Connect with us

Opinion

As The National Confab Kicks Off: What The People Expect

Published

on

History beckons today
at the National Judicial Institute, Abuja as some 496 delegates converge there for the much-awaited National Conference mooted by President Goodluck Jonathan.
Holding at a time the nation is bedevilled with debilitating socio-economic, ethno-religious and political challenges worsened by the seemingly intractable Boko Haram insurgency that now claims innocent lives on a daily basis, the delegates are expected to proffer solutions that will save Nigeria from the abyss and promote its much-desired unity, peace, progress and development.
Against the backdrop of several unresolved knotty issues and other lessons from past conferences, what do we expect from the delegates this time around?
The Tide Chief Correspondent Calista Ezeaku and photographer Ken Nwi-ueh got some view points.

Mr Onaiwu Emmanuel (oil company). We are recycling the same old politicians. Are they giving us a different thing entirely this time? No. I don’t expect anything different from them apart from their old ways and their old ideas because even from the composition of the delegates, to me, there was an error because the government’s delegates on the list are too much. The percentage is too great. Are they the ones going to represent Nigerians? To me, from the way the government is going about the national conference, I don’t think we are going to get anything different from it.
Those set of people there do not have solutions to Nigeria’s problems because many of them have ruled before. They’ve been in one position or the other. I would have preferred the delegates to be mostly ordinary Nigerians, the traditional class. I know they are represented but their numbers are small. Again, we’ve removed the unity of Nigeria among what should be discussed at the Confab. They should be free to discuss it, whether to remain as a single Nigeria or to go apart.
It does not mean we have to endorse whatever comes out of the conference but our ideas should have been allowed to come out freely. So the conference is just a waste of time, resources and what have you. That is how a lot of Nigerians see it, apart from the political class because it is just an opening for them to make more money. Imagine a past governor going there. What did he do when he was a governor? What is he going there to tell them about his people? He never developed his state, what is he going there to say about his people?

Mr Patrick Owuru ( business man). I will say that the conference seems to be a good idea but the timing seems to be wrong owing to the fact that in less than a year we will be going into elections. So the conference is looking as though it is a ploy to garner support for the present administration, which does not augur well for what the conference is aimed to achieve. The aim of the conference if allowed to go on now will be defeated definitely, because most speakers will be speaking from the political point of view or from the political stand point.
I will urge Nigerians not to expect much from the conference. The outcome of the conference will not yield much since it is not predicated on good premises in the sense that if the conference goes on now and election is just less than a year away, definitely there is no way Nigerians can deliberate and get the unity that the conference is supposed to achieve. We are supposed to put our cards on the table – all the stakeholders, all the tribes, all the sections of the country – we are supposed to talk about the differences we’re having now, which is why people are clamouring for the conference but the timing seems to be wrong.
Another big challenge is the composition of the delegates. The federal government cannot select people for the conference if they want people to present their issues the way they ought to be presented. They should allow the people to participate by selecting who should speak for them. The NBA and other professional associations should have some slots as they do now but in the main composition there should be nationality interest represented. I would have expected that there would have been a mini conference in phases, of different ethnic nationalities from where they will select and articulate what they want to present and probably select those that will go and speak on their behalf. By so doing, we’ll have the generality of interests properly represented in the conference.
So this conference is just one step to the solution of Nigeria’s problems. There might be other confabs in the future. Whatever outcome from this one could help in the composition of future confabs.
Another lacuna is that the conference does not have the backings of the law. So what happens with the outcome of the conference? That’s why I said the timing is wrong. First and foremost, they should have sponsored a bill to allow the conference to hold and whatever decisions reached in the conference should be brought to the National Assembly for ratification and acceptance, then it becomes a genuine document or law of the land. But right now you just go, talk, when you are through what happens next? How do you want  to marry whatever you decide with the laws of the land? It’s only the legislators that have such powers. So it becomes another issue. We are trying to solve one issue and probably create nine.

