Opinion
What Zuma’s Trial Signifies
Democratic practice in South Africa assumed wider dimensions with the arraignment of the country’s immediate past President, Jacob Zuma in court. The former South African leader faces corruption and money laundering charges, among others.
This is not the first time he is being hauled into court for similar offences. He was first arraigned in 2009, but because of intense politicking and intrigues that played out then, the matter was crippled and set aside. That situation happened before his election as president of the country.
Zuma was, however, expected to turn a new leaf while he was in office, but the contrary was the case. He allegedly engaged in serial corrupt practices which rejuvenated memories of the former trial. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court ordered his trial to commence in an appeal he filed to stop his arraignment.
Prior to his exit, there were multiple calls by South Africans for his resignation, but the demands were ineffective. Not even the several no-confidence votes passed by the South African parliament could ease him out of office. He was finally compelled to quit following impeachment threats by parliament and intense pressure from the African National Congress (ANC), his own political party.
Zuma’s trial is an indication that South Africa has gone far ahead of other African countries in imbibing democratic norms and practices. The fact that his travails began while he was still president is evidence that there are no sacred cows in that country. it also suggests that there is accountability in governance else Zuma’s case would have been interred while he was in the saddle. Would this have been the case in Nigeria?
The scenario in most African countries is entirely different. Putting a former African president on criminal trial is a more difficult task to accomplish than the responsibility of getting a cow to pass through the eye of a needle. Apart from South Africa, Zambia and Egypt are so far the only African countries that have acted in similar fashion. Zambia prosecuted Frederick Chiluba though he was eventually acquitted. Conversely, former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, was tried in 2015 and handed three years jail term for corruption.
Brazil, Israel, France and Italy are other countries that have put their former leaders on trial. Immediate past France president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is being prosecuted for accepting $50 million from the late Libyan leader, Col. Muammer Gaddafi, to finance his election. Then as well, a former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, was jailed of late for accepting a bribe.
In Nigeria, there has been sustained crusade for former presidents to account for their misdeeds while they were in office, but such calls have always floundered because the leaders deploy their looted funds to obstruct moves to bring them to justice. Despite the numerous corruption trials in Nigeria, has a former president ever been arraigned in court?
Nigerians are still wondering what has happened to the many corruption issues and why the leaders in whose regimes the infractions were committed have been left unpunished. And even when investigations point to such leaders, they are never questioned; rather, security agents go after the small fries.
The Haliburton matter is one case which demonstrates that past Nigerian leaders are indeed untouchable. Haliburton is about a bribery scandal involving approximately $180 million with over 70 suspects of different nationalities on the list.
While everyone involved in the bribery case had been identified, tried, convicted and jailed by their home governments, (some of whom have completed their jail terms) the Nigerian government is yet to begin the trial of suspects because former leaders are indicted.
If nothing is done to bring corrupt Nigerian leaders to justice, including past presidents of the country, proceeds of corruption and moral decadence will remain monuments which the civilised world will continually use to jeer or ridicule the country.
Therefore, in the ongoing anti-graft war, all Nigerians must be considered equal before the law regardless of their status. Even if it takes the prosecution of past leaders for the war to be successful, so be it. After all, no nation can attain development through such characteristic treachery.
Arnold Alalibo
Opinion
Professor Kamene Okonjo: A Life Beyond Motherhood
Quote “Professor Kamene Okonjo
Some women leave behind more t
Yet, to remember Professor Kam
Professor Okonjo was the belov
one of the most dramatic chapt
On December 14, 2012, the then
She leaves behind children, gr
Professor Kamene Okonjo deserv
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Opinion
On Ancestrial Worship: My Take
Quote: An African who invokes
This is the concluding part
… Given the fact that I was
At the end of the visit by the
Back to my apartment, at abo
Under normal circumstances, yo
That all she asks is that Chie
For some reason that I do not
I believe that everyone in hu
Our ancestors have not gone fa
By: Jason Osai
Opinion
FG’s Transport Support And Rivers Workers
The Federal Government’s approval of a N70,000 monthly transport intervention for public service workers for six months, beginning in November 2026, offers hope to employees struggling with the rising cost of living. The agreement with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), reached at a conciliation meeting in Abuja on October 27, is intended to cushion transport costs and ease pressure on workers’ incomes. But for public servants in Rivers State, it raises a familiar question: will the State Government key into the intervention and ensure that its workers benefit? The agreement provides for N70,000 monthly across all levels, for six months. The Federal Government also approved peculiar allowance arrears effective from May 1, 2026, to be paid in three equal instalments beginning in November.
