Connect with us

Opinion

In Sympathy With Ribadu

Published

13 years ago

on

Commission (EFCC) and more recently Chairman of the Petroleum Revenue Special Task Force (PRSTF). It is often said that once beaten twice shy. That best describes the situation Ribadu found himself a week ago during the submission of his committee’s report to the president.

Nine months ago when the public awoke to the surprise appointment ofNuhu Ribadu to head the PRSTF, it set tongues wagging. Many Nigerians had questioned the wisdom in accepting the job.

The objection ranged from the fact that the committee was set up by the Minister of Petroleum Resources (who is deeply enmeshed in the controversy that dogs the oil sector) and not the president, to the fact that for an administration with a predilection for committees, this may just be another committee. The cynics had argued that it was an attempt to shore up the government’s integrity deficit and boost its anti-corruption credentials.

I was one of those who had some reservations about Ribadu’s appointment, but I did not make my feeling public. Even though I had worked with him closely at the EFCC and much later during his presidential campaign, I didn’t attempt to discuss his new job with him. I assumed that as a man of strong convictions, he had his reason for accepting the job.

I met Ribadu in late August. Prior to that meeting, we had not seen for eight months since the public presentation of my book, Time to Reclaim Nigeria, in Abuja, on December 15, 2011, which meant there was a lot of catching up to do. Part of our discussion centred on his committee’s work. He expressed his frustration and explained some of the problems his committee encountered. He hinted about the pecuniary influence from oil “stakeholders” and the possibility of divided allegiance of some members of the committee.

Listening to him, I got a feeling that his was a committee primed to fail. I saw a man tormented by betrayal, yet upbeat. What was of interest to him was what to do to curb the monumental fraud his committee had discovered in the oil industry. He sounded to me like someone who knew the inevitable outcome of the report, but wanted to give the administration the benefit of the doubt.

Looking back, I am not sure he knew or felt at the time of our meeting that the government was contemptuous enough to undermine the report of a committee it set up. I left him and looked forward to the submission of his committee’s report. The submission of the report turned into a fiasco, predictably so. So much has been written about the events surrounding the presentation of the PRSTF report to President Jonathan on November 2. What is missing in the narrative is the complicity of the Presidency, the Minister of Petroleum Resources and major oil multi-nationals in the effort to scuttle the work of the PRSTF.

For a man who promised to do things differently, President Jonathan is awfully predictable. Last week, as the nation waited patiently for the submission of the PRSTF report, I had noted that we would be treated to the same rhetoric that has become the hallmark ofthe Jonathan administration. It was exactly what happened; except that this time, the president conspired to embarrass himself and the entire nation.

When Reuters first put the PRSTF report in the public domain a little over two weeks ago, the Presidency promised that there was no attempt to “cover up” the findings of the committee.

Diezani Alison-Madueke, Minister of Petroleum Resources, said a committee had been given ten days to look at the report and make some “input”. The minister had received the report more than a month earlier, but decided to sit on it.

So what happened? Here is my take: I think the government was caught in a bind, it panicked and the result was the embarrassing situation that played itself out on November 2. The Presidency, it seemed, had been wondering what to do with the PRSTF report since August when it was submitted to the Minister of Petroleum Resources. A minority report by members who weren’t “comfortable” with the main report may have been an option. But once the report became public, it changed everything. Enter Steve Oronsaye and Bernard Otti.

It is instructive that the report the Minister of Petroleum Resources promised would be ready in ten days was not presented to the president as expected. Instead, Oronsaye and Otti made themselves available or were recruited to wreck the final report submitted to the president. Their only reason: “the process adopted by the committee in arriving at its report was flawed”.

Oronsaye’s verbal diarrhea at the submission of the PRSTF report could only have come from a man who had the backing of the Presidency. “What I am saying is that the President has said come and submit the report, so what, if we are not ready, we are not ready,” Oronsaye asserted confidently and condescendingly. “When I say so what, the President has spoken, we should be man enough to tell the President that we are not ready. That is the reason why you are handing over a report that is not process driven”.

