Opinion

Should Amnesty Programme End In 2015?

Published

13 years ago

February 4, 2013

The Special Adviser to President Goodluck Jonathan on Niger Delta, Kingsley Kuku, a few days ago disclosed that the Presidential Amnesty Programme started in 2008 to empower ex-militants from the Niger Delta region will end in 2015. Is it right or wrong for the programme to end at the stated period? Our correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Dele Obinna went to town to seek answers to the question from the public.

Excerpts:

Mr Zephaniah Egbufor-Businessman

I feel the programme should even end earlier than 2015. My reason is that by now the people in charge of this programme and the government should be able to assess how far they have gone over the years. All the money they have spent on these boys, are they getting the desired result? They should be able to assess the impact of this programme and know whether they should be spending that money or not. I heard that some people including women were protesting their exclusion from the programme. There is no way everybody in the Niger Delta would be part of the programme. I think what government should do is to provide social amenities for the Niger Delta region. They should provide things that will have positive impact on the daily life of everybody. They should go to some key underdeveloped areas and improve the standard of living of those people.

Apart from that, they should look for a way of making sure that the boys that have taken part in this programme are ready to start making a living for themselves. It’s not just about spending the money, some of them when you give them that money they don’t do anything with it. They first take it like salary. It shouldn’t be that way. If you place them on monthly salary it means you are encouraging other people to want to be militants.

So they should be able to see how they cannot encourage people to be jobless. They should encourage people to make use of the brains and achieve something. They should help these boys to be self sufficient. Fine, the trainings have been okay but this time, they should be able to assess what positive impact the programme has made on the people. There should be a way of ensuring that these boys give back to the communities in the Niger Delta where they come from.

Mrs Perpetua Muruako – Applicant

I’m fully in support of the programme ending in 2015. Many of them were sent to different countries overseas to learn one thing or the other and when they came back they had nothing to offer. They just depend on the monthly allowance given them by the government. So they are supposed to use the knowledge they acquired over there, to help the society instead being liabilities to government. I agree, some of them that were sent abroad for studies or whatever are serious but some are not serious at all. They came back with nothing. So let’s see the result of the money spent so far before we start talking of adding more years.

However, I am of the opinion that in order to prevent the occurrence of agitation when this programme ends in 2015, government should really consider how to help the people of the Niger Delta. They should empower their youth, provide them with free education, good roads, good water and what have you.

Hon Chike Chinwo – Politician

Personally, I will say if government says they will end the programme in 2015, there should have been an adequate arrangement to that effect. Whether the programme should end in 2015 or not is not the issue. The question is, is the amnesty actually affecting the people for whom the amnesty is declared or are there people using it to sap the government? This is because often a time we have read through the media that some persons are either involving those people who are not militants or the freedom fighters as the case may be. Therefore we are calling on government to actually investigate properly if those people who are concerned are actually the people benefiting from the programme. If they are not, then there is need for the extension of the time. And if actually they are trying to stop it by 2015, they should make adequate preparations for them so that those insurgences would not rise up again. I heard some of the people who were sent out for training, on coming back were left alone. I heard some of them are crying. So I think if you actually trained persons, at the end of the training you have to equip them. You have to mobilise them or look out for jobs for them to do to sustain themselves. If you just abandon them without nothing, they will go back to the creeks .

If these boys are not empowered, they might start the agitation again in 2015. Government should also look into the reasons for the agitation in the first place and if they find out the problem, then the problem should be solved, the people should be compensated. Just like what is happening in Ogoni land now, the UNEP report recommended that the place should be cleaned up. But up till now, nothing has been done. And if the people come up again to demand for their rights, we will start talking.

So, government is not helping us. if they say they want to do something for the people, they should implement it to the letter so that at the end of the day we’ll have a relaxed mind. So the amnesty programme should be extended to a reasonable time when people must have been acquinted with it and gained from the programme.

Engr. Edward Worgu- Off shore Engineer

For me, if federal government said they had a package for the ex-militants and they want to end it all of a sudden, for me it is not carried. They should ensure that everything they have promised these guys is in place, because if you suddenly stop the amnesty programme, it will generate another problem.

