Opinion

Withdrawal Of Abacha’s Case Right Or Wrong?

Published

12 years ago

June 23, 2014

The Attorney-General of the Federation, and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, (SAN), last Wednesday withdrew the money laundry charges preferred against Mohammed Abacha, the eldest son of late military dictator, Sani Abacha.
Some Port Harcourt residents joined other citizens in other parts of the country to react to the federal government’s decision. They spoke to our chief correspondent, Calista Ezeaku. Our photographer, Dele Obinna captured their images.
Bar Bariyima Kokpan
Legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with the withdraw of that allegation. The government has the power to do that. But when you look at the action morally, it is wrong. It is a set back in the fight against corruption in the country and it will encourage other people to indulge in corrupt practices. I learnt the money involved runs into billions of naira and for the federal government to just suddenly withdraw the case without any reason, no condition. It’s somehow. I don’t know weather there are other consideration but in the best of my knowledge and what I read in the newspapers, no cogent reason was given for the decision.
The government is the persecutor, they have the facts, they have the evidence. So if at the end of the day they find out that if they proceed with the prosecution the likelihood of them getting a conviction is not there, government can go ahead to drop the charges.
You have to bear in mind that if the government continues with the charge and eventually he is discharged and acquitted he has a right against the government to sue for malicious prosecution. So, subject to the facts available to the federal government, I know, as a lawyer, that the Attorney General of the federation, even of the state has the right to withdraw a charge.
But as I said earlier, the considerations for the withdrawal of this allegation is not clear. If you are talking about plea bargaining, can we really say that was what transpired in this case. If there was plea bargain, I’m sure we will be aware. For instance there was plea bargain in Tafa Balogun’s case. There was plea bargain in Cecilia Iburu’s case. When there is plea bargain the accuser says, Ï am ready to forfeit so, so amount out of the money you are accusing me that I allegedly stole, while I keep the other one. And the government says if you can give us maybe 70% or 80%, we will forgive you.
In this case how much was he alleged to have laundered, how much is he refunding to the government? How much is he keeping? In the absence of all these explanations it is difficult to just come up to say they have refunded some money to the government. I just pray that it is not all about political consideration.
It gives an impression that the federal government is not determined to fight corruption. Even though the federal government may have her reasons, but the general impression is that government is not really serious to fight corruption. The effect is that people continue to think that you can do anything and get away with it.
Look at it from another angle. Look at the amount involved, consider that there are so many people languishing in our prisons perhaps for stealing handsets of N2,000.00. So the higher you go, the freeier you become. That’s why I started by saying that morally speaking the withdraw is wrong.

Mr Olubwayo Alex Olanrewaju (Banker)
For me I think it shows that we are not ready to fight corruption. In the first instance somebody is being charged for corruption and the same people that found him wanton are discharging that same person of that allegation. How did they come about it? For me I strongly feel we are not serious. We are not ready to take the bull by the horn. Both the ICPC, EFCC and all that are just joking. Our courts are in shambles. The verdicts they have these days, I don’t know how they come about them.
For me, that shouldn’t be. The guy has to face the music. There are serious allegations against him and he should not just be discharged like that. It doesn’t make sense. The judiciary really needs to sit up. They say judiciary is the last hope of the common man but right now, I don’t see any hope there. As a country, does it mean we cannot address this problem of corruption? Is corruption bigger than Nigeria? I don’t think so. I think the withdrawal of the money laundry case is not right at all. Human Right Organisations, National Orientation Agency really have to sensitise Nigerians on the evils of corruption, starting from the primary schools, Nigerians really need to be re-orientated.

Mr Nixon Madume(Public servant)
In my own view, the withdrawal of the case is wrong because he committed an offence and under normal circumstances, where the judiciary is working very well he should be prosecuted for it but because of one thing or the other, maybe because of the powers from the north or for political reasons they decided to pardon him. But I think it is a very wrong approach to our war against corruption. Most times people who were involved in crimes like that were set free and tomorrow we say we are fighting corruption while we cannot set example with the cases we have already. Sometimes I wonder how justifiable it is to punish people in the lower cadre in the society who commit one crime or the other while the people up there who commit greater offences are set free.
I don’t think other countries will take us serious when we say we are wagging war against corruption, in this country. I will advise that justice should always prevail, no matter who is involved.

Mr Beemene Tanee (journalist)
Well, the truth is that Nigeria is becoming very reluctant to respond to the imperatives of justice. For political reasons, this allegation has been withdrawn but there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed so that we cannot relapse into the insensitivities of the past. If we say that we are trying to review the country on the part of democracy, then there is need for people to be answerable for their misdeeds against people. And that draws us to the fact that at a time Abacha’s family was frontal in the Nigeria management and they misused it. But now they have given them political concession and they are trying to give them a soft landing when there are a lot of issues to be addressed. It’s like you are giving a blank cheque to public servants to loot that at the end of the day, nothing will happen.
Justice should not be selective. Any person that has been found wanton should be brought to book. At a point in time, Mohammed Abacha was more draconian than his father because of unfertile access to state resources. That was very wrong. And I want to call on the federal government to ensure that the fight against corruption is not selective and that every person that is found wanton should be properly investigated and brought to book according to the law.
This withdraw of money laundry case against Abacha’s son gives the impression that the fight against corruption in Nigeria is dismal. It is not a vibrant fight. The federal government is soft peddling but they say he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. You don’t expect to give some people soft landing while you direct your fight against maybe those you consider to be against the powers that be.
So, it is wrong. The federal government must be proactive in the fight against corruption by ensuring that every sector of the economy is sanitised.
Meanwhile, Abacha’s family should not be the only people in focus maybe because the patriarch is no longer there. All past leaders, Generals should be investigated. And all excesses in terms of mismanagement of funds should be properly addressed.

Mr Iheanyi Ezinwo (Publisher)
As a behavioral scientist, I don’t run into conclusions. It is only people who have some hidden agenda that will run into conclusions. Before a case is withdrawn, it presupposes that some discussions or agreements have taken place. You remember that even before Jonathan’s administration, we have had some cases of plea bargaining where somebody pleads guilty, returns some amount of money and he is allowed to go. I also read that Abacha’s family refunded millions of dollars to the federal government. It is possible that there have been some discussions, some agreements that if they refunded certain amount, he would be allowed to go, and some out of court settlements and decisions like that. So it is not just enough for somebody to say öh federal government has let this people go” and this and that. There must have been a reason. I read where federal government explained that Abacha’s family has refunded some money and that was the reason for withdrawing the case.
You see, a lot of people who are raising eye brows and shouting to the hilltops over whatever may have transpired, forget that Abacha was not the first and last head of state this country has had. There have been both civilian and military heads of state before Abacha and after him. And all of them took more than their fair share of our resources and many of them are still parading around and even condemning this decision. An situation where some will want to be talking about Abacha’s family because the man is late, I don’t think it is right. Abacha was not the only person who stole Nigeria’s money. Other former heads of state stole. They should go and recover it from them. Even some people who are in government today are busy stealing and they will be the first to raise alarm.
So I believe that is not the best way to move forward in this country. If we want to make progress the fight against corruption must be holistic weather you are dead or alive.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

1 day 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

1 day 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