Two things are at play here. One, only a man that is incredibly reckless would speak the way Oronsaye spoke before the president. I don’t think Oronsaye is a reckless man considering he is a career civil servant who rose to become the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation. The only other thing is that his comments were carefully scripted and contrived. This was evident when he offered the coup-de-grace in these words: “I don’t know what the report contains. Therefore, in my view, I do not think the report should be accepted at this time, I challenge any member of this

committee to take me on”.

Expectedly, Ribadu, the chairman of the committee, took him on. As it turned out, Oronsaye and Otti, barely participated in the committee’s work. According to Ribadu, “He (Oronsaye) was not

at the inauguration and he never participated in the deliberations of the committee. The only time he came was when we wanted to start deliberations on recovery and he came on behalf of one

company, Addax Petroleum, which is owing $1.5 billion. That was the only time he came. In fact, he scuttled the payment of the $1.5 billion”.

Whether it was for financial gains or compensation for their appointments while serving as members of the PRSTF — Oronsaye became a member of the board of the NNPC and Otti

became a director in NNPC — both Oronsaye and Otti have written their name in infamy. So long as their sense of propriety did not detect a conflict of interest and instruct resignation from the

committee so long will they remain on the wrong side of history. They sold their conscience and mortgaged the future of their children for lucre.

President Jonathan, in his characteristic tepid response to official sleaze, “urged Nigerians not to be distracted by the small disagreement, but to focus on the subject matter of the committee

which is the sanitisation of the Petroleum Sector for the benefit of Nigeria and Nigerians”. The president said he was “not surprised there are disagreement between the members of the committee on the Petroleum Revenue Task Force. It is about money.

Onumah wrote from Port Harcourt.

 

Chidi Onumah

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Why Reduce Cut-Off Mark for C.O.E ?

