Connect with us

Opinion

Should FG Declare Amnesty For Boko Haram Members?

Published

on

Last week, the spiritual head of Muslims in Nigeria, and Sultan of Sokoto, Sir Saad Abubakar III urged the Federal Government to declare amnesty for the Boko Haram insurgents. Though well-meaning Nigerians have kicked against any form of dialogue with the zealots, the Federal Governemnt has made its stand on the issue public. Our correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Dele Obinna sought the opinions of Nigerians on the issue. Excerpts:

 

Mr. Kogbara Princewill Lebua – Business Man

I don’t think it is necessary. Now what is the basis? There is no basis for that. If you want to look at it from the angle of the Niger Delta militants, there was a cause for their militancy. It was because the Niger Delta people felt marginalised after all the wealth the government had taken from the Niger Delta region, there is no development. There is nothing to show for it. So the Niger Delta militants tried in their own way for their voice to be heard.

What are Boko Haram members fighting for. What is the cause of their actions?  And you hardly see the Niger Delta militants killing innocent people or burning churches. But Boko Haram is known for that.

So in my own opinion, for the Federal Government to even create a room for discussion with Boko Haram  members, is not necessary.

I expected the government to approach the issue from the angle of being government that should be able to tell the people look this is wrong, this is right. You can’t do this. If you don’t have this, you can’t get this. Going into dialogue with Boko Haram members may prompt another group to form another kind of thing, just to make money from government.

But the case of the Niger Delta militants is clear. You will see by yourself that the Niger Delta people are suffering. We are not getting the benefit of our resources. Things are not going on well. If you get to the Niger Delta environment now, the fishermen are no longer fishing, farmers are no longer farming. So the Niger Delta militants were just a group of people that put themselves together as a way of expressing their feelings for the whole world to understand what they were passing through. So what is Boko Haram agitating for? What is their problem? What is that thing that government has not done for them? Look at the caption in last Thursday paper, what happened in the National Assembly, last Wednesday, when it was disclosed that the northerners have over 83 per cent oil blocs in this country. So, you will now see reason with the Niger Delta militants.

So, let’s call a spade a spade. Let the leaders of the north call themselves together and discuss with their boys and their people. They should do that first. Then if they want the government to play some role, for national peace then, they will now go about that. But I will not encourage government to declare amnesty for Boko Haram members unless they open up and tell the public what they are agitating for, I have not been able to identify what prompted them to kill innocent people, burn churches, up to the extent that they killed health officers. It is un-called for.

 

Mr Kurotamunonye George – A Tutor

Well, I think  it’s right for amnesty to be granted them. They’ve done that for the Niger Delta militants, so they can as well do that for Boko Haram members since they are fighting for their own right. That will balance the equation. Government should find out what is their problem. They cannot just come out to start bombing and start doing all sought of things without having a purpose. They have a reason for doing that so government should know their reasons and grant them amnesty. That is, if what they are fighting for is anything that has to do with resource control or true federalism. But they can’t fight for their own selfish interest and expect the government to give them amnesty. Amnesty should be given to them if they are fighting for true federalism, their own fundamental rights, not for their own selfish interest or for religion per say.

But I strongly believe that government knows the best way to handle Boko Haram  issue. Government has all it takes. Government knows the people behind this, they know how to go about it. The security agencies are there to curb this menace out of the society. But if they say that they want to grant them amnesty for the purpose of true federalism, it’s ok, irrespective of how many people they’ve killed, what they’ve destroyed and all that.

 

Mr. Ikechukwu Ojukwu – Student

I am not in support of the view that Federal Government should give amnesty to Boko Haram  members considering their action in the country, lives that have been valuable properties have been lost and wasted. People engaged in these acts are against the progress and unity of a corporate entity called Nigeria.

You cannot compare them to the Niger Delta militants. The aim of the Niger Delta militants was quite different from that of Boko Haram. Boko Haram  is a terrorist group and they shouldn’t give them anything like amnesty. You know this issue of amnesty for Boko Haram came as a result of the Mali crisis. Prior to this time, there was no cry for amnesty. Since they scattered their camps in Mali, they are now coming back home to demand for amnesty.

