Connect with us

Opinion

Talibani Nigerian

Published

on

With the fall of Kabul on 15 August, 2021, the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan, after many years of insurgency and clamour for a total sway of Sharia Islamic Law and political system. Afghanistan is a landlocked country in southern Asia; a mountainous nation with less than 15% of the land suitable for farming. Over 90% of its natural gas produced in the northern part of the country was piped across long distance into the former USSR. There was a civil war with the Soviet.
The Taliban emerged in 1994, after the Afghan civil war with the Soviet, whose membership consisted of Afghan students (Talib means students). Operating first as an advocacy group, the Talibans pursued the goal of strict interpretation and enforcement of Islamic Sharia Law, with increasing militancy. Four major ethic groups in the country (Pushtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks) are not all Moslem; rather, Budhism has a history of about 2,000 years in Afghanistan.
Long-standing ethnic conflicts have made it difficult to exploit the country’s large oil reserves; neither would the Pushtun ethnic group which is the strongest, create room for peaceful co-existence with other groups. Ethnic conflicts and animosities are not peculiar to Afghanistan alone, but what is sad is the refusal to shift group in terms of mutual tolerance and understanding which can foster expanded awareness. With bigotry, conceit and dogmatism, especially where mutual tolerance is lacking, then development would be hampered.
From Afghanistan comes this message for Nigeria that bigotry, conceit and dogmatic interpretations of the scriptures usually give rise to conflicts and animosities among various groups who share a common nationality. Religious ideological learnings which refuse to accommodate, examine or benefit from other different worldviews, rarely build an ideal humanity. Yet, human well-being and perception expand and improve better with a mind that is not hampered by bigotry, conceit and dogmatism.
Sadly, political and religious leaders, for the sake of expansion of power or fear of losing support, do foster dogmatic adherence to ideologies, thus fueling divisions and animosities among people. As a group of militant advocates and strict interpreters and enforcers of Islamic Sharia Law, the Talibans of Afghanistan since 1994, did not want to shift any ground or make concessions, but under the leadership of Mohammed Omar, the movement spread out, with a missionary zeal of total conquest. By 1996 the group transferred the nation’s capital to Kandahar from Kabul.
Situation changed with an American-led intervention force in December 2000, following the September 11 attack on USA. The Talibans were accorded diplomatic recognition by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Insurgency movements began again to fight the USA-backed Karzai administration and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The Talibans had been condemned globally for their extremist interpretations and enforcement of Sharia Law. They were called terrorists, not bandits!
Between 1996-2001 the Talibans and their allies had massacred thousands of people, denied UN food supplies to over 160,000 starving refugees and children and engaged in shocking public flogging of people for minor infractions. Specifically, girls and women were restricted from attending schools and engaging in certain jobs, except healthcare. Public whipping of girls and women sparked outrage among foreigners in Afghanisan, neither would journalists be allowed to photograph cases of abuses or publish any of such cases. It was a reign of terror!
Religious and ethnic minorities were heavily discriminated against during Taliban rule, with several unreported cases of genocide, destruction of other religious movements or sects, except Islam. The Pushtun ethnic group is the strongest and leading advocate of Sharia law, based on Deobandi fundamentalism, which adopts strict devotion to the Sharia. Since Russia withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the country’s ethnic groups had had no peace among themselves, largely because of religious conflicts. Neither did USA-intervention efforts change the situation much.
There had been intelligence reports alleging that the military and security services provided support which kept the Talibans active for so long, especially during the founding stage. It was also reported that over 2,500 Arabs under the command of Al Qaeda leader ,Osama bin Laden, fought for the Talibans. But allegations about the Talibans having established cells or units in various African countries, including Nigeria, may not be taken quite seriously for now. There were reports of university students being indoctrinated.
During the tenure of President Olusegun Obasanjo, there was a large-scale clamour all over Northern Nigeria for the adoption and implementation of Sharia Law. Tactfully, that clamour was not allowed to plunge Nigeria into a state of large-scale instability, but there was more to the Sharia Law movement than met the eye. There were security allegations that several Islamic countries, including Afghanistan, brought serious pressure on the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) to declare Nigeria as an Islamic state. Whether such allegation can be taken seriously or not, what is incontrovertible is that aggressive Boko Haram insurgency increased with the clamour for Sharia Law in Nigeria.
More specifically, the pattern which insurgency, militancy, banditory and killings by unknown gunmen took in Nigeria in the past 20 years, is similar to the Afghan scenario. Talibani movement may have started with students as the advocates for Sharia law as a better alternative to Western democracy and education. Northern Governors during Obasanjo’s Presidency mobilised Northern youths to raise the song of Sharia Law, in a secular state!
We cannot deny the fact that the Taliban credo and philosophy are similar to the Boko Haram posture. Neither are bigotry, conceit, dogmatism and the zeal to spread impact lacking in what we observe here. Kidnapping of school children, demands for ransom and discouragement of women education also featured in Afghanistan. Do we need banditry to have a united and peaceful Nigeria? What is truly at stake?

