Opinion

What Zuma’s Trial Signifies

Published

8 years ago

April 9, 2018

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

Kudos Gov Fubara

Published

1 week ago

January 2, 2026

The Tide

Please permit me to use this medium to appreciate our able governor, Siminalayi Fubara for the inauguration of the 14.2-kilometre Obodhi–Ozochi Road in Ahoada-East Local Government Area. This inauguration marks a significant milestone in the history of our communities and deserves commendation. We, the people of Ozochi, are particularly happy because this project has brought long-awaited relief after years of isolation and hardship.

The expression of our traditional ruler, His Royal Highness, Eze Prince Ike Ehie, JP, during the inauguration captured the joy of our people. He said, “our isolation is over.” That reflects the profound impact of this road on daily life, economic activities, and social integration of the people of Ozochi and other neighbouring communities. The road will no doubt ease transportation, improve access to markets and healthcare, and strengthen links between Ahoada, Omoku, and other parts of Rivers State.

The people of Ahoada, Omoku, and indeed Rivers State as a whole are grateful to our dear governor for this laudable achievement and wish him many more successful years in office. We pray that God endows him with more wisdom and strength to continue to pilot the affairs of the state for the benefit of all. As citizens, we should rally behind the governor and support his development agenda. Our politicians and stakeholders should embrace peace and cooperation, as no meaningful progress can be achieved in an atmosphere of conflict. Sustainable development in the state can only thrive where peace prevails.

Samuel Ebiye

Opinion

… And It Came To Pass

Published

1 week ago

January 2, 2026

The Tide

Quote:“Leadership is not measured by how hard one strikes back, but by how steady one remains under provocation.”

Tell it in Rivers State, publish it in the streets of Port Harcourt, so the daughters of the State could rejoice, and the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph and know that Fubara is not vindictive”. And it came to pass that Rivers State emerged from one of the most delicate chapters in its political journey, the period of emergency rule that spanned from March 18 to September 18, 2025. It was a season that tested institutions, strained loyalties, and exposed the fragile balance between power and principle. During that time, the suspended Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara DSSRS, was widely believed to have suffered not only political setbacks but personal betrayal, allegedly from some top civil servants within the state apparatus. These were individuals expected to uphold neutrality and professionalism, yet were accused in public opinion of taking sides against the very government they served.

As the emergency rule ended and Governor Fubara resumed office, expectations were shaped less by policy and more by emotion. Many assumed that revenge would quietly find expression through governance. The loudest suspicion centered on the 2025 Christmas bonus of ?100,000 traditionally paid to each worker. The thinking was simple and cynical: a wounded governor would surely withhold goodwill. Some voices even mocked workers openly hoping that the governor would refuse to pay the bonus. To them, denial of the bonus would serve as proof of political strength and justified retaliation. In reality, such thinking revealed a troubling desire to see governance reduced to personal vendetta. Yet, it came to pass, the governor chose a path that confounded suspicion. Against all expectations, the 2025 Christmas bonus was paid.

That single decision quietly but firmly reframed the narrative. It showed a leader focused on governance rather than grudges, on institutional continuity rather than emotional satisfaction. The payment was not a favor, nor was it a concession; it was a statement that public administration must rise above personal injury. By honoring the bonus, Governor Fubara demonstrated that leadership is not measured by how hard one strikes back, but by how steady one remains under provocation. He made it clear that workers’ welfare would not become collateral damage in political disagreements. This action also served as a moral rebuke to those who celebrated division and hoped for punishment. Governance is not validated by the suffering of workers, nor is leadership strengthened by withholding entitlements. At the same time, the issue of alleged sycophancy and betrayal within the civil service cannot be brushed aside. If proven, such conduct deserves firm, lawful, and institutional correction. Civil servants are bound by duty to the state, not to political conspiracies or shifting loyalties.

However, justice must never be confused with revenge. The strength of governance lies in correcting wrongs without destroying the system itself. Governor Fubara’s restraint suggested an understanding that the future of Rivers State mattered more than settling scores. For workers, this moment carried an important lesson. Celebration should be rooted in good governance, not in the expectation of another’s downfall. Rejoicing in rumors of denial or punishment undermines the very stability that protects workers’ welfare. Public service thrives where professionalism, mutual respect, and accountability are upheld. Pettiness, gossip, and political scheming only weaken institutions and erode trust. History often remembers leaders not for the crises they inherit, but for the character they display in response. In paying the 2025 Christmas bonus, Governor Fubara chose legacy over impulse, maturity over malice.

And so, it came to pass that focus defeated revenge, governance triumphed over bitterness, and Rivers State was reminded that true leadership is proven when restraint is expected least but delivered most. Beyond the symbolism of the Christmas bonus lies a deeper question about the kind of political culture Rivers State intends to cultivate in the years ahead. Periods of emergency rule, anywhere in the world, often leave behind residues of suspicion, fear, and silent realignments. Institutions do not emerge untouched; individuals recalibrate loyalties, some out of conviction, others out of self-preservation. What distinguishes stable democracies from fragile ones is not the absence of such moments, but the discipline with which leadership manages their aftermath. River.

King Onunwor

Opinion

That Withdrawal of Police Orderlies From VIPs

Published

1 week ago

January 2, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Balancing VIP security with public safety remains a tightrope walk in a country where the majority of citizens are still under-protected.”