So I think the federal government should come to terms with Boko Haram,  not granting them amnesty. By this I mean federal government should dialogue with them, let them give up their arms and come out. Right now we don’t  know them in person. They are still faceless and I wonder how we can be talking of granting amnesty to a faceless people. Let us know who they are, what their problem  is and know how to handle  them.

 

Mr.  Iheanyi Ezinwo – Publisher

First of all, I want to commend the northern leaders for making that call. I say this not because I support amnesty for Boko Haram people but the fact  that they are thinking of a way out of the quagmire, as it were. What they suggested is just one of the ways  out of the problem.

Having said that, I want to say  that amnesty has some precedents that can make it possible. First,  the people must be identifiable. In the days of the Niger Delta militancy, Asari was known, people could call their leaders and talk with them. But now, we don’t  even know the characters behind the Boko Haram. Before you talk of amnesty, amnesty has to do with some body say, ok, I want to lay down my arms on the condition that the federal government will forgive me for all I have  done. Now what are the issues? We don’t  know. What they are asking for are very difficult, for the president to convert  to become a Muslim and for them to Islamise the whole country. So, it is  a difficult  thing. If the call is acceptable to the actors let them come out and tell us because  already  they have told the world that certain conditions must be fulfilled to they seize fire and those conditions are not acceptable. Now if federal government  is to grant them amnesty, on what condition will she do that.

So, there are certain grey areas that  need to be cleared before we can talk about granting them amnesty. As far as I am concerned, I don’t  think it is a big deal for President Jonathan to grant them amnesty but certain things have to be cleared to  be sure that if the amnesty is granted then, we can  have peace in this country. So, things have to be clarified and agreement  reached between Boko Haram members and the Federal Government  before we can talk about amnesty.

But for now, things are not clear. We are in a world where peace is gradually becoming history. All over the world, there is no peace because of the activities of terrorists and when you are dealing with terrorists, I don’t  think that the solution is to go and make for peace. Terrorism is an advance form of violence that those people who are experts, the soldiers, the security officers are in a better position to know how to deal with all this kind of terrorism.

What is going on in Borno State and some parts of the north is different from what happened in the Niger Delta, ours was a very clear case of marginalisation and when Federal Government promised to address. If our boys  laid down their arms and the amnesty is on course. I don’t think that amnesty is the solution to the problem in Borno State.

 

Mr. Nengisa Egerton – Banker

For me, I don’t buy the idea of granting   them amnesty. The actions of Niger Delta militants affected the production of crude oil so to some extent, the amnesty was  a way of calming them down which worked out. At least, it led to an improvement on production capacity.

So for me, I will even advise  that they should even stop the amnesty. At least, they have  achieved  their aim for now because there are  better ways  of addressing issues not  necessarily amnesty. Are they encouraging  every other youth to take up  arm before they will know that they are in need of some things?

So, I don’t support amnesty for Boko Haram. For them even, I don’t see any need  for that. I’m not in  support of granting  them amnesty.  If they end up granting them amnesty  tomorrow, another set of violent group may come up in any other part of the country and still demand for amnesty.

So, I think to solve this problem, and bring about lasting peace in this country, government should come up with poverty alleviation and other measures that will alleviate  the sufferings of the general masses.

 

Mrs Glory  Ezenjoku – Public Servant.

Granting amnesty to Boko Haram will not be  good enough because it will be a way of encouraging  militancy in Nigeria. Federal  Government granted  amnesty  to Niger Delta militants and that might be the reason they started  their own  group so that amnesty  will be granted them.

However, for peace to reign in the country,  they should go ahead and grant them amnesty because Boko Haram people have taken lot of lives and if granting  them amnesty will make them stop this wicked   act and bring peace to the country, they should go ahead and do that. From all indications, it’s like this Boko Haram sect is above the rule of law. It seems the Federal Government cannot get them controlled. Now, they are asking the Federal Government to grant them amnesty. That is to say that they are above the rule of law. I think it’s now good enough. Everybody is subject to the rule of law. They are citizens of this country, so I see no reason why they should be above the rule of law. It’s not good enough I don’t really buy that idea, but for peace to reign  in Nigeria, they should grant them amnesty.

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