Connect with us

Opinion

Should The Six Geopolitical Zones Become Federating Units In Nigeria?

Published

on

One issue that is critical to the development of the country is the high cost of governance. Thus, Nigerians have had cause to suggest the collapsing of the 36 states structure in favour of the six geo-political zones as federating units.

Following this, The Tide correspondent, Calista Ezeaku sought the views of Nigerians on the issue.

Excerpts

 

Ordinarily, on paper, we say we practise a federated State. But in practice, that is not the true position because if you say you practice true federalism, the states should mange their own resources and give a certain percentage to the federal government. But what is in practice in the country is a situation where by the federal government controls all the resources and dishes out to the state the way it pleases it. That is not true federalism. So as a country we need to practise true federalism by allowing the states manage their own resources.

So obviously, I am in support of the six geo political zones becoming federating units. These units will manage their resources and give to the federal government what ever percentage they have agreed as a democratic body, as people who have agreed to stay together as a nation. They give back to the federal government a percentage of their earnings.  If this is truly practised, the states individually whether geopolitical or as they are right now, will want to make sure that they produce and make the economy of their states blossom because now they will no longer be relying on the federal government. The federal government will rather be relying on them to sustain its structure.

But now, it is the other way round. The federal government is the almighty structure on ground. While the states look up to it for their allocations. Because of this some states do not produce any thing. They just sit back and wait for the allocation to come from the federal government, whether they work or not. Meanwhile, other states are doing every thing to get resources out and every other state is depending on it. But by the time it is the other way round and practiced the way it should be practiced, each state will begin to look in ward and produce something.

The heavens have endowed each state with something but rather the drive for quick out money is killing the other sectors of  the economy. But if true federalism is allowed, every state will begin to produce and see the potentials that they have. They will explore it and it will be to the maximum use of the nation as a whole and the so called power of the federal government because of the money that is there right now, will be minimized.

Although there are some fears that if the states become autonomous, the black man knowing who we are we’ll want to be effective in our power because there may be no limitation but if the government is ready for it, every thing will be well spelt out. And one of the things that will help is the removal of immunity clause for our leaders, because if any body who is in a place of authority violates the rights of other people because he is an autonomous government, a state governor as it were, and do things the way he ought not to do, if he knows that he can be fired even while there, I think it will help resolve a lot of issues.

 

Mrs Lilian Okonkwo, Journalist

Well I think the six geopolitical zones should become federated units in Nigeria because  that will give the people a voice and bring about rapid development of  the country. Before now, we had three regions – the Eastern, Western and Northern which functioned very effectively. So, I think if the six zones become federated units, governance will be easier and it will give a voice to every ethnic group in Nigeria. Of course you know that the geopolitical zones we have now is not constitutional.

They were created out of political need. But when you make them federated units, it becomes constitutional, go there is this request now that it should be constitutionalised, although some people in the north are kicking against it. Those of them who feel that democracy is a game of number are saying that they have over 50 percent of Nigeria’s population, so equating them with other zones like South South and south who they say are lower in number, will affect them, while these other people in the south feel it will help them.

So the geo-political zones were created as a political need, to reach out to every ethnic group in the country. And if it is serving that purpose, then why not constitutionalise it and make them federated units.

But even when you make the zones federated units and true federalism is not practiced, there will still be problem. Let there be true federalism. Nigeria is a Federal Republic but we have several issues as a result of not practicing federalism in the true sense of it.

So, what ever we are doing, let us do it right. The emphasis is on doing it right. If we do it right it’s going to work. I will also advise that politicians should forget about political or self interest and work for the good of the country.

 

Mr Ikechi Akpuh:

The original aim of creating the six geopolitical zones was to harness the multi-ethnic interests in Nigeria. So the zones were politically divided. But since then it has not actually yielded the desired result. So, I don’t think if the current geopolitical zones become federated units, it will really make any difference.

The truth is that the six geopolitical zones have caused more problems because it helps to promote ethnic interest. Everybody wants to attract things to his / her zone and by that they have forgotten about Nigeria as an entity. Making the six geo-political zones, federated units will not solve the problems in Nigeria. The only solution is that we should respect our constitution and forget about the geo-political zones. Nigeria is an entity. Our interest should be Nigeria and Nigeria alone. Any thing outside Nigeria and the constitution of Nigeria will cause more problem. Let us obey our constitution and remain one Nigeria.