Come to think of it, you are giving amnesty to most of these people that are not even graduates, and you see them being paid and given contracts, good! May be that is done to make peace and all that but what about the graduates? What about the graduate that finished school and he is not doing anything?.

He will also want to carry gun to enable him benefit from the monthly allowance. So things have to be generally spelt out for people to know or do the right thing. You cannot just say amnesty programme will end in 2015 when most of them have not been settled. Some of them are still roaming the streets. And if you must know, some of the things that had piped low for sometime, are now coming up again, so much incidents now happening here and there.

So, for me, amnesty programme should not end in 2015. The programme should carry on and then they should get a proper medium of managing these militants and the graduates. Another thing, I will tell you is that most people that wrote their names for the amnesty programme are not really the ex-militants. This needs to be checkmated. There is also need to deal with the root causes of all these problems. How did amnesty programme come about? Have the problems that led to agitation been tackled? Niger Delta needs to be overhauled. Amenities should be put in communities, people should be given jobs. If you come to Rivers State, most people are not working, jobless graduates everywhere. So things should be put in place. They (government) should go to all these companies in the state, know how many of the people working there, are Niger Delta people and follow it up. If you go to some companies they will say, “we need graduates”. It’s a lie. They train people on the job. It’s not always about the certificate thing. They should employ the people and train them on the job and all these crimes will be reduced.

So, for me, I know the amnesty programme will come to an end one day but before then, things have to be put in place. These boys need to be engaged. They say that an idle man is the devil’s workshop. When you are idle mind will want to acquaint yourself with something that will fetch you good money. So, they should be involved in one thing or the other.

You know, honestly this amnesty programme has been a success, though not hundred per cent. Some of the ex-militants have truly repented. It was like a crusade that helped people repent to become better citizens

Ikenna Obineche – Journalist

I don’t know if these boys have actually gotten what they need from the federal government vis-à-vis empowering them, providing jobs for them. So for me, the amesty programme should be extended beyond 2015. If they end the programme in 2015, most of these boys will be idle and they might be tempoted to take up arms. So, I’m not in support of the programme ending in 2015. I’m not saying the programme should last forever. But let it be a gradual process. Let it be extended till the next 10years. These boys, have been hurt. You know what they were fighting for. Their lands were taken, their farm lands were destroyed, their rivers were polluted and all that. So the boys really need to be balanced financially. There should be a psychological healing too.

Apart from empowering the boys, government also has to provide the rural communities in the Niger Delta with infrastructures that will make their lives more meaningful. They should actually develop these oil bearing communities. If you go to some of these places like Oloibiri, it is a mess. I mean, check out other oil producing countries, check out a place like Texas, USA which is like the heart of the oil producing industry. Check out how developed Texas is. there is no way you can compare other oil producing countries with the oil communities in the Niger Delta. So, serious attention should be paid to these communities and the people there-the youth, women, graduates and all that.

Opinion

Wike VS Soldier’s Altercation: Matters Arising

Published

5 days ago

December 8, 2025

The Tide

The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.

Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.

The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.

It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.

Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.

On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.

It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.

*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.

In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.

Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.

One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.

Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.

The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.

The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.

Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.

The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.

The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.

Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.

If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?

As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.

Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.

Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.

Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.

We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.

The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.

It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.

No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.

By; King Onunwor

Opinion

Ndifon’s Verdict and University Power Reform

Published

3 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”But beyond the courtroom victory lies a pressing question: What next? How do we ensure that Nigerian universities no longer serve as hunting grounds for predatory academics? How do we guarantee that students—especially young women—can pursue education without fear of victimization?”

The conviction of Professor Cyril Ndifon, suspended Dean of Law at the University of Calabar, to five years in prison by the Federal High Court Abuja, provided a rare moment of relief amid the week’s troubling national events. Beyond punishing one individual, the judgment signaled that accountability—especially regarding sexual harassment and abuse of power in Nigerian higher institutions—may finally be gaining traction. For years, many students, especially young women, have quietly endured intimidation, coercion, and the misuse of academic privilege. Reports and surveys have consistently shown the depth of this problem. A 2018 World Bank survey estimated that 70% of female graduates had faced some form of sexual harassment in school, while a Nigerian study recorded sexual violence as the most common form of gender-based violence on campuses.