The parties agreed to reconvene after one month to assess implementation. Ultimately, the value of these resolutions will be measured not by announcements but by whether eligible workers receive the money. Transport costs consume a substantial share of many civil servants’ earnings before they can meet household needs. Support for commuting is therefore not a luxury or political favour; it is temporary assistance to help workers remain at their jobs without sinking further into hardship. For lower-paid employees, transport costs can turn modest salaries into a daily exercise in difficult choices and sacrifice.
The agreement also urges State and Local Governments to participate and unions to press for implementation. The federal agreement does not automatically guarantee that every State and Local Government employee will receive the support. State authorities must clarify how it will apply to their workforce, make the necessary arrangements and publish a payment timetable. Rivers State must approach the arrangement with urgency and transparency. The Government should State whether it will implement the intervention and when payments will begin. Any administrative or financial question should be addressed promptly with organised labour, not allowed to become excuses for delay.
The concern is sharpened by the earlier N35,000 monthly wage award introduced by the Federal Government in 2023 after petrol subsidy removal. It was intended as temporary relief pending a new national minimum wage. While several States negotiated and paid wage awards or related sums, implementation nationwide was uneven. Reports in 2024 indicated that many States had failed to pay the federal award, while others provided different amounts. In Rivers, labour and media reports raised concerns about implementation of the N35,000 award for State workers, amid separate announcements and arrangements concerning Local Government employees.
The wage award was meant to ease the immediate effects of subsidy removal, yet workers faced uncertainty over whether the promised relief would reach them. In February 2024, the Rivers State Government announced approval of the N35,000 award for local government workers, but subsequent reports showed that implementation across worker categories remained a concern. The lesson is clear: approval and implementation are not the same. A declaration at a meeting offers little comfort to a worker whose account does not reflect the promised payment. For workers who travel to their offices daily, the implications of delayed support are significant. Transportation expenses compete with food, rent, school fees, healthcare and other essential household needs.
As fares rise, employees may be forced to reduce spending on necessities or borrow to sustain their families. A timely transport intervention would therefore provide practical relief and demonstrate that government understands the economic pressures confronting its workforce. Its temporary nature makes prompt implementation even more important. It is fair to acknowledge that this transport intervention is a new agreement and that its administrative details may require clarification. Rivers State should not be condemned in advance for a failure that has not occurred. Nevertheless, the earlier experience gives workers legitimate grounds to seek assurances before the November commencement date. The State should avoid allowing uncertainty to persist until workers begin asking why the promised assistance has not arrived.
The NLC and unions in Rivers State should engage the State Government immediately and seek a written commitment, an implementation plan and a process for reporting missed payments. If clarification from the Federal Government is needed, the State should seek it without abandoning the goal of providing relief. Labour leaders must also keep members informed about progress and insist that any agreed arrangements are applied fairly and transparently. The Rivers State Government should treat this intervention as an opportunity to rebuild confidence. Timely support would show that workers’ welfare is more than a talking point and that the State recognises the economic realities confronting its employees.
Silence, delay or selective implementation, by contrast, would revive frustration over earlier relief measures and weaken trust between government and labour. Every month lost to administrative delay leaves workers facing the same transport burden without the intended assistance. The State should consult labour, publish arrangements and pay eligible workers on time. Rivers workers should not have to wonder whether federal relief will reach them. The Federal Government has announced the support; now the State must make its position clear. We hope the N70,000 monthly transport intervention will not follow the troubling path of the earlier wage award. Rivers State should learn from that experience and ensure that this time, relief is not merely promised but delivered.
Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
-
Opinion5 days ago
Ancestorial Worship: My Take (1)
-
Education2 days agoPAMO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY -Nullifies Arrest warrant on VC
-
Rivers2 days ago
Don Seeks Repositioning Of Tech Education For Dev
-
Niger Delta2 days ago
PANDEF Seeks 50% Oil Derivation Allocation Increase
-
Education2 days agoIAUE MOVES TO END GHOST WORKERS SYNDROME AS 400 NEW NON-TEACHING STAFF UNDERGO MANDATORY ETHICS TRAINING
-
News2 days agoFresh Ebola Scare As NCDC Records Two Cases
-
News2 days ago
Customs Partners EFCC, NDLEA, Others To Tackle Money Laundering, Terrorism Financing
-
News5 days agoFG Must Address Nigerians’ Concerns On Reforms -Shettima …Warns Against Misuse of AI, Social Media