Published

1 day ago

on

July 18, 2025

By

Quote:”Although the idea of lowering the cut-off to below the pass mark of 200 does not sit well with many Nigerians. 35.5% in any examination anywhere in the world is a fail. And no candidate that scores below 200 should ideally be considered for admission into any tertiary institution in the country.”
Recently, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) and the tertiary education stakeholders approved 150 as the benchmark for admission into universities and 100 for polytechnics and colleges of education for the 2025/2026 academic session. They, However, clarified that no tertiary institutions should admit students who score below the approved scores, but institutions can still fix higher cut-off marks for their applicants. This has remained the pattern over the years. Higher scores are required to go into universities while applicants with lower scores are welcomed in colleges of education and polytechnics. And the question is, why?  At first glance, the disparity in the entry requirements into universities and colleges of education may appear to be a flexible, inclusive approach to higher education access. However, a deeper look reveals that pegging the college of education cut-off mark so low is not only problematic but a threat to the quality of education and the dignity of the teaching profession in Nigeria.
By setting the minimum entry score for Colleges of Education at just 100 out of 400, the message being sent is loud and clear: teaching is not a profession that demands excellence. It is a profession for the “Olodos” This undermines every effort claimed to be made by the government and stakeholders to reposition teaching as a noble, intellectual, and competitive career. The same country that wants to raise the standard of education cannot afford to lower the standard for training those who will educate future generations. Colleges of Education are responsible for preparing teachers for Nigeria’s basic education sector. These are the people who will teach children in their formative years—the foundation of any nation’s future. If we continue to accept candidates with very low academic abilities into these institutions, how can we expect them to produce competent, inspiring, and innovative educators?
Accepting candidates who score as low as 25% on the UTME is a recipe for mediocrity. It sends a message that anyone can be a teacher, regardless of their intellectual preparation. This will not only dilute the quality of teachers but worsen the already low public perception of the profession. There are many students with strong academic credentials who are genuinely passionate about becoming educators. Setting the cut-off at 100 trivializes their efforts and sacrifices. It lumps them together with individuals who may not have the intellectual or emotional readiness for teaching, leading to overcrowded classrooms, underwhelming graduates, and frustrated employers.While universities are expected to maintain a cut-off mark of 150, colleges of education are effectively reduced to a dumping ground for low-performing candidates. This dichotomy creates a sense of inequality and inferiority around education colleges, when in fact, the reverse should be the case.
If anything, those training to shape young minds should meet standards equal to or higher than university students, not lower.The effects of this policy may not be immediately visible, but in the long run, they will be devastating. We are likely to see: a further decline in basic education outcomes. Someone joked that as the cut-off mark keeps dwindling every academic year, by 2030, the cut-off for the universities will be 100 and that of colleges of education and polytechnics reduced to 70 or 50. Who is fooling who?The chances of having more poorly trained teachers entering the public school system is inevitable. An irritated teacher recently lamented how the public schools are flooded with so-called teachers who do not know their left from their right, compelling the old teachers to do the job of teaching and training them.The low entry requirements to colleges of education can lead to higher attrition rates in the teaching profession due to unprepared candidates; diminished respect and remuneration for teachers; greater educational inequality between rural and urban areas and lots more.
It is therefore advised that rather than lowering standards, those in-charge of the education should raise entry requirements for Colleges of Education to at least 140 or 150 to align with university expectations. Although the idea of lowering the cut-off to below the pass mark of 200 does not sit well with many Nigerians. 35.5% in any examination anywhere in the world is a fail. And no candidate that scores below 200 should ideally be considered for admission into any tertiary institution in the country. As earlier stated, our colleges of education are now painfully places for poor grade students. That should be concerning to those in authority and stakeholders in the education sector. And this can only be corrected when our leaders pay adequate attention to our colleges of education. There should be improved funding and facilities in these institutions to attract top-tier candidates.
Incentives such as scholarships, housing, or job security should be provided for those who perform well and commit to teaching. Some corporate organisations have done this over the years and one thinks it is high time both federal, state and local government areas get visibly and sincerely involved. All over the world, teaching is regarded as a noble and professional career and the case shouldn’t be different in Nigeria. If we are truly serious about fixing Nigeria’s education system, we must start by fixing how we train our teachers. Lowering the cut-off mark to 100 for Colleges of Education is a step backward and a stain on our national conscience. We must demand excellence from those who will one day stand before our children—not just in words, but in policy. After all, the quality of education in any nation will never rise above the quality of its teachers.
The reason usually adduced for lowering the cut-off mark is candidates’ poor performance at entrance exams. And one wonders how lowering the bar will lead to higher performance. How will that challenge students to harder? One thinks it high time those in-charge of the education sector, parents, and teachers think of solving the problems bedeviling the sector from the root instead of the usual method of treating the symptom rather than the disease. There is an urgent need to prioritize the welfare and quality of teachers if we must expect better results. It is also important that the authorities look into the speculations that the lower cut-off is a ploy by some universities to get maximum payment for Post UTME, knowing that no candidate with less than 200 will be given admission into any department in the institutions. This kind of extortion should not be allowed to continue.
What is even the reason for double entrance examinations for a single admission. If UTME is no longer enough to earn admission into higher institutions in Nigeria then JAMB should be scrapped and higher institutions given the authority to conduct their own entrance examinations.On the other hand, if JAMB is still found worthy of conducting credible entrance examinations into tertiary institutions in the country, then we should do away with post UTME examinations. Our education sector must be sanitized for us to get the best, desired result
Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Opinion