The Presidential announcement on the removal of police orderlies from persons in authority and their relations ( Very Important Persons ) last month came as a relief to many Nigerians who felt deprived of one major role of government ; security of lives and property.The higher population of Nigerians missed needed security because the VIPs and the VVIPs kept retinue of Police Officers totalling over 100 ,000 to themselves and their family members as if they are all that matter while some communities under attack of terrorists have no single unit of police station located there in. While many hailed the announcement , some said perhaps the government has just woken up to her major responsibility of securing the lives and property of all citizens while many expressed indifference on the note that it may be one of those pronouncements which come only in words but no action .Many keep their fingers crossed watching how it will play out , how Mr President will go about the implementation of the seemingly dicey policy .

Benjamin Franklin said “well said is better than well done ” It is sufficient today to say that many Nigerians including me are still waiting and watching to see how well and how long this return of the Police service to the ordinary people will go . Wishing hopes will not be crashed , It is note worthy, that the recent complaints by the VIPs of being exposed to attacks may in a way affect the action on implementation. Recently, at Senate plenary , another worrisome angle came up as Senator Abdul Ningi coming through a motion disclosed that he had only one police officer attached to him ( his office ) and that the officer was recalled the week before following Mr President’s directive . Senator Ningi said the withdrawal exposed him to high risks but underscored the angle that while his orderly was recalled , many other politicians , men and women in authority, business concerns foreigners and even children of some VIPs are still enjoying retinue of police protection ( officially attached to them ).

It’s note worthy also that the Deputy Senate President , Distinguished Senator Jibrin Barau, who presided over the session revealed that the leadership of both chambers are already in discussion with President Tinubu on the need to exempt the law makers from the new policy . Senator Ningi may not be wrong . After all he emphasized he is okay provided that the removal of the Police Orderlies be done across board . Senator Barau noted that talks are on over the issue of law makers’ in line with international practice . Further details from the Presidency noted that Presiding officers will retain their police officers , others would have Civil Defense officers ( NSCDC) as orderlies while any other VIP who feels he or she deserves personal police protection should get clearance from his office . In the midst of all issues weighing in on the proper implementation , it becomes necessary to bear in mind that the decision hinges on the realization that Nigeria has peculiar security issues (of kidnappings, banditry, and terrorism.) and that majority of Nigerians are under protected.

More so, that if well implemented, Police officers will focus on core duties; even as 30,000 new police officers are to recruited to enhance security .That implementation must be made in a way that leaves no room.for selective treatment loss of confidence and controversies. Looking at previous attempts of implementation of this policy gives faint hope as several attempts consistently failed . Former IGPs like Tafa Balogun (2003), Ogbonnaya Onovo (2009), and Ibrahim Idris (2018) tried the policy but all failed due to political resistance from various angles. All the failed attempts were tied to lack of political will mostly due to the fact that the directives came from police chiefs, not the president. Selective Enforcement was another killer to the policy as partial implementation met resistance and later reversal . Egbetokun (2023) and Adamu (2020) saw minimal impact.

Further more entrenched corruption in the system saw Politicians and VIPs quietly regain police escorts due to ‘transactional economics”and pressure. Worse still the mindset of the police officers withdrawn didn’t help the policy Underpaid police prioritize VIP duties for extra benefits. Many wish President Tinubu’s move can break this cycle. As at today, he still insists the move is non-negotiable while stressing collaboration with states to upgrade training facilities. As citizens look forward to success of the policy without undue exposure of both sides, balancing VIP security with public safety remains a tightrope walk. Talk fades ; action echoes. How the Presidency implements this policy. has much to tell on the governments stand on national / community security , choice of priority and the ability to stand uncomprised . The known goal is clear: The outcome is not yet certain. Fingers crossed , we await . Definitely , time will tell.

By: Nneka Amaechi-Nnadi.

s State stood at such a crossroads in September 2025. The temptation to rule with a long memory and a heavy hand was real. Yet, the choice made signaled a preference for healing over hardening. Leadership after crisis demands more than administrative competence; it requires moral clarity.

Governor Fubara’s decision reminded the state that authority is not best exercised through silent punishment or selective generosity. Rather, it is strengthened when rules remain rules, irrespective of personal injury. By keeping faith with workers, the government preserved an essential firewall between politics and public service. That firewall, once breached, turns governance into a battlefield where livelihoods become weapons. Rivers State narrowly avoided that descent. In doing so, it affirmed that institutions must outlive tempers, and governance must not mirror the bitterness of political seasons. This moment also invites sober introspection within the civil service itself. Allegations of partisanship, if left unresolved, corrode professionalism and weaken public confidence. A civil service that drifts into political camps loses its moral authority and operational effectiveness.

Therefore, reform, where necessary, should be guided by due process, transparency, and institutional review—not whispers, witch-hunts, or mob verdicts. Accountability strengthens systems when it is fair; it destroys them when it is arbitrary. The restraint shown by the executive places a corresponding burden on administrative leadership to restore discipline, neutrality, and pride in public service. For the wider political class and the commentariat, the episode serves as a caution against normalizing cruelty as strategy. The eagerness with which some anticipated workers’ suffering revealed a dangerous appetite for scorched-earth politics. When governance becomes a spectator sport where pain is cheered and deprivation is weaponized, society inches toward moral exhaustion. Rivers State has seen enough turbulence to know that stability is not sustained by triumphalism, but by restraint.

The lesson is simple yet profound: power is fleeting, but institutions endure; leaders pass, but precedents remain. In the end, the payment of the 2025 Christmas bonus was more than a fiscal act—it was a civic statement. It told workers they were not expendable. It told political actors that revenge would not be policy. And it told the state that maturity in leadership is not weakness, but strength under control. In a climate where many expected fire, restraint prevailed; where bitterness was predicted, balance emerged. Thus, Rivers State was offered a rare reminder that governance, at its best, is an act of discipline, and leadership, at its highest, is the courage to rise above provocation.