I call for true federalism as an entity called Nigeria and not six federating units in one country. Those things will cause more problems and promote ethnic interest. And when a country is going like that, it’s a time bomb.

 

Mr Goddy Ekikpoye, Student

I think the six geopolitical zones should become federated units, because they are closer to the people that the current system of government in Nigeria, where the interest of some people, especially the minority groups are not protected it will bring government nearer to the people and there will be faster development of the units and in effect, the entire country. I don’t think there is any need pretending that the federal system we have in place now is working when we know that it is not working. Let the six geopolitical zones – South South, South East, South West, North West, North East and Central be made federated unit.

Yon see, one characteristics of the six zones is that they are made up of people that have one or two things in common language, culture, history or what have you. So, let each zone form its government, administer, themselves and manager their resources and the heads of the units may be premires or what ever, will be accountable to the President of the Federal Republic.

This will promote healthy competition among the units and all of them will strive discover and develop their potentials instead of all the states relying on oil Monday as it is presently the case.

 

Mr Augustine Taneeh, Publisher.

In my opinion, making the six geo-political zones federating units is not a bad idea. But the snag we have in the country is implementation. For example, we say we are operating a federal system of government. We have federal, state and local government. It has never worked. You find a situation where the federal government will like to control the states and the states want to control the local governments.

So, the federating units will only work when we have respect for the rule of law. But if we don’t have respect for the rule of law, it will just be on paper and on our lips and it will not be put into practice. Ideally, becoming federating units will make the zones autonomous and bring out rapid development in the country but will the federated units be given the free hand to practice true federalism, so for the federated units to produce the expected good results, they should be allowed to operate and manage themselves and their resources. That is why I said we should have respect for the rule of law because if we have respect for the rule of law, you’ll know that these are autonomous states, these are wheat they should do one their own, you allow them. For example, look at what is happening in the country today the local government areas are not allowed to use their allocations freely. You see the state government fingering into local government allocations. So the bottom line is respect for rule of law.

 

Barr Piomikei Amadi-Operaeli, Lawyer

Ordinarily, on paper, we say we practise a federated State. But in practice, that is not the true position because if you say you practice true federalism, the states should mange their own resources and give a certain percentage to the federal government. But what is in practice in the country is a situation where by the federal government controls all the resources and dishes out to the state the way it pleases it. That is not true federalism. So as a country we need to practise true federalism by allowing the states manage their own resources.

So obviously, I am in support of the six geo political zones becoming federating units. These units will manage their resources and give to the federal government what ever percentage they have agreed as a democratic body, as people who have agreed to stay together as a nation. They give back to the federal government a percentage of their earnings.  If this is truly practised, the states individually whether geopolitical or as they are right now, will want to make sure that they produce and make the economy of their states blossom because now they will no longer be relying on the federal government. The federal government will rather be relying on them to sustain its structure.

But now, it is the other way round. The federal government is the almighty structure on ground. While the states look up to it for their allocations. Because of this some states do not produce any thing. They just sit back and wait for the allocation to come from the federal government, whether they work or not. Meanwhile, other states are doing every thing to get resources out and every other state is depending on it. But by the time it is the other way round and practiced the way it should be practiced, each state will begin to look in ward and produce something.

The heavens have endowed each state with something but rather the drive for quick out money is killing the other sectors of  the economy. But if true federalism is allowed, every state will begin to produce and see the potentials that they have. They will explore it and it will be to the maximum use of the nation as a whole and the so called power of the federal government because of the money that is there right now, will be minimized.

Although there are some fears that if the states become autonomous, the black man knowing who we are we’ll want to be effective in our power because there may be no limitation but if the government is ready for it, every thing will be well spelt out. And one of the things that will help is the removal of immunity clause for our leaders, because if any body who is in a place of authority violates the rights of other people because he is an autonomous government, a state governor as it were, and do things the way he ought not to do, if he knows that he can be fired even while there, I think it will help resolve a lot of issues.

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