Opinion

Same Sex Marriage: What Nigerians Say

Published

13 years ago

June 10, 2013

Mr. Barisua Samuel Mkpe – Public Affairs Analyst

The French President, legalised gay marriage some weeks ago, making France the 14th country in the world that has legalised gay marriage. In my opinion, I think these things are done by the supposedly developed countries for political reasons. They are not done for cultural nor religious reasons.

At any point in time when they are drawing closer to election years and they want to solicit support from the populace, because they have realised that in these countries, the homo-sexual population is increasing geometrically by the day and they need their votes, they will go ahead to legalise gay marriage for political reasons.

Coming down to Africa, I have said it time and time again that Africa used to be a culturally committed people. Most of the things we copy from the western world are alien to us and what they are doing is cultural globalisation, using their culture to penetrate our space and make us to do what our parents and our fore-fathers never used to do.

Talking about world leaders like David Cameron and Barak Obama supporting gay marriage, and even threatening to withdraw aids to developing economies, it’s still world politics. And I thank God that African nations and their leaders have stamped their feet on the ground to tell them “go to hell with your aid, we can do without your aid. We’ll do what is good as far as our culture permits”.

So for once, I think I have seen the House of Representatives do what the generality of the people want. Hitherto, we had seen situations where they came out with legislations that are anti-people, unpopular legislations.

But on the issue of legalising gay marriage or otherwise, they have done well. I even think fourteen years prison term is lenient. I believe that human beings are supposed to be higher animals in terms of our thoughts and all of that. If animals and insects know that there are male and female species in their own kingdom, then human beings too should know that when God took a rib out of Adam, He did not use it to produce another man, in Genesis chapter two. He used it to produce a woman, ( a man with a womb), to comfort Adam.

So even scripturally, there is no way a man can comfort a man. It is a woman that was created to help and comfort the man.

On the argument in some quarters that out-lawing gay marriage will infringe on peoples’ freedom of association, some times I think we misunderstand what freedom of association means. If the people are coming together for a common vision, no body stops them from going ahead to assemble and pursue their vision and their goal. But when two adults come together in a society where the young ones are expectedly looking up to the senior ones for morals and all of that, it would amount to a polluted society if the young ones see their so called parents doing what is dirty, uncivilised and unacceptable in our society.

I have always posed this challenge to those who claim they are champions of gay rights, if you are involved in same – sex marriage, don’t adopt a child, reproduce your kind in that marriage, because the perfect will of God for man as regards marriage is to go into the world and multiply.

So if Barak Obama and David Cameron want to prove to the world that they passionately love homosexuality, they should divorce their wives and get married. When the two of them get married, they would have shown the world that they are examples for gay – marriage.

Barr. Chuks Obimba – Lawyer.

Personally, I think the actions of the National assembly are commendable. The origin of same sex marriage dates back to the time of Sodom and Gormorah.

That word sodomy is derived from the word Sodom, a city God destroyed because they were involved in homesexuality and it is one issue that God hates. It is not sane, it is strange for a man and a man to co-habit sexually.

So it is quite commendable for the law makers to have out – lawed it. And I think the proposed 14 years jail term is adequate. We must dare to be different from other nations.

I also believe that in some of these Islamic nations, such issue cannot be raised at all. I think Nigeria must strive as a nation to become independent. If Britain withdraws aids to Nigeria, because of this issue, it may spur us to become more independent to start walking on our own. Afterall, we cannot continue to depend on some of these foreign aids. Nigeria has a lot of intelligent persons. We are endowed both naturally and physically, we can do something on our own. The issue of same – sex marriage is strange and it must be deprecated.

I think there is an extent to which we should have our liberty. Every liberty that is not curtailed will tend to excess use. So, everybody should have a liberty but there are occasions one’s liberty should be curtailed.

So to me, the issue of legalising gay marriage has nothing to do with freedom of association. If we must associate with one another, there has to be a limitation to such association. So, I believe that illegalising gay marriage does not infringe on any person’s right. There could be certain traits that are in – born, which must be checked. That is the essence of law. If somebody picks up a gun and tells you that he has a penchant towards violence, you will not ask him to go and start killing people because he has a penchant toward violence. So if someone says he is not attracted to the opposite sex, I don’t think it is proper and valid for us to go ahead with what he is doing. There must be a law.

Every nation is different and every nation has a law that guides its conduct. For instance in Europe, there is no death sentence to murder cases, but in Nigeria if someone kills another unlawfully, the person certainly, will go for it.

So, I commend the boldness of the National Assembly in outlawing same-sex marriage.

In 1997, I heard Obama define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That was when he was campaigning. Now, it is not proper for a man to approbate and at the same time re-approbate. The same Obama that said that same – sex – marriage is strange, is now campaigning for the adoption of same-sex marriage. I believe that the issue of same-sex marriage is strange and it should be highly deprecated, abhord.

Hon. Gbosidam Prince Agbara – Politician

First of all, I thank the person who moved the motion against same – sex marriage in the House. Same sex marriage is not Nigerian custom and there’s no how Nigeria can adopt it. I am an Ogoni man, and in Ogoniland, I have not witnessed when a woman marries another woman. What our custom permits is for a woman who could not bear children for her husand to marry another woman for her husband. But that a woman will sleep with a woman, or a man sleeps with another man, it is not done! If such practice is legalised; it will destroy this country.

