Opinion

Should FG Grant Amnesty To Boko Haram Members?

Published

13 years ago

April 8, 2013

For sometimes now, there has been a divergent views over the call by the northern leaders to grant amnesty to Boko Haram insurgents. While some people considered it as the best option to restore peace and order in the country, many others regarded it as a dangerous omen. In the midst of this confusion, the Federal Government, last week appeared to have succumbed to the pressure of the Northern leaders by showing its readiness to grant amnesty to this sect of terrorists. Our correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Dele Obinna sought the opinions of Nigerians on the issue. Excerpts.

Mr. Kogbara Princewill Lebua – Business Man

I don’t think it is necessary. What is the basis? There is no basis for that. If you want to look at it from the angle of the Niger Delta militants, there was a cause for their militancy. It was because the Niger Delta people felt marginalised, after all the wealth the government had taken from the Niger Delta region, there is no development. There is nothing to show for it. So, the Niger Delta militants tried in their own way for their voice to be heard.

What are Boko Haram members fighting for. What is the cause of their actions? And you hardly see the Niger Delta militants killing innocent people or burning churches. But Boko Haram is known for that.

So in my own opinion, for the Federal Government to even create a room for discussion with Boko Haram members, Let alone grant them amnesty is not necessary.

I expected the government to approach the issue from the angle of being government that should be able to tell the people look this is wrong, this is right. You can’t do this. If you don’t have this, you can’t get this. Giving Amnesty to Boko Haram members may prompt another group to form another kind of thing, just to make money from government.

But the case of the Niger Delta militants is clear. You will see by yourself that the Niger Delta people are suffering. We are not getting the benefit of our resources. Things are not going on well. If you get to the Niger Delta environment now, the fishermen are no longer fishing, farmers are no longer farming. So the Niger Delta militants were just a group of people that put themselves together as a way of expressing their feelings for the whole world to understand what they were passing through. So what is Boko Haram agitating for? What is their problem? What is that thing that government has not done for them? Look at what happened in the National Assembly, recently, when it was disclosed that the northerners have over 83 per cent oil blocs in this country. So, you will now see reason with the Niger Delta militants.

So, let’s call a spade a spade. Let the leaders of the north call themselves together and discuss with their boys and their people. They should do that first. But I will not encourage government to declare amnesty for Boko Haram members unless they open up and tell the public what they are agitating for, I have not been able to identify what prompted them to kill innocent people, burn churches, up to the extent that they killed health officers. It is un-called for.

Mr Kurotamunonye George – A Tutor

Well, I think it’s right for amnesty to be granted them. They’ve done that for the Niger Delta militants, so they can as well do that for Boko Haram members since they are fighting for their own right. That will balance the equation. Government should find out what is their problem. They cannot just come out to start bombing and start doing all sought of things without having a purpose. They have a reason for doing that, so government should know their reasons and grant them amnesty. That is, if what they are fighting for is anything that has to do with resource control or true federalism. But they can’t fight for their own selfish interest and expect the government to give them amnesty. Amnesty should be given to them if they are fighting for true federalism, their own fundamental rights, not for their own selfish interest or for religion.

But I strongly believe that government knows the best way to handle Boko Haram issue. Government has all it takes. Government knows the people behind this, they know how to go about it. The security agencies are there to curb this menace. But if they say that they want to grant them amnesty for the purpose of true federalism, it’s ok, irrespective of how many people they’ve killed, what they’ve destroyed and all that.

Mr. Ikechukwu Ojukwu – Student

I am not in support of the view that Federal Government should give amnesty to Boko Haram members considering their actions in the country, lives that have been terminated, and properties that have been lost and wasted. People engaged in these acts are against the progress and unity of a corporate entity called Nigeria.

You cannot compare them to the Niger Delta militants. The aim of the Niger Delta militants was quite different from that of Boko Haram. Boko Haram is a terrorist group and they shouldn’t give them anything like amnesty. You know this issue of amnesty for Boko Haram came as a result of the Mali crisis. Prior to this time, there was no cry for amnesty. Since they scattered their camps in Mali, they are now coming back home to demand for amnesty.

So, I think the Federal Government should come to terms with Boko Haram, not granting them amnesty. By this, I mean the government should dialogue with them, let them give up their arms and come out. Right now, we don’t know them in person. They are still faceless and I wonder how we can be talking of granting amnesty to a faceless people. Let us know who they are, what their problem is and know how to handle them.

Mr. Iheanyi Ezinwo – Publisher

First of all, I want to commend the northern leaders for making that call. I say this not because I support amnesty for Boko Haram people but the fact that they are thinking of a way out of the quagmire, as it were. What they suggested is just one of the ways out of the problem.

