Connect with us

Opinion

Arms Imports And National Security

Published

on

Last Tuesday, the nation woke up to hear the news of the large illegal arms shipment intercepted by operatives of the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) at the Apapa Port in Lagos. The shipment includes 13 containers laden with grenades, rocket launchers, scores of mortars, automatic rifles, rounds of ammunition, cartridges, and sophisticated weapons.

Sources said that the last port where the vessel berthed before heading to Nigeria was Nhava Sheva, otherwise known as Jawaharial Nehru Port, considered the busiest port in India. Nevertheless, some reports have it that the shipment might not have originated from India. They point at Iran as possible country of origin. That is not the issue! The issue is that the containers were discharged from the vessel in Apapa Port.

The containers were reported to have been discharged from the vessel – MV CMA-CGM Everest – which had berthed at the Apapa Port on July 10, 2010, and sailed out of the same port on July 15, this year. The ship’s manifest had indicated that the contents of the containers were 754 packages of glass wool and stones.

The 13 containers had been moved into the examination bay of AP Moller Apapa Terminals Limited, the concessionaire of the Apapa Container Terminal (ACT) on October 22, 2010. Desperate attempts by the consignee in collaboration with a customs licensed agent to transfer the prohibited items to a bonded warehouse outside the port were thwarted by operatives of the customs in partnership with other security agents.

The Customs Comptroller-General, Alhaji Inde Dikko Abdullahi, in a statement signed by Customs Public Relations Officer, Adewale Adeniyi, said the containers were under security surveillance for sometime, and were still within customs control.

According to the customs high command, “initial investigation has shown that customs system has blocked attempts by the importers to clear the containers due to observed irregularities in the import documents. Our system is configured to block suspicious importations of this nature. For instance, this particular importation had no Form “M” and Risk Assessment Report (RAR). The importer and exporter had no address on the system, and we have reasons to believe that the importer’s name given in the import documents is fictitious”.

The customs boss enjoined all customs field operatives to remain vigilant as more criminally-minded importers would want to make similar attempts to test their resolve by bringing in illegal arms into the country. He also tasked Nigerians to volunteer useful information to the service to enable them nip such efforts in the bud, stressing that the security of the nation is a collective responsibility of all security agencies and patriotic and well-meaning Nigerians.  

The South West Zonal Coordinator of National Task Force to Combat the Importation of Illegal Goods, Contraband and Small Arms, Dr Ayo Omotoso, also confirmed the arrest of the licensed customs agent who undertook the clearing of the consignment and discharge of the goods from the vessel. The agent, who is now helping security operatives to determine the actual destination of the containers, is presently being shielded from the public for security reasons.

Investigators found that the importer had changed the manifest of the shipment to imply that the goods were meant for The Gambia, which intelligence experts see as a cover up, as there are strong indications that the containers were actually meant for Nigeria.   

Already, six out of the 13 containers inspected as at last Wednesday, showed that artillery rockets in the 107mm range and similar to those often used by the Taliban in Afganistan, filled the shipment intercepted by security agents at the nation’s busiest seaport.

Speaking after inspecting the seizures in Lagos last Wednesday, National Security Adviser to President Goodluck Jonathan, Lt-Gen Andrew Owoye Azazi (rtd), said security forces in the country would not jump into any conclusions about where the illegal arms shipment was coming from or heading to.

According to him, “at this time, the only thing we can say about the bomb discovered by security agents is, we have not reached any conclusion where the shipment was going to or coming from. We have discovered the bombs and at the end of the day, we will do all that is possible to make sure everybody is protected. We are doing a lot of investigations, and at the end of the day, Nigerians would know what it is all about. So, let us not jump into conclusion.”

Fine comments, well made. But methinks that beyond the shocking discovery, the call by the customs for the public’s surveillance and cooperation as well as assurances of the security and safety of Nigerians, the new development calls for concern given the events of the last couple of months. The customs and other security agencies charged with the responsibility of securing our ports, including the State Security Service (SSS), need not beat their chests now. It goes beyond the issue of irregularities in import documents.

