Connect with us

Opinion

Verbal Condemnation, Punishment For Terrorism?

Published

on

With last Sunday’s attack on St Francis’s Catholic Church in Owo, the headquarters of Owo Local Government Area of Ondo State, condemnation of the gruesome act has been pouring in from all quarters. The citizens are condemning it,  traditional, political and religious leaders are condemning it. Those in power, whose primary responsibility is the protection of lives and property of the citizens, are not left out in the condemnation galore.
Ondo State Governor, Rotimi Akeredolu, who is from Owo, termed the day, “a black Sunday in Owo.” He said it was a personal loss, an attack to the state, an unexpected, shocking development, declaring that, “We shall never bow to the machinations of heartless elements in our resolve to rid our state of criminals.” President Muhammadu Buhari on the other hand, lamented in a statement by his special adviser on media and publicity, Mr Femi Adesina, that “only fiends from the nether region could have conceived and carried out such a dastardly act.” Adding that “no matter what, this country shall never give in to evil and wicked people and darkness will never overcome the light. Nigeria will eventually win.”
This is a road we have travelled severally in the past and you will be so disappointed if you take these words to the bank and wait to see the government, particularly the federal government, who is in charge of the police and the military swing into action immediately to rid our communities and forests of terrorists because that may not happen. Just a few more days the outburst and resentment will be over and the Owo massacre will be forgotten, just like other similar ugly incidents before it and life goes on as usual.
Apart from the families of some of the victims of March 28, Kaduna – bound train attack, who intermittently carry out protests to remind Nigerians that their loved ones are still in the hands of their abductors and appeal for the authority’s expeditious actions towards their release, who else remembers the attack? We have since moved on as if nothing happened.
Unfortunately, when the issue with killer herdsmen, farmers/herdsmen clashes started, some governors in the South and Middlebelt tried to get the killers out of the forest and to put an end to their criminal activities.  I recall the Southern Governors forum banning open grazing of cattle in their states. What did the federal government do? Through the Minister for Justice and Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, they were asked not to dare it, claiming that the ban contravenes the constitutional right of the herders to freedom and liberty of movement.
Rather than yielding to calls by well meaning citizens for an end to open grazing and that those in the business of cattle rearing should adopt other modern ways of doing the business which will be less injurious to the harmonious relationship between herders and farmers as well as the local populace, the government announced that it was going to embark on the recovery of about 415 grazing routes across the country and has already adamantly commenced the exercise, according to reports.
Each time people spoke against these killer herdsmen, the federal government officials, particularly, the “presidency” rose in their defence and you would see some people or groups challenging the governors for challenging them and going against their members.
Having allowed all these to go on all these years, what do we expect to be the effect?  It is clear knowledge that the consequences to an action determines whether it will happen again or not. Therefore, when a group of people indulges  in negative acts and there are no reactions in terms of punishing them for what they did, of course, they will be emboldened to do more.
We have fed these criminals to this point where they have become monsters. Remember, it is not the day you take your goat to the marketplace to sell it that you start feeding it. The process must have started long before then. Right now, we are stuck.  These killers are in our forests, they have migrated to different parts of the country. Nowhere is safe anymore. You are not safe in your home. You are not safe to travel by land, rail or air. The children are not safe in their schools. Even in your worship place you are not safe. Haba! We are losing Nigerians gruesomely every day in horrific manners that are difficult to comprehend. We have written, we have condemned, we have screamed, shouted and the situation instead of improving gets worse by the day. Some security experts have even told the populace to braze up for more security challenging days as next year’s elections draw  nearer.  Now we want to beg the president and the governors to do all they can to ensure that the people are protected. The political parties are done with the election of their flag bearers for the 2023 election, can we now begin to see more effort channelled to the solving of the numerous problems facing the country?
During the just concluded party primaries, we heard the contestants, including those from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) revealing what they would do to make Nigeria a promised land, if elected. The Vice President, Yemi Osinbajo, in particular called out the potentials of various regions and states of the country and promised that if elected, he would turn things around for the better in the country.  And the question many people have not stopped asking is why the ruling party had not unveiled all these potentials in the past seven years they have been in power instead of constantly blaming the main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the nation’s woes. The elections are here, what is being done to protect the people and forestall a repeat of the Owo incident in any other part of the country?
Are there plans to better equip the police to enable them discharge their duties effectively? Is it not high time the issue of State Police that has been discussed in different fora is considered since it is obvious the federal government cannot fund the Nigerian Police? There is no doubt that if the police are well equipped and working as expected,  people would not come into a church, kill scores of people during Mass and fade into thin air. And almost a week after the incident, we cannot say for sure who the masterminds and perpetrators were, because no arrest has been made.
A few days ago, following the Owo attack, a group, the Committee on Charter of Protocol (CCOP) asked south-west governors to launch “Operation Sweep Terrorism out of Yorubaland”. They demanded for arrest and diligent prosecution of the suspects, ban of commercial motor cycles, residency registration programme of all security personnel in the south-west states among others. While the courageous move of this group must be applauded, it is advisable that rather than a regional or state approach to insecurity challenges in the country, there should be a holistic approach where no state or region is left out.
No state or region exists in isolation. They are usually bordered by other states and regions. And if a particular state or region is safe, there is the tendency of criminals from other unsafe places migrating to those areas and causing havoc.
It is also pertinent that the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria be reviewed with the aim of reducing the numerous items in the exclusive list so as to give the state governors more powers to administer the states better. We cannot continue to have a huge federal budget for security, transportation and other things year in, year out, yet there is nothing to show for it. Similarly, the state governors and local government chairmen should begin to make use of their huge security votes which are hardly accounted for, for the right purpose of ensuring security in their domains.
Traditional leaders, youth leaders and other members of our communities need not be reminded that they all have roles to play in ensuring a secured society. After all, security is everybody’s business. How proactive the people and the leaders are to the security intels at their disposal will go a long way in determining whether there shall be a repeat of the Owo massacre or not. And the way the criminals will be handled if they are ever arrested will send a big signal to other criminals out there.

By: Calista Ezeaku

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