Having said that, I want to say that amnesty has some precedents that can make it possible. First, the people must be identifiable. In the days of the Niger Delta militancy, Asari was known, people could call their leaders and talk with them. But now, we don’t even know the characters behind the Boko Haram. Before you talk of amnesty, amnesty has to do with somebody say, ok, I want to lay down my arms on the condition that the Federal Government will forgive me for all I have done. Now, what are the issues? We don’t know. Already, they have told the world that certain conditions must be fulfilled for them to seize fire and those conditions are not acceptable. Now, if Federal Government is to grant them amnesty, on what condition will she do that?

So, there are certain grey areas that need to be cleared before we can talk about granting them amnesty. As far as I am concerned, I don’t think it is a big deal for President Jonathan to grant them amnesty but certain things have to be cleared to be sure that if the amnesty is granted then, we can have peace in this country. So, things have to be clarified and agreement reached between Boko Haram members and the Federal Government before we can talk about amnesty.

But for now, things are not clear. We are in a world where peace is gradually becoming history. All over the world, there is no peace because of the activities of terrorists and when you are dealing with terrorists, I don’t think that the solution is to go and make peace. Terrorism is an advance form of violence that experts, the soldiers, the security officers are in a better position to know how to deal with.

What is going on in Borno State and some parts of the north is different from what happened in the Niger Delta. Ours was a very clear case of marginalisation and when the Federal Government promised to address, our boys laid down their arms and the amnesty is on course. I don’t think that amnesty is the solution to the problem in the North.

Mr. Nengisa Egerton – Banker

For me, I don’t buy the idea of granting them amnesty. The actions of Niger Delta militants affected the production of crude oil, so to some extent, the amnesty was a way of calming them down which worked out. At least, it led to an improvement on production capacity.

So for me, I will even advise that they should even stop the amnesty. At least, they have achieved their aim for now because there are better ways of addressing issues not necessarily amnesty. Are they encouraging every other youth to take up arm before they will know that they are in need of some things?

So, I don’t support amnesty for Boko Haram. I don’t see any need for that. If they end up granting them amnesty, tomorrow, another set of violent group may come up in any other part of the country and still demand for amnesty.

So, I think to solve this problem, and bring about lasting peace in this country, government should come up with poverty alleviation and other measures that will alleviate the sufferings of the general masses.

Mrs Glory Ezenjoku – Public Servant.

Granting amnesty to Boko Haram will not be good enough because it will be a way of encouraging militancy in Nigeria.

However, for peace to reign in the country, they should go ahead and grant them amnesty because Boko Haram people have taken lot of lives and if granting them amnesty will make them stop this wicked act and bring peace to the country, they should go ahead and do that. From all indications, it’s like this Boko Haram sect is above the rule of law. It seems the Federal Government cannot get them controlled. Now, they are asking the Federal Government to grant them amnesty. That is to say that they are above the rule of law. I think it’s not good enough. Everybody is subject to the rule of law. They are citizens of this country. I don’t really buy that idea, but for peace to reign in Nigeria, they should grant them amnesty.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

3 days ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “For the first time in years, Rivers journalists are not just hearing promises—they are seeing a union that works.”

The first year in office of the Paul Bazia-led executive of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), has offered something many had almost given up on—renewed confidence in union leadership. For a body as critical as the NUJ, whose responsibility goes beyond professional coordination to include the welfare, protection, and continuous development of journalists, expectations are always high. Unfortunately, past experiences had conditioned many members to expect less—less action, less visibility, and less impact.This is why the past twelve months stand out. Within a relatively short period, the Bazia-led administration has demonstrated a level of drive that distinguishes it from its predecessors. There is a noticeable shift from inertia to activity, from routine administration to purposeful leadership. Initiatives captured in the one-year report point to an executive that understands both the urgency of its mandate and the frustrations of its members.

Particularly commendable is the renewed attention to journalists’ welfare. For too long, welfare issues have lingered without meaningful resolution, leaving many practitioners feeling unsupported. The current leadership’s efforts—through engagement, structured support, and timely interventions—signal a welcome change in priorities. Equally important is the push toward professional development. In an era where journalism is rapidly evolving, capacity building is no longer optional. The administration’s commitment to training and skill enhancement reflects an understanding that a stronger union must be built on more competent and competitive professionals. There is also something to be said about visibility and voice. A vibrant NUJ must not only serve its members internally but also stand as a credible voice in the public space—defending press freedom, promoting ethical standards, and constructively engaging critical issues.