The fact that the vessel conveying the 13 containers berthed on the shores of Nigeria on July 10, quietly discharged its contents and safely sailed off Apapa Port on July 15, this year, speaks volumes of the porous nature of our ports and the crass incompetence and ineffectiveness of our security networks. If they were alert and on top of the situation, why did the security agents not impound the vessel that brought in the illegal arms?

In the past, illegal arms had scaled through our porous borders. Some were tracked in Onitsha. Others were traced to Aba, and elsewhere. The large quantity of arms circulating in the Niger Delta also passed through our ports. Of course, very wealthy merchants of death imported them into the country. They have always passed through the eyes of the needle without any resistance from our security operatives.

If it took about four months for a joint security team to intercept illegal arms imported into the country, then there is something wrong with this nation. The question is: why did it take this long for security agents to uncover the illegal arms import? It is indeed, doubtful that the various ports in Nigeria have not been actual conduits for the supply of illegal arms to the litany of armed gangs and criminal elements, including politicians and their foot soldiers.

The new dimension demonstrated by the recent bomb blasts in some parts of Nigeria is evidence that the build-up has been protracted. If for nothing, the October 1, 2010 twin bombing in Abuja, and some earlier bombing incidents in Warri, Delta State and Port Harcourt, Rivers State, are still very fresh in our memory. The plot to detonate these bombs did not start the same day the bombs exploded. The materials used for the bombs were carefully imported through the ports, into the country by the planners and sponsors of the criminal acts. Yet, security operatives did not detect them.

The sustained attacks on oil installations in the Niger Delta between late 2005 and 2009, the scary campaigns by members of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) on government institutions in the region, are tacit reminders of the long years it has taken our security operatives to come to terms with the enormity of the problem of illegal arms proliferation in the nation’s socio-political and economic fabrics. 

Added to the above is the cankerworm of the cult-related violence, the kidnapping spree through the Niger Delta, and later, such states as Abia, Imo, Anambra, Enugu, Lagos, Kaduna, Kano, among others, all for ransom, point to a protracted militarization of the nation by some disgruntled elements bent on destabilizing Nigeria. It has even taken political colouration, of recent. Indeed, the sophistication with which armed robbers operate in parts of the country, reveal that the business of illegal arms importation did not start today.

I think that the discovery in Lagos is only a reminder of the raging spectacle that had been the norm for years. In fact, the issue of illegal arms importation began years back during the military era.

That the nation’s electioneering process is marred by violence,  killings, political assassinations, and open display of dangerous weapons by thugs and miscreants, is only a painting of the level of deterioration in our social system. The degree of violence during elections has been on the rise since the military left Nigeria’s political landscape in 1999.

Of course, some concerned Nigerians have repeatedly warned government that self-seeking and disgruntled individuals were stockpiling arms in some parts of the country. In fact, well-meaning Niger Delta people have been making this call for years. But, these warnings had fallen on deaf ears for about two decades.

Now that the 13 containers have been confiscated, and the customs licensed agent arrested, it is possible that, at least, one of the importers of these illegal arms would be tracked, arrested and prosecuted. Nigerians are waiting for the outcome of the security agencies’ investigations into the illegal arms importation.  They want to know those who have resorted to militarizing the nation, and arming devilish people to kill others, with illegal arms.

The President Jonathan administration must make sure that those involved in this criminal business are brought to book. This is one way to restore confidence in not only the polity but also the economy, as potential investors would be looking at how the government handles issues of this nature, which exposes the security and safety of law-abiding citizens to great danger.

Honest politicians would also be waiting to see how the government braces up to the challenge, especially as the 2011 general elections gather momentum. This discovery is a tacit test of Jonathan’s political will to address the problem of insecurity in the land. Nigerians are waiting.    

 

Nelson Chukwudi

Continue Reading

Opinion

Bazia  EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Opinion

As Service Chiefs Relocate To Borno

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Opinion

Beyond the Adichie Tragedy

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Trending