Welcome! Worthy Future For R/S

Published

1 day ago

on

July 18, 2025

By

Quote:”The June accord is not the end of the crisis. It is the beginning of responsibility.To Fubara: Lead with humility, but do not abandon your authority. To Wike: Let your legacy be one of vision, not vengeance. To the Assembly: Return to your true employers—the people. To President Tinubu: Guard this peace not just with federal might, but moral clarity.”
After months of bitter power tussle between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and his estranged political godfather, Chief Nyesom Wike, months ago, Rivers has finally arrived at a moment that feels like the return of peace. Actually it should be the duty of all stakeholders to see that the peace so brokered between ‘father and son’ is sustained. Just two years ago, this conflict was unthinkable. Fubara, a career technocrat and former Accountant-General, was Wike’s trusted protégé handpicked and handed the reins of power after the 2023 elections. The baton was passed with confidence, perhaps even affection. The State House of Assembly dominated by Wike’s loyalists—moved to impeach him. Nine commissioners resigned. Government House fell eerily silent. Port Harcourt became a city of whispers.
What began as a brotherhood became brinkmanship. And by March 2025, it had spiraled so far that President Bola Tinubu was forced to impose emergency rule, suspending democratic processes and appointing an  administrator to restore order. On June 26, in a closed-door meeting at Aso Rock, Wike and Fubara shook hands under the watchful eyes of President Tinubu. Also present were lawmakers, party leaders, and peacemakers from across the federation. “No more acrimony,” Wike declared. “I will do everything within my power to sustain peace,” Fubara assured. For the people, this truce comes as a welcome relief but not without skepticism.“Peace is good, but we’ve heard this story before,” some said “Let them not sign peace in Abuja and bring trouble back to Port Harcourt.”The memory of the failed December 2023 accord still stings—a deal that promised healing but delivered deeper wounds. This time, the public wants more than promises. They want accountability.
“This is not just a political dispute it is  a leadership crisis that nearly destroyed the democratic soul of Rivers,” says Dr. Felix Chidiebere, a political scientist at the University of Port Harcourt. “Peace now must go beyond handshakes. It must show up in policy, in projects, in people’s lives.”Trust in the Assembly to legislate not legislate loyalty. Trust in the governor to govern with fairness, not fear. Trust in Wike to mentor, not manipulate. And above all, trust in the system to protect democracy. In the months of uncertainty, Rivers lost more than political direction it lost momentum.School roofs remain caved in. Youth empowerment programs are paused. Civil servants fear late salaries. Health centers sit idle. Foreign investors hover with hesitation.
Meanwhile, power brokers jostled for influence while ordinary lives were pushed to the margins. And yet, through it all, the people endured. They endured because they believed Rivers could be more than oil. More than politics. More than pain.
What the state needs at the moment is reconciliation, not revenge. The work ahead is not for politicians alone. Civil society, religious leaders, youth groups, and traditional rulers must now rise—not to pick sides, but to build bridges. There must be structure to this peace: community dialogue, legislative reform, perhaps even a truth and reconciliation commission. Peace, after all, is not a gift. It is a discipline. It must be protected, nourished, and enforced. As the National Youth Council of Nigeria rightly put it: “We want peace, but not at the cost of our constitution
The June accord is not the end of the crisis. It is the beginning of responsibility.To Fubara: Lead with humility, but do not abandon your authority. To Wike: Let your legacy be one of vision, not vengeance. To the Assembly: Return to your true employers—the people. To President Tinubu: Guard this peace not just with federal might, but moral clarity. Peace is the return of salaries. Peace is the sound of classrooms reopening. Peace is a contractor’s tools coming back to life. Peace is a young girl in Eleme daring to dream of becoming governor one day. Rivers doesn’t need perfect leaders. It needs present ones. Honest ones. Human ones.The ink has dried. The cameras are gone. Now begins the harder work—not of declaring peace, but of delivering it. Because in Rivers State, peace must not only be signed. It must be sustained. Yes, peace has come to stay. In my sincere thinking, I can put the current peace deal in the state as ‘No victor , no vanquish’…
 King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

Restoring Order, Delivering Good Governance 

Published

1 week ago

on

July 11, 2025

By

Quote:”But the tide must now turn. With the Senate’s approval of a record ?1.485 trillion budget for Rivers State for 2025, a new opportunity has emerged”.

The political atmosphere in Rivers State has been anything but calm in 2025. Yet, a rare moment of unity was witnessed on Saturday, June 28, when Governor Siminalayi Fubara and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike, appeared side by side at the funeral of Elder Temple Omezurike Onuoha, Wike’s late uncle. What could have passed for a routine condolence visit evolved into a significant political statement—a symbolic show of reconciliation in a state bruised by deep political strife.

The funeral, attended by dignitaries from across the nation, was more than a moment of shared grief. It became the public reflection of a private peace accord reached earlier at the Presidential Villa in Abuja. There, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu brought together Governor Fubara, Minister Wike, the suspended Speaker of the Rivers State House of Assembly, Martin Amaewhule, and other lawmakers to chart a new path forward.

For Rivers people, that truce is a beacon of hope. But they are not content with photo opportunities and promises. What they demand now is the immediate lifting of the state of emergency declared in March 2025, and the unconditional reinstatement of Governor Fubara, Deputy Governor Dr. Ngozi Odu, and all suspended lawmakers. They insist on the restoration of their democratic mandate.

