maduro

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Opinion

Kudos  Gov Fubara

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Trending