Connect with us

Opinion

Should Indians Manage The Model Schools In Rivers?

Published

on

Iheanyi Ezinwo,

Publisher

First of all, I want to start by saying that the system of government we have makes it possible for a sitting governor to decide on whatever he wants to do, and also to do it whether it is right or wrong.

Now, the governor before this time had not hidden his intention to hand over the management of the model schools to Indians. As a person, I would want to see that as a novel development.

It is a new one because many of us had thought that there is hardly any category of personnel that we don’t have in Rivers State. But from the face of it, the first thing that will come to mind on hearing this is that there are no qualified people in Rivers State to do the job.

As an individual, I would say that it would have been better to allow our people here to do the job. It is a matter of evolving the appropriate structure that will make it possible that school visitations and monitoring are properly done. But since they have decided to do it, it will not be easy for us to just say what the governor is doing is wrong or right.

We need to know at what cost are they going to do the job? For how long? Remember that for some time payment of salaries in Rivers State was handed over to Zenith Bank. But within a short time, it was discovered that they were not doing better than those who were doing it before. But now, from what we read from the papers, the assignment has been returned to the civil servants. So, I would have preferred a situation whereby they would look at how the system was working before, identify the weaknesses, then come up with ways and means of strengthening the monitoring mechanism.

But since they are insisting to go and contract the job, it is only time that will determine or justify that decision. Since the work has not started, I cannot tell you now that it is a right decision or not. It is the outcome that will determine whether the decision is right or not.

I think the assumption is that these Indians have the capability to properly run the schools. But the worry there is for how long are they going to run those schools? Who are going to take over from them, is it not the same our people that are going to take over from them? As a person, I may have my reservations but I believe that the governor knows certain things that I may not know that motivated him to go for that.

But I want to see it generally as a political decision because the day he leaves office, it is most  likely that the next governor will reverse that decision. So, as a person, by saying it is good or not cannot change anything. I would prefer that we let it be and watch to see how the whole thing would go.

I would not call the decision an indictment on the enlightened class.  I will call it a vote of no confidence on local hands. In other words, it is a demonstration of lack of confidence in our people to do the job very well. That is the way a disinterested third party will see it.

 

Iwu Remigeus,

Businessman

To me, this is a welcome development in a way because Indians that I know are very thorough people who do things well. If the model schools are given to them to manage, they will manage them well and produce results.

Although I believe we have capable hands here to manage the model schools, the Indians will do it better. If our own people are asked to manage the schools, they may have the Nigerian factor to contend with. Even if they are good, they may be influenced by corrupt Nigerians to water down the standard the Indians may set.

But my concern about the policy is the cost implication. Has the government actually thought out what it will cost to bring these Indians to manage all the model schools in the state?

The policy is good on paper, but I hope we will not have problems in implementing it. I think the government should consult a little more.

 

Patrick George,

Businessman

First of all, let us look at the motives behind the state government bringing Indians to manage the schools. I don’t know what are their motives. But if you ask me, I would say that we have indigenous managers or school managers that can handle all these. But I think we have people that will be there to manage these schools,  and not the Indians. They are good in their own way but I prefer indigenous managers and indigenous teachers.

You pay these Indians in foreign currency, you pay them based on the salary agreement. It is like somebody importing goods. You pay more to the country where you import the goods. So, in our case, in terms of salary and maintenance, the state government will have to pay more, and in that case, some employed to manage these schools before now will now go back to the labour market.

I don’t know why the state government decided to bring Indians to manage the schools. To me, it is not good; I don’t like it. Let our people do the managing first. If after  two or three years, it is not working, they might think of another way out. Every problem has a solution.

If the next government comes and does not like it, they might ask them to go.

 

Jude Akaraonye,

Businessman

Actually, this is a surprise in the sense that in Rivers State even before the schools were built to a standard like this, where were the Indians before the innovations? Does it mean that our teachers cannot perform in a more beautifully built schools? Why must it just be the Indians now that the schools have been properly renovated, at  least, to standard? Why must it be the Indians that will now come and take over and manage the schools?. These are just a few of the questions.

Now, another thing is this: does  it mean we don’t have good enough academia? I mean classic ones in the entire state? We have professors, eminent professors that are well read all over. Does it mean we cannot involve such people to take charge of management or leadership of such schools, even if it involves sending them abroad for training, for proper training? Let it be that they are indigenous teachers.

So, based on that, I don’t think it is proper to involve the Indians to come over and manage our resources in this case, which means we don’t have good teachers.

 

Mrs. Atemie Sanipe,

Teacher

My opinion is that if the Indians will come and spot out the quacks and sanitise the model schools, let them come. Most teachers are not fit to be in our school system. May be the Indians will add value to the running of these model schools, otherwise I will say no to their coming.

I believe if Indians are engaged to run these schools, it will affect the employment of staff into the schools. Quality staff will be employed. If they employ the right persons, they will be laying a proper foundation. I believe it will take time before they deviate.

What I am saying is that the Indians will do better than our people if asked to manage the model schools. They are competent and they are the people that we emulate.

 

Theophilus Daerego,

Civil Servant

For Indians as usual to manage the schools, I think they can do better than our people here. What is there is that they have to manage the schools properly, and may be, after sometime, our people can undergo training and learn the job. Because right now, our standard of education has fallen. Sometimes, if you look at the way we Nigerians manage, we find it difficult.  So, that is where the problem lies.

If the Rivers State government says that they want experts or foreigners to manage the schools, I see nothing bad in it.

It is a welcome development. Because already, Indians during the seventies, or eighties were here with us, teaching us. I could remember when I was a student at Enitonna High School, Port Harcourt, it was Indians who taught us. And they taught us well.

I do not think bringing the Indians mean our people cannot do the work. They are bringing them because they are more advanced than we are educationally. They are also less corruptible. So, bringing them is a good thing for us to learn from them. You know we are learners and a Third World country. They are more than us in terms of technology, in terms of civilization and educationally. So, Indians managing the schools is very good.

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