Opinion

2015 Polls Shift: People React

Published

11 years ago

February 23, 2015

The Chairman of the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Attahiru Jega, had penultimate Saturday, announced change of the dates of the country’s planned general elections.
Expectedly, this has elicited diverse reactions from different people both within and outside the country. Our Chief correspondent, Calista Ezeaku spoke with some of these people. Our photographer, Ken Donatus captured their images.

Godwin Nnadozie
Pastor
The postponement of the election is a welcome development; I’m in support of it because of the reasons given by INEC. One of the reasons is the issue of the distribution of PVC and insecurity in the north. I support it. It will help us to prepare adequately. Those people who have not gotten their PVCs will go and get them so that nobody should be disenfranchised and at the end of the day, I believe that God will help us to have a wonderful election.
I listened to President Gooduck Jonathan during his last presidential media chat and he was able to address the issue of insecurity in the North East
He gave us hope and assurance that within this six weeks something will be done and elections will be conducted.

A photographer
I like the postponement of the elections because in this area we don’t have voters card. But the question now is, if the voters’ cards are not available till the new date of the election, what will happen? We don’t have voters card here going by what we have now, there is no way President Jonathan will win, if we don’t have voters card in this area. Whether you like it or not majority of votes for Jonathan will come from this area. Some people in the north will vote for him but the bulk of his vote will come from this part of the country and if the people here do not have voters card how is he going to win?
President Jonathan has assured Nigeria that elections must hold on the rescheduled dates but let us still be praying that he might win because northerners work in unity. In this area, even though we claim we love Goodluck, most of us are reluctant to collect the voters card. We are not interested.
Again, there is this argument that Boko Haram challenges has been with us for up to three years and since we were not able to deal with it within these years how can we deal with it in six weeks?
But no one can really tell why military Chiefs asked for the postponement. May be they had serious information. May be they fore saw situations where the election would have led to serious bloodshed in the country and decided to avert it. So I encourage people to use this opportunity to go and get their voters card so that we can vote for the right persons.
Dr Green Iheanacho-Lecturer / Political Scientist
The election postponement has very wide implications nationally and internationally. First of all internationally, it gives the impression that Nigeria is yet to organise herself to make effective arrangement to conduct elections. When the election will eventually come, if it is not transparent enough to international standard, it will be taken that the anormalies that may be noticed were the reasons for the postponement. And nationally it disturbs the process and progress of the elections and the electioneering campaigns.
With allegations and counter allegations of intimidation, impunity and all that, coming now to be capped with the postponement, it is an indictment on the federal government that all that have been said about their unseriousness and lackadaisical approach to the elections may be taken to be true.
So, eventually it will take a lot on the part of the federal government to redeem its image internationally and also to prove its sincerity and commitment to a free and transparent election when the postponed date comes around.
The reasons given for the postponement are not cogent because those reasons have been with us all along. We are talking of security reasons, Boko Haram has been with us for not less than three years. If we think Boko Haram is a serious threat that can affect national programmes and polices then we should have adequately addressed it before this time. Every other issue has been made of no effect by INEC’s declaration that they are fit and ready to conduct the election. So every other reasons has been defeated by that idea from INEC.
If INEC as alleged, has been rammed into agreeing with the postponement when it declared that it was ready and the outcome of the elections are not internationally certified or seen to be free and transparent then it confirms the adage that a witch-bird cried in the night and in the morning a baby died.
So, we are saying that Nigeria should give INEC the openness, the obvious co-operation that will make it conduct the election without interference. The postponent as I said earlier is not a welcome development for political development in Nigeria and also for the international reputation of Nigeria. It doesn’t speak well of the development of politics and everything that has to do with the instrument of democracy for Nigeria to suddenly come and within a space of two weeks, postpone a scheduled election.
In other countries, materials would have been put at positions where they would be used at electoral time before that two weeks. But as it is now, such materials are now open for manipulation, fraud and counter cheating. So it doesn’t speak well for the electoral process in Nigeria. It is a very wrong decision. We should allow democracy to flourish in Nigeria.
We should grow and grow democracy.
We are not under a military or dictatorial government where impunity and personal interests will be allowed to reign supreme and have their sway. We have had this stint of democracy for a number of donkey years that should have made us an example in Africa. We shouldn’t be allowing other African countries – South, Africa, Ghana, and even Liberia to be taking the glory of good governance in Africa. We should show growth and development in politics.

Mr Kennedy Weede
– Media Practitioner
To me, I want to say that shifting the elections to March and April is not a welcome development.
Before the postponement, Nigerians have prepared to vote candidates of their choice, to vote a credible leader not a miler. You will agree with me that Nigeria is yet to have a leader. Shifting the election has caused a big mayhem in Nigeria. If the military say they are not prepared for the lections, it then means they have failed Nigerians.
Now they have shifted the elections for six weeks, is it now that they will be well equipped to fight insurgency? You see, Nigeria has come of age, let them not be telling us cock and bull stories. Nigeria is bigger than any individual and I stand to be corrected.
The shifting of the elections has a political undertone and I want to say that in this election, let them allow the peoples’ vote to count because Nigerians are ready to vote a leader of their choice.
On the issue of the collection of PVCs, you will agree with me that what our people here want is money, money, money. It is just now that our people to make up for politics. In the north the political awareness had been them. They equip themselves by registering and collecting their PVCs. If INEC says they have distributed 80% of the PVCs in the north, yes don’t blame them. Our people are after money.
If they go to collect the PVCs and the queue is much, they will go back to do their businesses. That is what is causing the problem now.
Our people are interested in money, not election, while in the north they have equipped themselves even before this time to ensure that they elect their own candidate.
I believe Prof Jega is ready to write his name in the Guinness Book of record. Let them allow him to conduct a credible, free election this year, 2015 and Nigerians are ready for change.

Mr Richards Orji – Missionary
I think the postponent is for the good of the nation. What we want is a peaceful and free election. We don’t want where there will be confusion or trouble. So if the postponement will lead to free and fair elections, I believe that is the best for the nation. It is not good to hurry and then run into trouble. It is better we postpone the elections and do things right. Many people had not collected their PVCs before the initial date of the election and had elections been conducted, they wouldn’t have voted. So it is better to postpone the elections so that people will collect their PVCs. And anybody who fails to collect his PVC within this period will no longer blame INEC.

Mrs Pep Iroroh – Psychologist
I think the postponement of the elections was a good decision taken by INEC, so as not to disenfranchise Nigerians. We are all aware that as at the 7th of February when the polls shift was announced, thousands of eligible voters including myself not collected their voters cards. I made every effort to collect it but all was in vain. I went to the centre where I registered several times but was asked to come back because my card was not available.
And the question is, why disenfranchise the electorate if there is any room for extension.
I believe to have free and fair election is to allow any eligible voter the right to get his/her PVC so as to vote their preferred candidates. It would have been very unfair if elections were held on February 14th and 28th because many people would have been disenfranchised and that would have caused a big problem for the country.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

20 hours 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

20 hours 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