Encouragingly, the current executive appears more present and responsive, giving the union a renewed sense of relevance. Perhaps what resonates most, however, is the sense of movement. For many members, the difference between the present and the immediate past is not subtle—it is clear. Where there was once stagnation, there is now direction. Where there was doubt, there is growing belief. Beyond the visible strides recorded within this first year, what perhaps deserves even greater applause is the restoration of institutional confidence within the Nigeria Union of Journalists. For a long time, many members had grown disenchanted, viewing the union more as a ceremonial body than an active force capable of defending their interests and advancing their welfare. That narrative, however, is gradually changing. The Bazia-led executive has not only initiated programs but has also rekindled a sense of belonging among members.

Meetings appear more purposeful, engagements more intentional, and decisions more reflective of collective interest. This psychological shift—subtle as it may seem—is one of the most critical achievements of the past year, because a union that its members believe in is already halfway to effectiveness. It is also important to underscore the contrast with the immediate past, not as an exercise in criticism, but as a necessary context for measuring progress. Where previous administrations struggled to translate plans into action, the current leadership has shown a greater bias for execution. Projects that once lingered in discussion stages are now seeing tangible movement, and issues that were previously deferred are receiving attention. This difference in approach—moving from prolonged deliberation to decisive action—has helped reposition the union as a more responsive and relevant institution.

While no administration is without its shortcomings, the willingness to act, even in the face of constraints, marks a significant departure from what members were accustomed to. Looking ahead, the expectations of members—and indeed the wider public—will only grow stronger. With a solid first year behind it, the Bazia-led executive now carries the burden of consistency. Members will expect deeper welfare interventions that go beyond immediate relief to more sustainable support systems. They will look for expanded training opportunities that prepare journalists for the rapidly changing media landscape. They will also expect a firmer, more courageous voice on issues affecting press freedom and professional integrity. Above all, they will demand continuity—assurance that the progress recorded so far is not a fleeting phase but the beginning of a sustained transformation.

Meeting these expectations will not be easy, but it is precisely this challenge that defines enduring leadership. That said, this moment of applause must also serve as a moment of reflection. A strong first year inevitably raises expectations. Journalists in Rivers State will now look beyond initial achievements toward consolidation. Welfare interventions must become more structured and far-reaching. Training programs must be sustained and expanded. Advocacy must become more consistent and impactful. Most importantly, the unity of the union must be strengthened, ensuring that all members feel included and carried along. Transparency will also be key. Continued open communication about finances, decisions, and challenges will deepen trust and set a standard for accountable union leadership. The task ahead is clear: to convert early momentum into lasting institutional progress.

For the Bazia-led executive, the opportunity is significant. It has, within one year, reawakened belief in what the NUJ Rivers State Council can be. The next step is to ensure that this renewed energy does not fade, but instead becomes the foundation of a stronger, more responsive, and more respected union. For the members, the message is equally clear—expect more, demand more, and support what works because in the end, a vibrant union is not built by leadership alone, but by a collective commitment to progress. And for now, under Bazia, that progress has truly begun.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

As Service Chiefs Relocate To Borno

Published

3 days ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Relocation may signal urgency, but without structural reforms, it risks becoming a cycle of temporary relief and recurring crisis.”

Here we go again. We have seen this script play out before. Under the administration of Muhammadu Buhari, service chiefs were directed to relocate to security hotspots as a demonstration of urgency and resolve. Today, under Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the same approach is being repeated. Following the recent suicide bombing in Maiduguri, Borno State, which claimed scores of lives, the President ordered the immediate relocation of service chiefs to take charge of the situation. On paper, the directive appears logical and commendable. It suggests a hands-on approach aimed at enhancing coordination among security agencies, improving response time, and restoring public confidence. However, the critical question remains: has this strategy ever truly worked? Experience suggests otherwise. While such relocations often create a temporary sense of calm, the effect is usually short-lived.

The presence of high command tends to produce what may be described as “cosmetic stability”—a brief period of intensified operations and visibility. Yet, once the service chiefs return to Abuja, the underlying problems resurface. A clear example can be drawn from January 2018, when President Buhari ordered the then Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to relocate to Benue State in response to escalating violence. At the time, the directive was widely praised. Yet years later, killings, displacement, and destruction of livelihoods persist, raising doubts about the long-term effectiveness of such measures. This recurring pattern has led many observers to describe relocation orders as political theatre—a performative gesture designed to project action rather than deliver sustainable results. While this may seem harsh, it is difficult to ignore the structural deficiencies that continue to undermine the nation’s security framework.