By: Bright Amirize

Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Trans-Kalabari  Road:  Work In Progress 

Published

on

Quote:”This Dream project  is one of  the best things that have happened  to the people and residents of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas in recent times.”
This is the concluding part of this story featured in our last edition.
Good road network helps farmers to convey their agro-allied products to  commercial hubs where buyers and sellers meet periodically to transact business. Road network engineers and motivates people resident in unfriendly geographical terrains, like riverine areas,  to own property and shuttle home with ease. Some people will prefer living in their own houses in a more serene and nature-blessed communities to living in the city that is fraught with  pollution, and other environmental, social and economic hazards. Prior to the cult epidemic that ravaged parts of Rivers State, the Emohuas, Elemes, Ogonis, and Etches were known for rural dwelling. Most public servants from these areas do their official and private transactions from  their villages. For them it was comparatively easier to live in the village and engage in a diversified economic endeavours through farming, fishing or other lucrative business without outrageous charges and embarrassment associated with doing business in Port Harcourt, where land is as scarce as the traditional needle.
That is why the decision to construct the Trans-Kalabari Road by the administration of Dr. Peter Odili was one of the best decisions that administration took. When Dr. Odili vacated office as the Rivers State Governor, Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi took over and awarded contracts for continuation of the road project which in my considered view is the felt need of  the people of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas. Unfortunately, Rt. Hon. Amaechi’s efforts to drive the project was sabotaged by some contractors some of whom are Kalabari people. The main  Trans-Kalabari Road is one project that is dear to the people and residents of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas of Rivers State. This is because through the road commuters can easily access several communities in the three local government areas. For instance, the road when completed will enable access to eight of the ten communities in Degema Local Government Area,  namely: Bukuma, Tombia,  Bakana, Oguruama, Obuama, Usokun, Degema town  and the Degema Consulate. It will also link 15 of the 16 communities in Asari Toru Local Government Area. The communities are: Buguma, the local government headquarters, Ido, Abalama, Tema, Sama, Okpo, Ilelema, Ifoko, Tema, Sangama, Krakrama, Omekwe-Ama, Angulama. The road will also connect  14  of 17 wards in Akuku Toru Local Government Area, and other settlements. It is interesting to note that It is faster,  and far more convenient and economical for the catchment Communities on the Trans-Kalabari Road network to go to the State Capital than the East West Road.  The people of the three local government areas will prefer  to work or do their transactions in Port Harcourt from their respective communities to staying in Port Harcourt where the house rent and the general cost of living is astronomically high.
 Consequently, development will seamlessly spread to the 28 out of 34 communities of Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas. The only Communities that are not linked by the road project are Oporoama in Asari Toru,  the Ke and  Bille Communities in Degema Local Government Area and the “Oceania” communities of Abissa, Kula, Soku, Idama, Elem Sangama of Akuku Toru Local Government Area. But because of the economic value of the unlinked Communities to Nigeria, (they produce substantial oil and gas in the area), the Federal, State Governments and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), can extend the road network to those areas just as Bonny is linked to Port Harcourt and the Lagos Mainland Bridge is connecting several towns in Lagos and neighbouring States.Kudos to previous administrations who  had constructed the Central Group axis.
 However, what is said to be the First Phase of the Trans-Kalabari Road project is actually a linkage of the “Central Group” Communities which consists of Krakrama, Angulama, Omekwe. Ama, Omekwe Tari Ama, Ifoko, Tema, Sangama. It is the peripheral of the Trans-Kalabari Road. The completion of the  Main Trans Kalabari project will free Port Harcourt and Obio/Akpor areas from congestion. It will motivate residents and people of the three local areas to contribute to the development of their Communities. If the Ogonis, Etches, Emohuas, Oyigbos, Okrikas, Elemes can feel comfortable doing business in Port Harcourt from home, residents and people whose communities are linked to Port Harcourt through the Trans-Kalabari Road will no doubt, do likewise. The vast arable virgin land of the Bukuma people can be open for development and sustainable agricultural ventures by Local, State and Federal Government.
It is necessary to recall that the Bukuma community was host to the Federal Government’s Graduate Farmers’ Scheme and the Rivers State Government moribund School-to-Land Scheme under Governor Fidelis Oyakhilome. Bukuma was the only community in Degema, Asari Toru and Akuku Toru Local Government Areas that has the capacity to carry those agricultural programmes. However the lack of road to transport farm produce to Port Harcourt and facilitate the movement of the beneficiaries of the scheme who lived in the community which is several miles away from the farms, hampered the sustainability of the programme. The main Trans-Kalabari Road remains the best gift to the people of Degema, Asari Toru, and Akuku-Toru Local Government Areas. Kudos to Sir Siminilayi Fubara.
By: Igbiki Benibo
Continue Reading

Opinion

That  U.S. Capture of Maduro

Published

on

Quote:”Strategic convenience does not nullify sovereignty. Political frustration does not authorise military abduction.”
The first part of this story was published in our last edition.
 
