Opinion

Non-Violence Election 2015: How Realistic?

Published

11 years ago

February 2, 2015

The presidential candidates of the major political
parties taking part in this month’s general elections recently signed a non-violence pact, resolving to ensure peace before, during and after the polls.
A few days ago, the governorship candidates of the three most viable parties in the state – PDP, APC and Labour parties followed suit by appending their signatures to a similar agreement.
Will these accords minimize election violence that Nigeria’s elections are known for? What do Nigerians think of the development? How can we achieve peace in the country before, during and after the fourth coming elections.
Our chief correspondent, Calistar Ezeaku, sought answers to these questions from some members of the public.

Mr Ben Onitemeka
Community/NGO leader.
Peace agreement has noting to do with the followers of these candidates. You see, those of us who have been opportuned to be in the social media, will discover that their followers say many things that are very annoying. People use abusive languages and talk as if they are representing their pay masters. But, in the actual sense those are not what they should be saying.
The non-violence signed by the presidential candidates and the governorship candidates here in our state should have helped in minimizing violence but it is not happening the way it should have been because the followers are not following that agreement.
So the problem is not the candidates. The candidates are always very peaceful. The problem comes from their followers.
Incidentally, most of the people who make a lot of noise didn’t even register, they don’t even have Permanent Voters Card (PVC). So the only way we can have a better society is by going out to vote. It is only through your vote that you can retain or change a particular government. If you don’t have voter’s card and you keep making noise and all those things, it cannot change the situation. The most important thing, is to go out and vote.
It is unfortunate that here in Rivers State we have a lot of pre-election violence, destruction of posters and all that but I think the security apparatus should be at alert. A lot of these cases can be blamed on the lapses from the security apparatus. Assuming the police, civil defense, JTF and other security agencies are at alert, I think most of these incidents can be prevented.
However, to achieve a violence free election, all hands must be on deck. The civil society groups, NGOs, faith-based groups, have roles to plays. The churches can actually reach out to their members. Definitely every individual belongs to one religious group or the other or an association. We have to reach out to these associations.

Miss Odilabiebuma Adline
-Civil Servant.
I will say the signing of the peace accord is a good move but in actual practice I have not see it working. It is a good move that the candidates of the major political partners signed peace pact, that they should not use abusive languages, that they should do things in a way that should not affect the peace of the society. But after the agreement had been signed, looking at my locality, it doesn’t seem as if they signed anything.
You can still hear the politicians during their campaign attacking their opponents, they still use abusive languages. All those things are still going on.
So, we can only achieve a violence-free election if those involved will stick to the terms of the agreements. We can achieve a pre, during and post election violence if we educate the society. It might take time but we will certainly get there, remember Rome was not built in a day. We still need to talk, and talk and talk, create the awareness. Somebody recently said that we don’t have poverty as such that what we have is poverty of the mind. The mind needs to be educated. People need to know their rights. Not just knowing your right but knowing what to do and when to do it.
I want to also say that mothers have an important role to play. Most of the people causing these violent are youths. Parents, especially mothers need to caution their children and educated them on the dangers of violence.
I also think we need to start from the primary school to educate our children on their civic responsibilities. You don’t bend a tree when it is old. We have subjects like social studies and all that. We need to educate these children on the impact of being good citizens. So it is from the cradle that we need to build.
But what we are doing now is that we are trying to build from the top and you cannot achieve anything from the top when the foundation has not been laid.
So I think our foundation is part of the problem we have today because the people that believe in non-violence are very few.
Only a handful of people believe we can live amicably, that we can belong to different political parties, have different ideas but still live together peacefully.
I think we should always bear in mind that there will always be another election. So, that I don’t win today doesn’t mean I will not win tomorrow. In sports we say, let the best man win and that is what it should be in election, let the best man win.

Mr Ifeanyi Ajaegbu
-Human Development Expert
It is a positive step that they came together to agree that the election should be violent free. But beyond signing peace pacts, we need to ask further questions – how many of their constituencies have they visited with this message of peace. How many of the constituencies have committed themselves to behaving non-violently because signing a peace pact at the national and state levels does not mean that in the rural communities, in the fishing pots the people are going to abide by such pacts. So we need to go beyond agreement. We need to make more concrete commitments. There should be punitive measures agreed upon by all the aspirants that anyone who goes outside the agreement will be punished in this way or the others. From the day they signed the agreement there have been shootings, burnings and all that. So people will just sign the agreement and continue with what they are doing.
My advice to the young ones who are used to commit violence during elections is that they should remember that there is a future beyond the elections. They should remember that they are worth more than the elections. They are worth more than whatever they are going to gain from committing violence and a dead man has no future. Secondly, they should also remember that if they fight and kill each other to put the wrong person on the seat, we are all going to bear the consequences of whatever wrong decision made by the person. The worst thing is that they can even die doing what they are doing.
Each political party has a youth wing. They should turn these youths wings into a conglomerate of young people who could work together for a better Nigeria instead of turning them into thugs.

Mr Anthony Ogina
-NOA Staff.
What I have to say is that we must ensure peace in the country. We are all one Nigeria, so we should not take elections as a do or die affair. Election is just like a football match, a particular team must win.
So a loser should also embrace whoever emerges the winner.
It’s true the peace accord had been signed but the leaders of political parties are not helping matters. They are supposed to tell their followers and the states where they come from to embrace peace that nobody should go into violence. I heard this morning that they stoned President Goodluck Jonathan’s convoy in Taraba State. This is not what we want and it makes nonsense of the peace agreement. Everybody should embrace peace.

Mr Chika Emeh
-NGO Project Manager.
Looking at the violence going on in different parts of the country this period, we must ask ourselves what really do we want and how do we want to achieve it? If we say we want violence –free election then we must ask ourselves how do we achieve it. We should use the religions, the ethnic groups and other aspects of the community to address the issue.
So I will like to see a situation where religious leaders mount the pulpit or go to their mosques and preach violence-free elections. I want to see a situation where ethnic group leaders speak to their people using the media and other means of communication to urge them to shun violence. I want to see a situation where political parties and politicians educate their followers on the dangers of election violence before, during and after the elections.
Infact, more and more studies are now showing that our problem is not pre or during election violence. The major concern is post-election violence. Look at what is happening in Ekiti State. The elections were very free and fair, there were no violence but after the elections, the violence started. Why? Because people do not seem to agree with the results of the elections. There is also this attitude of winner takes it all and all of that. So, if we must check-mate this type of violence, effort must be focused on dealing with post-elections violence-free activities. And that has to do with setting up the necessary structures in the community that will actually looking into the grievances of those who are aggrieved and do we have the judiciary that will be empowered and are ready to dispense as at when do? Do we have the machinery in place to make sure that those who perpetuate violence are punished or are we just leaving them to do whatever they wish?
Again, many people are concerned about INEC’s preparadeness to conduct a credible election. You see, INEC started early enough but surprisingly, it does appear that they are not really prepared.
What we are seeing now with the PVC distribution is not a good testimony because as we speak now, millions of Nigerians do not have access to their permanent voters card. And if care is not taken some people might be disenfranchised and this can lead to violence.
So, I will advice INEC to make sure that every voter who has been registered receives his/his voters Card.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

1 week 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 week 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

2 weeks 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