Connect with us

Opinion

State Governors And Non-Performance (1)

Published

on

News reports have it that Imo State Governor, Chief Ikedi Ohakim was denied entry into a church for the worship of God on Sunday, May 8, 2011. The youths were said to be angry with him for abandoning and neglecting his people and community. As a show of their seriousness, the youths had asked the governor to point at one project he executed in the community all through his four-year tenure.

Governor Ohakim had lost the Imo State supplementary elections conducted on May 6, following the inconclusive polls of April 26. In that too close to call contest, Ohakim of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) lost to Rochas Okorocha of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). This is a similar fate suffered by many others of his type who refused to learn from history. That is the price of non-performance, and governance with impunity.

In Delta, Akwa Ibom, Nassarawa, Borno, Oyo, Kano, among others, where allegations of non-performance are rife, tension over the victory or loss of the people’s mandate has been greeted with mixed reactions. It now leaves room for pandering over whether non-performance should be subjective or purely based on available physical infrastructure projects the people can see, touch and feel.

It is, indeed, incontrovertible that people look forward to their governments to provide them with the basic necessities of life, such as school infrastructures, healthcare facilities, potable water, good roads, decent waste disposal system, sustainable electricity, and security of lives and property. There is no one who would not be touched by the presence of these human necessities. This is why any leader who fails to pay priority attention to these projects is seen as either not performing or completely out of touch with the yearnings and aspirations of the electorate.

Now, there are clear cut indices for measuring performance and non-performance of political office holders. Take Rivers State for example. The Governor, Rt Hon Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, from the onset of his administration in October 2007, pledged to Rivers people that he would provide 105 primary health centres, 250 model primary schools and 23 model secondary schools across the 23 local governments of the state. All these have been oversubscribed, and Rivers people are still counting.

He did not stop there. Amaechi also promised hundreds of kilometers of all-season roads in all the local government areas, and good network of world-class roads, resurfaced, reconstructed or rehabilitated roads to facilitate communication amongst the communities, and ensure unfettered free flow of human and vehicular traffic in the state. In addition to this are his pledge to address the issue of waste disposal and management, provision of water and enhanced sanitation status, improved welfare packages for government workers, stable electricity supply, among others.

In all these planks, Amaechi has been outstanding in his performance, despite obvious legislative and legal impediments, especially as it regards to boosting electricity supply to the people of the state.

Another tacit example of a leader whose democratic and good governance credentials make him an easy sellable product in the electorate’s chessboard is Lagos State Governor, Babatunde Fashola. Perhaps, it is remarkable to note that men who assume power and remember that the position they occupy is transient, would definitely work for posterity so much so that even after they had left the saddle as governors, they can walk the streets of their states’’ cities without fear of molestation.

Former Cross River State Governor, Donald Duke is also another testimonial, as he took part in street processions of the Calabar annual carnival without any form of fear. Now, even after he had left office, Duke could still walk the streets of Calabar like a common man and darling of the masses. In fact, subsequent governments are still finding it difficult to keep pace with his strides.

As a toast to good governance and people-oriented leadership, it is certain that such Governors as Amaechi, Fashola, and their likes would walk the streets of their various states with lots of accolades. This is the test of good statesmanship, which is usually rewarded with appreciation.

Perhaps, it would be wise to refresh our minds with the fundamental reasons why this situation exists in Nigeria. The basic reason is that our administrative structures have made little provision for institutions to operate independently of the will of the governor, in fact, without recourse to what the governor wants instead what the electorate desire. This has made it easy for those who fail to do so to be noticed because they are quickly seen to building on non-existent foundation.

But in societies where standard structures of governance and institutional frameworks have risen appropriately always have the various agencies of government independently performing their duties according to the law. For instance, the police can initiate and investigate crime against a sitting governor, and can even indict him or her for abuse of office or other crimes, if found wanting. A number of cases exist in the United States where incumbent governors or even incumbent presidents have been investigated and either exonerated or indicted of inappropriate behaviours and abuse of office. Take the Governor of North Carolina, Mark Stanford in 2009, investigated for travelling out of his state on holidays with his Argentine mistress without notice and misuse of state funds. He was eventually found clean. But the State of Illinois governor, one-time governor of New York, and even former US President Bill Clinton were also investigated and found culpable for abuse of office and inappropriate behaviours.