In Africa and the Middle East, regime change—whether by invasion, proxy warfare, or sanctions—has often left behind fractured states, weakened institutions, and prolonged instability. Washington’s motivations in Venezuela are widely understood: vast oil reserves, alliances with U.S. rivals, and symbolic defiance of American influence in the Western Hemisphere. But none of these reasons confer legal or moral legitimacy. Strategic convenience does not nullify sovereignty. Political frustration does not authorise military abduction. If every powerful nation acted on its grievances in this manner, global chaos would inevitably follow. International law provides mechanisms for accountability. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), individuals accused of crimes against humanity or other grave offences are subject to investigation and prosecution through judicial processes.
Likewise, extradition treaties, mutual legal assistance agreements, and Interpol mechanisms exist to ensure accountability while respecting due process. These frameworks were designed precisely to prevent unilateral enforcement of “justice” by military force. The most profound consequence of America’s action may not be in Caracas, but in the precedent it sets. If the world accepts that a superpower can unilaterally depose another country’s president, then the foundation of the international system is weakened. Sovereignty becomes conditional—no longer a right, but a privilege tolerated at the discretion of the powerful. Going forward, if another country invades its neighbour, will the United States retain the moral authority to impose sanctions or demand restraint? Some analysts already warn that parallels between Russia’s actions in Ukraine and America’s conduct in Venezuela risk further eroding global norms. Selective adherence to international law breeds cynicism and accelerates the drift toward a world governed by force rather than rules.
Power—military, economic, or political—should serve human progress and collective well-being, not domination and destruction. For African nations, many of which emerged from colonial rule through bitter struggle, this precedent is especially alarming. Sovereignty is not an abstract legal concept; it is a hard-won shield against external domination. Any erosion of that principle anywhere weakens it everywhere. Africa’s painful history of foreign interference makes this lesson especially urgent.  For me, the real issue is not whether Nicolás Maduro is a good or bad leader. That judgment belongs, first and foremost, to the Venezuelan people. The larger issue is whether the international system still operates on law—or has quietly reverted to hierarchy. If America insists it is defending global order, it must ask itself a difficult question: can an order survive when its most powerful guardian feels entitled to violate it? Until that question is answered honestly, the capture of a foreign president will remain not a triumph of justice, but a troubling symbol of a world drifting from law toward force.
If the United States felt so strongly about the allegations of terrorism, drug trafficking  against Maduro, were there no other lawful options? Judicial accountability, diplomacy, regional mediation, and multilateral pressure may be slow and imperfect, but they reflect respect for international law and sovereign equality. Military seizure is a blunt instrument. It humiliates institutions, radicalizes populations, and hardens resistance. It may remove a leader, but it rarely resolves the underlying crisis. History teaches that military interventions seldom result in stable democratic outcomes. More often, they breed resentment, resistance, and long-term instability. For the sake of global order and the rule of law, the United States should reconsider this path and recommit to diplomacy, legal cooperation, and respect for the sovereign equality of states. Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly described the invasion of Venezuela as “unlawful and unwise,” warning that such actions “do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable.” Her words reflect a growing recognition, even within the United States, that force without legitimacy undermines both moral authority and global stability.
Should what happened in Venezuela serve as a wake-up call for corrupt African leaders who undermine the people’s right to choose their leaders? The answer is yes. The capture of Maduro should alarm African leaders who manipulate elections, weaken institutions, suppress opposition, undermine citizens’ rights, or cling to power at all costs. Venezuela faced widespread criticism over disputed elections and repression long before this episode, and that context shaped how the world reacted. This does not justify foreign military intervention, but it highlights an uncomfortable truth: prolonged democratic decay isolates nations and invites external pressure—from sanctions to diplomatic censure. Global opinion matters, and legitimacy at home strengthens sovereignty abroad. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and several African leaders have rightly condemned the events in Venezuela, invoking the principles of sovereignty and non-interference enshrined in international and regional law.
Beyond condemnation, however, African leaders must look inward. The continent’s future cannot be built on repression, constitutional manipulation, and personal greed. Leadership must reflect the will of the people, not desperation for power. Two days ago, a social commentator on a radio station argued that Trump’s action—though condemnable—demonstrates how far a leader can go for his country’s interest. According to this view, he did not intervene in Venezuela for personal enrichment, but to strengthen his nation. In stark contrast, many African leaders plunder their own countries. They siphon public resources, impose crushing taxes and harmful policies, and leave their citizens poorer—all for selfish gain. That contradiction is the deeper lesson Africa must confront.True sovereignty is protected not only by international law, but by accountable leadership at home.
 By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Opinion

Kudos  Gov Fubara

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Trending