First is the issue of intelligence. Effective security operations depend not just on troop deployment but on timely, accurate, and actionable intelligence. Yet the nation’s intelligence-gathering mechanisms, particularly at the grassroots level, remain weak and poorly coordinated. Relocating service chiefs does little to address this fundamental gap. There is also the challenge of resources. Many security personnel on the frontlines continue to grapple with inadequate equipment, insufficient logistics, and poor welfare conditions. In such circumstances, the physical presence of top commanders cannot substitute for the systematic investment needed to strengthen operational capacity. Equally important is the issue of sustainability. Security is not achieved through sporadic interventions but through consistent, long-term strategies.

The relocation of service chiefs is, by its nature, temporary and does not build enduring institutions capable of sustained response. Beyond these concerns lies a pressing question: what criteria determine which states receive such high-level attention? While Borno has long been an epicentre of insurgency, other states such as Plateau and Benue have also experienced alarming levels of violence, including banditry and communal clashes. Why were similar measures not applied there? The truth is that the nation’s current approach to tackling insecurity is insufficient. One alternative that has gained traction is the establishment of state police. Nigeria’s policing system remains highly centralised, with command structures controlled from Abuja—a model that has proven increasingly inadequate in addressing localised security challenges.

State police would allow for more community-based policing, enabling officers familiar with local terrain and dynamics to respond more effectively. It would also improve intelligence gathering, as local officers are more likely to build trust with residents. However, the idea is not without its critics. Concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse by state governments, particularly in using the police to intimidate opponents or suppress dissent. Funding is another major challenge, as many states already struggle to meet basic financial obligations.These concerns are legitimate but not insurmountable. They can be mitigated through robust legal frameworks, effective oversight mechanisms, and a clear delineation of powers between federal and state authorities. Establishing independent State Police Service Commissions to handle recruitment, discipline, and promotions could help safeguard institutional integrity.

In addition to decentralising policing, there must be a renewed focus on intelligence reform. Investing in modern surveillance technologies, data analysis, and inter-agency coordination is essential. Security agencies must move beyond reactive strategies and adopt proactive approaches that anticipate threats. Equally important is addressing the socio-economic drivers of insecurity. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of education continue to create fertile ground for criminality and extremism. Any meaningful security strategy must therefore include efforts to improve livelihoods, expand access to education, and promote inclusive development. Furthermore, there is a need for greater accountability within the security sector. Transparent evaluation of strategies, clear performance benchmarks, and consequences for failure are necessary to ensure that policies are not just announced but effectively implemented.

Ultimately, the fight against insecurity requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands bold, innovative, and sustained reforms that address both immediate threats and their root causes. The relocation of service chiefs may offer temporary visibility, but it cannot substitute for a comprehensive national security strategy. The nation stands at a critical juncture. Continuing to rely on approaches that have yielded limited results in the past is unlikely to produce different outcomes. It is time to rethink, recalibrate, and rebuild a security architecture that is responsive, resilient, and grounded in the realities of our society.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Beyond the Adichie Tragedy

Published

1 week ago

March 16, 2026

The Tide

Quote:: “Justice must never depend on fame, wealth, or connections. The child of a roadside trader deserves the same standard of care as the child of a globally celebrated writer. When accountability works only for the prominent, public trust in institutions quietly erodes.”

Public reaction to the suspension of doctors by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) following the death of the son of celebrated Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie reveals something deeper than outrage over a single tragedy. Across social media and public commentary, a recurring sentiment stands out: many Nigerians believe justice was served only because of the prominence of the family involved. Comments such as “The doctors were punished because Chimamanda is well known,” or “If it was a poor man’s child, the case would have been swept under the carpet,” capture a troubling lack of faith in the system.

Whether these perceptions are always accurate is not the most important issue. What should concern the nation is that so many citizens instinctively believe that justice in Nigeria often depends on status, wealth, or influence.The tragedy that befell the Adichie family is heartbreaking. No parent should have to bury a child, particularly under circumstances that raise questions about professional responsibility. But beyond the grief lies a larger national concern: medical negligence in Nigeria is far more widespread than the few cases that attract public attention. Across the country, families quietly lose loved ones in hospitals and clinics under troubling circumstances. Patients are sometimes misdiagnosed. Emergency cases may be delayed. Surgical procedures may be mishandled, while basic standards of care can be compromised due to negligence, poor supervision, or systemic pressure on medical staff.