Ndifon’s case has therefore become symbolic—challenging the belief that powerful academics can act with impunity. Justice James Omotosho’s ruling went beyond the conviction; it exposed the systemic rot that enables abuse. His description of Ndifon as a predator highlighted how institutions fail when they lack strong, independent structures for accountability. Although the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, many similar cases never reach court because victims remain afraid, discouraged, or convinced that the system will not protect them. A major difference in this case was that a government agency fulfilled its responsibility rather than letting the matter fade, as often happens with campus scandals. Too often, allegations arise but internal committees stall, victims lose hope, and the accused quietly escape consequences.

This time, however, the judiciary refused to allow such evasion. The court’s decision to center the victims and dismiss attempts to discredit them set an important precedent at a time when survivors are often blamed or pressured into silence. Yet the bigger question remains: What next? How can Nigerian universities become safe spaces where students, particularly young women, can pursue education without fear? First, reporting systems must be overhauled. Traditional structures—where complaints pass through heads of departments or deans—are inadequate, especially when senior officers are the accused. Independent, gender-sensitive complaint bodies are essential. Some institutions, such as the University of Ibadan and Godfrey Okoye University, have already taken steps by establishing gender-mainstreaming units. Other universities must follow suit, ensuring confidentiality, protection from backlash, and transparent investigations.

Second, proven cases of harassment must attract real consequences—not quiet transfers or administrative warnings. Sexual exploitation is not a mere disciplinary issue; it is a crime and should be promptly escalated to law-enforcement agencies. Treating criminal behaviour as an internal matter only emboldens perpetrators. Third, students must feel safe to speak up. As a senior lecturer at the University of Abuja advised, silence fuels impunity. Students need to believe that justice is attainable and that they will be supported. This requires consistent sensitization efforts by student unions, civil society groups, gender advocacy organizations, and ministries of women affairs. New students, in particular, need early guidance to understand their rights and available support systems. The recent approval of the Sexual Harassment of Students (Prevention and Prohibition) Bill, 2025, prescribing up to 14 years imprisonment for educators convicted of harassment, is a step in the right direction.

Quick presidential assent and domestication by states will strengthen legal protection. As Nelson Mandela said, “A society that fails to protect its women cannot claim to be civilized.” This principle must guide Nigeria’s legislative and institutional reforms. The legal profession has its own soul-searching to do. Law faculties are expected to model ethics and justice. When a senior law academic betrays these values, the damage extends beyond the victims—it undermines confidence in both higher education and the justice system. The judiciary’s firm stance in this case therefore reinforces the idea that the law exists to protect the vulnerable, not shield the powerful. Yet, this moment should not end with celebration alone; it must ignite a broader institutional awakening. Universities must begin to review their staff appraisal systems to include behavioural ethics, not just academic output.

Governing councils should strengthen oversight mechanisms and ensure that disciplinary processes are free from internal politics. Alumni associations and parents’ forums can also play a monitoring role, demanding higher standards of conduct from staff and administrators. Importantly, the government must provide universities with the financial and technical support needed to establish functional gender desks, counselling units, and digital reporting platforms. Only when all stakeholders take ownership of the problem can lasting reform be achieved. Professor Ndifon’s sentencing represents justice for one victim, but it must inspire justice for many more. It should mark the beginning of a nationwide resolve to reclaim Nigerian universities from those who misuse authority. The future of education in this country must be shaped by knowledge, dignity, and integrity—not fear or manipulation. The judgment is a call to action: to build campuses where students are safe, where lecturers are held accountable, and where power is exercised with responsibility. Only then can Nigeria truly claim to be nurturing the leaders of tomorrow.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

As Nigeria’s Insecurity Rings Alarm

Published

3 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria a Country of Special Concern and further threats to intervene in countries experiencing religious persecution reflect a growing international concern regarding Nigeria’s deteriorating security situation.”