Mr. Legzy Edet ( Businessman). As a Nigerian, I do not expect much from the conference because I see the same faces, the same people, speaking the same way. And you can’t keep doing things the same way and expect a different result. Again, it is always said that majority carries the vote. How are issues concerning the minority groups going to be addressed in view of the composition of the delegates. An issue like resource control, for instance will only likely be talked about by the people from the South South. Are we even ready to speak in one voice? If actually we need those things why should we project the same people we have projected before? They should allow the people to choose who will speak for them. The government compelled us by choosing who goes to speak on our behalf. So I don’t see anything different from what we had before. Some of the people representing us there are people who had the opportunity of changing this region. They had the opportunity, the resources, the power but we didn’t see anything good from them. So, why should we now expect a different thing from them. So the conference is definitely a waste of time and money.

Mr Allwell Ene (Journalist). I think the composition of delegates is not fair enough. I don’t think the diverse ethnic groups we have in the country were represented. Many ethnic groups are crying foul of the representation. How many traditional rulers do we have as delegates. Rivers State does not have a single traditional ruler among its representatives. From the whole of South South, we have only two traditional rulers. And if these people are not there, who will speak the minds of their people? It’s not all about gathering people, chosen by the federal government. The way I see this whole thing, it is a federal government selected delegates national conference not the people’s national conference. If it were the people’s national conference, the delegates would have come from the people.
I am not saying the conference should be an entirely ethnic groups issue, but at least all the ethnic groups should have had at least one delegate each. I know all the delegates  belong to different ethnic groups but they did not go there on the auspices of their ethnic groups. They went on behalf of one group or the other not on behalf of the ethnic groups. So who is going to speak on behalf of that ethnic groups. Are they going to be heard? No that is why you see people crying foul everywhere. I hope the federal government listens to them and coopts some other ethnic groups into the confab.
From this conference, I expect a misrepresentation of the views of the people. I see a situation where the views of the Nigerian public will be inadequately represented. Don’t forget, what is bringing national conference is our existence. How do we move forward as a nation? Who are the people to decide that? It is the ethnic groups. The conference definitely will trash certain issues. It’s not that the conference will be a total failure but what I am saying is that the conference will fail to address the opinions of the generality of Nigerians because of the mis-representation. So I will advice the federal government to shift the commencement of the conference by one or two weeks to allow the people to go back and work inwardly and choose their representatives, vis-à-vis the ethnic groups.

Msgr Cyprain Onwuli  (Priest). As a Nigerian and as a Catholic Priest, I know that it will not be easy for the individual, to carry the day because the government already knows what they are aiming at and what they want to achieve. But it will be necessary for anyone representing the people to really make known the sufferings of Nigerians from different areas of life. Any one representing Rivers State that goes in there to sleep or is just after money that will be given is a fool. He is not representing the Rivers people. Because if we are truthful to ourselves, two third of owners of Rivers State are living below N100.00 a day. And they are the ones producing billions of naira Nigeria is spending. So if anybody representing Rivers State goes to that conference and does not make it known to the people what we are going, what we are suffering he or she is not for us.
One of the issues I will want the conference to address is the issue of resource control. I know those from other parts of this country will not be ready for resource control, but if they can give t hose who are producing the money they are spending 40% of the money, if they can make sure that 40% of what they are generated be expended for the people of the oil producing areas, let them take the remain 60% to other parts of the country. That will be good. But not to carry everything away and the little they will even bring there, they steal away too, both those on the state level and national level. So they have to spend the money budgeted for  this state for the people. They have to empower the people. They have to also give us some positions that should be duly our’s in the federal government because we have many educated people who can occupy such position.
As regards the representation for the conference I think what they should have done was to take note of people from different areas of this state. We have the Ogbas, the Ogonis, the Ikwerre, the Etche and other ethnic groups. They should have taken that into consideration in selecting who represents the state. The major thing really is understanding. If you are selected from an area, before you go, there should be some consultations. You bring some people who will advice you, who will tell you of their problems and then you marry all together. In your presentation, you touch most of those important things and make the nation know what your people are suffering.
For the delegates, I want to advise them to be conscious of the unity of this country as they deliberate. The conference should aim at putting food on the tables of the people. There should be justice and equitable distribution of our resource. Let us co-habit and tolerate one another.

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