In many situations, grieving families simply accept their loss and move on, believing there is little they can do. The result is what can only be described as a silent epidemic of unreported medical negligence.In more developed healthcare systems, such incidents rarely go unexamined. Independent regulatory bodies investigate complaints, enforce professional standards, and sanction erring practitioners. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Care Quality Commission inspects hospitals, clinics, and care providers to ensure strict compliance with safety and quality standards.Nigeria does have oversight institutions, notably the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria. However, enforcement often appears inconsistent, and many cases of negligence never reach the stage where regulators can intervene. Sometimes victims are unaware of the complaint process. In other cases, fear, cost, or bureaucracy discourage families from seeking justice.

While government institutions must improve their oversight mechanisms, citizens must also confront a difficult truth: Nigerians often fail to pursue their rights when they are violated. Too frequently, when injustice occurs, people retreat into resignation. Instead of filing complaints or seeking legal remedies, many respond with the familiar phrase: “God will judge them.” Faith is important, but it should not replace civic responsibility. A society that leaves accountability solely to divine intervention risks allowing negligence and impunity to flourish. Some commentators have suggested that the Adichie family likely pursued the matter relentlessly through petitions and formal complaints before authorities acted. If that is the case, it demonstrates a path other citizens can follow. When malpractice occurs, persistence in seeking justice can make institutions respond.

If more families reported cases of medical negligence to the appropriate authorities, regulatory bodies would have stronger grounds to investigate. Public pressure would also push healthcare institutions to improve their standards. Negligence, as defined by Nigeria’s Supreme Court in Odinaka v. Moghalu, refers to the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under similar circumstances. Within medical ethics, physicians are expected to provide competent care with compassion and respect for human dignity. These principles form the foundation of the duty of care that patients rely upon. Citizens must therefore be able to recognise signs of negligence and take appropriate steps to seek redress. Patients and families should learn to document incidents, keep medical records, ask questions about treatment decisions, and report suspicious circumstances surrounding medical care.

Where necessary, formal complaints should be lodged with regulatory authorities or pursued through the courts. Civil society organisations, advocacy groups, and the media also play a crucial role. By exposing cases of negligence and demanding accountability, they help ensure such incidents do not disappear into silence. A healthcare system shielded from scrutiny cannot improve. Nevertheless, responsibility cannot rest solely on citizens. Government must take decisive steps to strengthen healthcare regulation and reduce medical negligence. Hospitals and clinics—both public and private—should undergo regular inspections to ensure compliance with professional standards, safety protocols, and ethical guidelines. Persistent violations must attract meaningful sanctions. Legal practitioner and Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olisa Agbakoba has suggested the creation of an independent health regulatory authority and the restoration of Chief Medical Officers at federal and state levels.

In the past, these officials, alongside health inspectors, helped enforce professional standards and ensured accountability within healthcare facilities. Government must also invest more seriously in the training and continuous education of healthcare professionals. Medicine is an evolving field, and practitioners must constantly update their knowledge and skills. Mandatory professional development programmes, stricter licensing renewal requirements, and improved mentorship systems could help reduce errors arising from outdated practices or inadequate training. At the same time, systemic challenges within the healthcare system cannot be ignored. Many Nigerian doctors and nurses work under extremely difficult conditions—overcrowded hospitals, outdated equipment, staff shortages, and overwhelming patient loads. Such pressures increase the risk of mistakes and professional burnout.

Improving healthcare infrastructure, funding, and staffing is therefore not merely an administrative matter; it is a fundamental requirement for patients’ safety. Equally important is transparency when allegations of negligence arise. Investigations must be timely, credible, and accessible. Families deserve to know what happened to their loved ones and whether professional standards were breached. Regulatory bodies must ensure that findings are communicated clearly so that public confidence in the healthcare system is strengthened. The tragedy that drew national attention to medical negligence should not be treated as an isolated incident involving a prominent personality. Rather, it should serve as a wake-up call for systemic reform.

Every Nigerian life carries equal value. Justice must not depend on prominence or privilege. When citizens demand accountability and institutions respond with fairness and transparency, trust begins to grow. Nigeria’s health sector is filled with dedicated doctors, nurses, and medical workers who save lives daily despite difficult conditions. Recognising their commitment, however, should not prevent society from confronting the reality that negligence sometimes occurs—and when it does, it must be addressed firmly. If this painful moment encourages Nigerians to speak up, demand accountability, and push for stronger regulatory systems, it may yet produce meaningful reform. Citizens must refuse to accept negligence as fate, while government strengthens oversight and improves healthcare conditions. Only through this collective effort can Nigeria build a healthcare system where every patient—regardless of social status—receives safe, responsible, and dignified care.

By: Calista Ezeaku