In recent years, Nigeria has witnessed an alarming evolution of insecurity that threatens not only the stability of the nation but also the broader West African region. Bandit attacks on schools, farms, mosques, and Christian worship centers have become distressingly commonplace, painting a grim picture of a country under siege from multiple fronts. The rise of kidnappings for ransom, coupled with the persistent threat of terrorism from groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP, has ignited fears among communities and hampered economic activities. As neighboring Sahel countries grapple with coups and the spread of extremist ideologies, Nigeria finds itself at a precarious crossroads that demands urgent attention and action.

According to media tally, about 2,496 students have been abducted in 92 school attacks since the Chibok saga of 2014. And prompted by recent incidents in Kwara, Kebbi and Niger states, where hundreds of pupils were abducted, state governments across northern Nigeria are shutting down, or relocating schools. Even the federal government last week, via the Federal Ministry of Education hastily ordered principals of 41 unity schools across northern Nigeria, to shut-down.The increasing frequency and audacity of bandit attacks highlight a troubling trend in Nigeria’s security landscape. Schools, once seen as sanctuaries for learning, have become targets for kidnappers seeking to exploit vulnerable students. These attacks not only disrupt education but also instill fear in families, leading to mass withdrawals from schools. Should we raise a generation of children deprived of their right to education?

Similarly, farms and places of worship have not been spared. Communities that once thrived on agriculture and faith, now live in constant dread of violent incursions. The targeted killings of Christians and attacks on mosques further exacerbate religious tensions, threatening to disrupt the social fabric that holds Nigeria together.The situation is compounded by the unsettling developments in the Sahel region, where coups and the rise of jihadist groups have created a volatile environment. The spillover effects of this instability are palpable in Nigeria, as extremist ideologies proliferate and armed groups gain confidence. The porous borders of the region facilitate the movement of militants and weapons, making it increasingly difficult for Nigerian authorities to contain the threats. As Nigeria struggles to secure its territory, the consequences of failure become more pronounced, with the potential for a broader regional crisis looming on the horizon.

President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria a Country of Special Concern and further threats to intervene in countries experiencing religious persecution reflect a growing international concern regarding Nigeria’s deteriorating security situation.

While such attention can bring much-needed awareness to the plight of affected communities, it also underscores a significant truth: the responsibility for addressing these challenges ultimately lies with the Nigerian government. The inaction and apparent inability to protect citizens from violence and ensure justice for victims send a troubling message about the state’s commitment to safeguarding its populace. The economic ramifications of this evolving insecurity are dire. Foreign investment, a critical driver of economic growth, is deterred by the pervasive violence and instability.

Investors are wary of committing resources to a country where the risk of loss is heightened by kidnappings and attacks on businesses.Additionally, agricultural production suffers as farmers abandon their lands, fearing for their safety. The recent upsurge in insecurity coincides with a crucial harvest season, when farmers need to recoup investment to finance the next round. A decline in harvests this year would reverse recent gains of recovery in food production and exacerbate poverty, further straining the nation’s resources. Socially, the implications of failing to tackle insecurity are profound. Mistrust in government institutions grows as citizens witness a lack of effective response to violence and crime. This erosion of faith can lead to civil unrests, as frustrated populations demand accountability and action.

Moreover, the vulnerability of young people in conflict-affected areas increases the risk of radicalization, as they seek identity and purpose in extremist movements that exploit their disillusionment. The South-East crisis is peculiar in this regard. The evolving insecurity in Nigeria is not merely a national crisis; it poses a significant threat to regional stability and international interests. The convergence of banditry, terrorism, and political instability in the Sahel creates a complex security environment that requires a coordinated response. The Nigerian government, in partnership with regional allies and international partners, must adopt a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root causes of insecurity, strengthens law enforcement, and fosters community resilience.

It’s time Nigerians address all regional grievances with reconciliation and empathy, rather than with coercion. As citizens, civil society, and international stakeholders, it is crucial to advocate for effective policies that prioritize security, justice, development and inclusiveness. A collective effort is needed to ensure a safer, more stable future for Nigeria and the West African region. Ultimately, Nigeria stands at a critical juncture. The path forward demands decisive action to restore security, rebuild trust, and ensure that all citizens can live without fear. The time for complacency has passed; the stakes are too high, and the consequences of inaction are too grave. A collective effort is essential to navigate this challenging landscape and forge a safer, more stable future for Nigeria and the West African region.

By: Joseph Nwankwor