Therefore, I support the House of Representatives not to allow that kind of marriage happen in Nigeria because it will tarnish the image of Nigeria. Britain and other world powers should realise that Nigeria is an independent country. We have a President. we have members of the National Assembly, they make laws for us, not Britain, not America. So, if Britain wants to withdraw its aids to Nigeria, over this issue, let them go ahead. Nigeria will still stand. Even the President will not accept that. In Ogoniland a woman cannot marry a woman and sleep with her, we’ll kill you immediately. So we don’t support that. All these borrowed Western ways of life is what is killing us today. Before in Rivers State, women tie wrappers and wear skirts. All this low waist, trouser and what have you, weren’t there. They were borrowed from the Western world and that is what is killing us today. If you go to the schools you see women exposing their breasts and other parts of their bodies, and if we should legalise same – sex marriage, it will be the worst. You will start seeing women and men romancing themselves in the public. We should try and make this country a perfect country, a respected place where we live.

Rev. Fr. Bartholomow Uzoma – Priest.

I think the lawmakers are responding to the isssues of the moment because the issue of same-sex marriage has become topical in the past few years. I don’t even know why people are going for this same-sex marriage. I’m yet to know the justification, what is unusual, what is abnormal is what people are beginning to clamour for. Much as I know as a person, same – sex marriage is unnatural, abnormal, unusual. So, that law makers are beginning to rise up to the occasion means that they are listening to people and they are willing to condemn what is wrong.

I’m not moved by what the western world is doing. We all know that the family system has collapsed in the western world and the family is the hope of the society and that tendency is now coming down to us. Yes granted, the world is a global village and we are being influenced by what happens in other areas. It is not everything that happens there that we must borrow. Already the family system is in crisis, bringing same sex marriage into already existing crisis, we cannot manage it.

So I think the lawmakers are rising up to save our society and I wouldn’t like to dance to the popular opinion of the Western world.

They can withdraw their aids from Nigeria, and what about it.? Nigeria will not die. Let them withdraw it and there will always be a way out. Our lives do not depend on them. Our lives depend on God. If they have been giving us aids and Nigeria is still like this, then what have they achieved so far?

All of us know the state of things in Nigeria, what can we boast of, is it the economy, is it moral life, is it education, is it power, what do we have in this country?

So what is the aid they have been giving to us and of what use has aid been to us. Let them withdraw it. Let us know we are on our own and then go back to the drawing board and pray God to help us to know how to manage our country, Nigeria and how to make things better for us. Infact they are part of those confusing us in this country.

They colonised Nigeria. Have we ever been the same since then? Before the contact with the British, there was a stage of development in this country, no matter how slow it was. And with that contact, the whole thing was changed and we are no longer the Africans we used to be, we are not Europeans. We are at a confused stage. And they are bringing that confusion now to the marital system. So far, you can see, our culture has been able to put together the family system. Same –sex marriage is not for a family. A man and a man cannot form family. So it’s all about people satisfying their illicit sexual urge and desire.

Well, I may not subscribe to jail term for offenders because in Nigeria the prisons do not reform people. People go to prisons and they become worse than they were before they went to prison. The mere fact that the law prohibits it means that it is not going to be allowed and you can’t go to the court and say you want to get married to a male if you are one for example!.

The court won’t allow it. If so if two men decided to misbehave and have sex, well, people do all sorts of things under the cover of darkness and it remains at that level.

So that right that permits man and man to go into marriage also affects the right of the family. People have right to become armed robbers, They want to rob as a means of livelihood, why do we stop them? Why will the law stop them from robbing because that’s what makes them happy? So we should give them right to rob bank, government, to kill people because that’s what makes them happy.

Those involved in same – sex marriage often claim they can adopt. Whose child will they adopt? If we are saying let us approve same – sex marriage, okay, no problem, but whose child will they adopt? It is inhuman for any body involved in same – sex marriage to adopt somebody else’s child. A child is mearnt to be brought up within the context of a family – male and female, father and mother. So adopting a child means denying that child the right to exist within the family of a father and a mother.

So they are also infringing on the right of another person. So they have no right to adopt. Okay, let us say everybody should go into gay marriage, women marry women, men marry men, then the society will fizzle out graudually.

The bible says God made them male and female. So this same – sex marriage is anti-God. It’s a revole against the order of creation. It is a protest against God also.

Mrs Gina Sampson – a teacher.

Of course, no normal human being will support same – sex marriage. So the law makers did the right thing by out – lawing it. Homosexuality is a problem that has been in our society for a long time, though they do it secretly. People are lured into it right from their secondary school days. In my school days, it was called “supe”. Different groups have different names for it. So parents should monitor their children and know the kind of friends they keep. I have also heard that some women, especially the married ones indulge in lesbianism either because their husbands are never there for them or their husbands cannot satisfy them sexually. And instead of keeping male sex partners which the society frowns at, they sleep with their fellow women. Some go into it for monetary and material gains. So for me, illegalizing same – sex marriage is good, because we need to sanitize our society.

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