Opinion
Ebola And Schools Resumption Date
The on-going contro
versy generated by the Federal Government’s directives that private and public primary and, secondary schools across the country should reopen on Monday September 22, is one that many think should have been avoided if the right things were done by those in authority.
Of a truth, federal government, Lagos and Rivers State government deserve commendation for their handling of the out break of the Ebola disease. Following the outbreak of EVD in Nigeria through Liberian – American, Patrick Sawyer in July, many were apprehensive that given the mediocrity of our leadership and the high population of the country, many of whom live in squalor, the country was doomed.
But government rose to the occasion, worked tirelessly and ensured that, the Ebola disease was contained. For this notable achievement, the World Health Organisation and the United Nations have praised the country. Many Nigerians have also not failed to use various social network platforms to appreciate the country’s leadership for a job well done.
All these accolade lavished on government will however, seem, misplaced if the federal government is not cautious of the way it handles the controversial school resumption issue.
Already, the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) has rejected the September 22 resumption date asking its members to shun the directive except each state government provides training for teachers on handling of Ebola, make available infrared thermometers for schools, including other facilities such as tap water, hand sanitiser, soap, among others.
The president of the association, Micheal Olukoja clearly stated that NUT was not opposed to the date given by the Federal Government for the resumption of schools, but warned teachers not to report in any of the schools except the aforementioned conditions were met. Apart from the NUT, the Nigeria Medical Association, had also kicked against the shifting of the schools resumption date from October 13 to September 22, arguing that schools should not be reopened until all those under surveillance for the EVD in the country are certified free. The association insisted that the October 13 resumption date will allow for the completion of the surveillance of those quarantined arguing that long delay in resumption is not out of place because school children are gregarious and vulnerable and therefore, contact among them could lead to an outburst of unmanageable breath.
Other stakeholders like the All Nigeria Conference of Principals of Secondary school’s, the Parents Teachers Association (PTA), and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) have equally rejected the September 22 resumption date. They premised their objection on the fact that there were no preventive measures on ground to ensure the health of pupils and students returning to school.
It might be easy for some people to castigate the NUT members for being unpatriotic especially as President Goodluck Jonathan has urged the union and other industrial unions in the country to drop their controversial stance on the September 22 date for resumption of schools, but a visit to some of the public schools will help you understand where the teachers are coming from. Many of these public schools have no water, no hygienic toilets and pupils and students are left with no option than to defecate in nearby bushes, canals and gutters.
Is it not worrisome that in this 21st century, over 30 million Nigerians estimatedly still practice open defecation, and Nigeria is on the notorious list of countries still with such unhealthy habit? Yet we are told that contact with body fluids and wastes are easy ways of spreading Ebola and other killer contagious diseases.
So the questions are, must federal, and state governments wait for NUT to embark on strike before the rights things are done?
What measures have government taken to check the spread of Ebola in schools if these basic necessities are still lacking? How many teachers have been trained to handle any outbreak of Ebola? How many public schools have been supplied the required preventive gadgets such as hand gloves, sanitisers, and others?
The proprietors of private schools who are believed to be pushing for schools to reopen on September 22 may argue that they have provided all these in their schools but what percentage of Nigerians children are in these private schools? Besides, can these priviledged ones exist in isolation? If there is an outbreak of Ebola in a public school, it will defiantly rob off on private schools no doubt.
Again, the argument by private schools proprietors that a delay in the resumption of schools would greatly distort the academic calendar year is inconsequential. It could be seen as a misplacement of priority as one has to be healthy before talking of academics. If the school resumes and half of the children are affected by EVD, what is the education to such children, their families and nation at large?
As the NUT president said, “… if is better to delay the resumption of schools till 13th October 2014 even when the scourge would have been off months ago than to rush and open schools only to be faced with attacks of the EVD in the schools. It makes more sense to be doubly sure than to operate on shaky grounds of uncertainty and probability as it will be a catastrophe of unimaginable dimension if by any act of omission, we rush and open schools and end up with even more primary or secondary schools being infected by the virus”.
One therefore thinks it is important we take another look at the resumption date issue in the overall interest of the pupils, students, parents and guardians, schools and the general well-being of the entire country. Most importantly, the standard of living in our schools should be improved as September 22, or October 13 resumption dates will make no difference if the facilities in our school are not raised to standard.
Calista Ezeaku
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