Indeed, physical and urban planning departments have the courage to write-off or condemn a government planned road, bridge or other infrastructure projects, if they fail to meet approved specifications and standard in line with existing master plan for development. This can only happen in an environment where separation powers works effectively in government, where all tiers of government: executive, legislature and judiciary work in line with the Constitution, and where development projects are aligned with community, local, municipal, state and national aspirations and goals.

Imegi, lecturer, Rivers State College of Arts and Science, Rumuola, resides in Port Harcourt.

This is the standard every leader in government in Nigeria should adopt. Our governments should listen to the people and factor in their demands in their schemes. They should learn to follow their budgets in such a way that every project not executed or completed in the first year should be carried over to the next year, while budgets should have short, medium and long-term plans to accommodate all strategic policies and programmes of state. If this practice is adopted, it would be difficult for governors to fail to deliver the dividends of democracy to their people, except they deliberately want to fail.

I think this is achievable in Nigeria. And I also reason that it is practicable at all levels of government. Take the governor, for instance. Every of his campaign promises must be kept on assumption of office. He also must factor in the yearnings and aspirations of the people from one community to the other. At the local government level, the chairman and his councilors must keep faith with their campaign promises, and ensure that each item or policy objective is fulfilled while in office. The rational demands of his people must also be articulated into concrete programmes and delivered to the people as part of the development strategy. All these can be done at town hall or village meetings with the various principals. If development projects are executed with all expert and professional advice incorporated in the planning and implementation stages, all loopholes for corrupt practices closed, then it would be difficult to have non-performing governors and local government chairmen in the states.

It is interesting to note that the Rivers State Governor, Rt. Hon Chibuike Amaechi has already taken the lead by organizing town hall meetings with communities, where opinions and suggestions on the way forward in the development agenda of the state is charted. I also noticed that the governor has followed, religiously, resolutions are such town hall meetings in the implementation of development projects, policies and programmes in the state. And I reason that this why Amaechi is doing well in all fronts.

I therefore recommend this governance strategy to all the newly elected local government chairmen and their councilors. If they adopt this principle, it would be easy to spread development across all the villages, communities and cities, and also reduce the level of friction and violence that have characterized our polity.

There is no doubt that cities such as Paris, Rome, London, Washington, DC, Tokyo, among others, were designed, built and refined by leaders who had a dream to create enviable cities for posterity. This is also the dream Governor Amaechi has envisioned for the Greater Port Harcourt City, and other adjoining towns. He is already restoring the Garden City status of Port Harcourt, and transforming Port Harcourt and Obio/Akpor to mega-cities. Methinks the new local government chairmen can set for themselves the agenda to work assiduously and selflessly to make their local governments models for other states to emulate.

From the foregoing, one can boldly draw the conclusion that governance in Nigeria is daily going through a series of refinement. But such refinement cannot be far-reaching if the people are not carried along. Happily, the series of elections this year have come and gone, with the electorate clearly and freely making their choice of leaders at all levels they want to lead them in the next four and three years at the federal and state as well as local government levels. Yes, the elections have been adjudged the freest, fairest and most credible in Nigeria’s democratic history.

But it is important that such leaders go one step further by making the people to effectively participate in the governance of their states. This is because it  is only when that happens through the four-year or three-year tenure that the people can joyfully heave a sigh of relief, and be bold enough to say, indeed, that democracy is truly, “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Imegi, lecturer, Rivers State College of Arts and Science, Rumuola, resides in Port Harcourt.

Thaddeus Imegi

Continue Reading

Opinion

One Attack Too Many 

Published

on

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By:  King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth  

Published

on

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael  Abraham

Continue Reading

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s  Outburst

Published

on

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection. 

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office

By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Trending