President Tinubu’s decision to suspend the entire structure of Rivers State’s elected leadership and appoint a sole administrator was a drastic response to a deepening political crisis. While it may have prevented a complete breakdown in governance, it also robbed the people of their voice. That silence must now end.

The administrator, retired naval chief Ibok-Ette Ibas, has managed a caretaker role. But Rivers State cannot thrive under unelected stewardship. Democracy must return—not partially, not symbolically, but fully. President Tinubu has to ensure that the people’s will, expressed through the ballot, is restored in word and deed.

Governor Fubara, who will complete his six-month suspension by September, was elected to serve the people of Rivers, not to be sidelined by political intrigues. His return should not be ceremonial. It should come with the full powers and authority vested in him by the constitution and the mandate of Rivers citizens.

The people’s frustration is understandable. At the heart of the political crisis was a power tussle between loyalists of Fubara and those of Wike. Institutions, particularly the State House of Assembly, became battlegrounds. Attempts were made to impeach Fubara. The situation deteriorated into a full-blown crisis, and governance was nearly brought to its knees.

But the tide must now turn. With the Senate’s approval of a record ?1.485 trillion budget for Rivers State for 2025, a new opportunity has emerged. This budget is not just a fiscal document—it is a blueprint for transformation, allocating ?1.077 trillion for capital projects alone. Yet, without the governor’s reinstatement, its execution remains in doubt.

It is Governor Fubara, and only him, who possesses the people’s mandate to execute this ambitious budget. It is time for him to return to duty with vigor, responsibility, and a renewed sense of urgency. The people expect delivery—on roads, hospitals, schools, and job creation.

Rivers civil servants, recovering from neglect and under appreciation, should also continue to be a top priority. Fubara should continue to ensure timely payment of salaries, address pension issues, and create a more effective, motivated public workforce. This is how governance becomes real in people’s lives.

The “Rivers First” mantra with which Fubara campaigned is now being tested. That slogan should become policy. It must inform every appointment, every contract, every budget decision, and every reform. It must reflect the needs and aspirations of the ordinary Rivers person—not political patrons or vested interests.

Beyond infrastructure and administration, political healing is essential. Governor Fubara and Minister Wike must go beyond temporary peace. They should actively unite their camps and followers to form one strong political family. The future of Rivers cannot be built on division.

Political appointments, both at the Federal and State levels, must reflect a spirit of fairness, tolerance, and inclusivity. The days of political vendettas and exclusive lists must end. Every ethnic group, every gender, and every generation must feel included in the new Rivers project.

Rivers is too diverse to be governed by one faction. Lasting peace can only be built on concessions, maturity, and equity. The people are watching to see if the peace deal will lead to deeper understanding or simply paper over cracks in an already fragile political arrangement.

Wike, now a national figure as Minister of the FCT, has a responsibility to rise above the local fray and support the development of Rivers State. His influence should bring federal attention and investment to the state, not political interference or division.

Likewise, Fubara should lead with restraint, humility, and a focus on service delivery. His return should not be marked by revenge or political purges but by inclusive leadership that welcomes even former adversaries into the process of rebuilding the state.

“The people are no longer interested in power struggles. They want light in their streets, drugs in their hospitals, teachers in their classrooms, and jobs for their children. The politics of ego and entitlement have to give way to governance with purpose.

The appearance of both leaders at the funeral was a glimpse of what unity could look like. That moment should now evolve into a movement-one that prioritizes Rivers State over every personal ambition. Let it be the beginning of true reconciliation and progress.

As September draws near, the Federal government should act decisively to end the state of emergency and reinstate all suspended officials. Rivers State must return to constitutional order and normal democratic processes. This is the minimum requirement of good governance.

The crisis in Rivers has dragged on for too long. The truce is a step forward, but much more is needed. Reinstating Governor Fubara, implementing the ?1.485 trillion budget, and uniting political factions are now the urgent tasks ahead. Rivers people have suffered enough. It is time to restore leadership, rebuild trust, and finally put Rivers first.

By: Amieyeofori Ibim
Amieyeofori Ibim is former Editor of The Tide Newspapers, political analyst and public affairs commentator

Continue Reading

Trending