Editorial

Matawalle’s Call For Self-Defence

Published

3 years ago

July 6, 2022

Following the inability of the Nigerian security agencies to ensure the safety of lives and property of citizens and residents of Zamfara State against overwhelming killings, abduction for ransom and raiding of communities by bandits and terrorists, the governor, Bello Mohammed Matawalle, has decided to resort to self-help by encouraging the people of the state to take up arms and begin to defend themselves. This provoked mixed reactions among Nigerians.
While admitting that it is apprehensive about terrorism, the state government said the directive was part of its commitment “to ensure adequate security and protection of lives and property of the citizenry in the state”. Matawalle subsequently asked the Commissioner of Police to develop terms and conditions for the licensing of firearms to residents who were prepared to carry weapons to protect themselves. The military high command has, however, denounced the call.
The Chief of Defence Staff, Lt-General Leo Irabor, said it was appropriate for stakeholders to follow the rules and Constitution accordingly. “We do not take instruction from the state governments. We have a Commander-in-Chief. The constitution gives the right and powers to the C-in-C for the use of the Armed Forces, and I believe what we are doing in Zamfara State and across the states of the federation are not different from the provisions of the Constitution.
“We are there to give support to the civil authority in this case, the police. We are there to ensure that peace returns to Zamfara. The governor does not have the power to ask the Commissioner of Police to issue licences. I am yet to get the details but I do not think that is the right thing to do”, he was quoted to have said. The Defence Chief added that the Federal Government, through the Attorney General of the Federation, was charged with resolving the matter.
The directive not only denies the spirit of the social contract, but shows to what extent the crisis of insecurity in the country has become elusive. Before now, the state government had taken several steps including dialoguing with bandits, banning the use of motorcycles, shutting down petrol stations, markets, blocking phone and Internet services, suspending some traditional rulers suspected to have aided the bandits, including sending people to Saudi Arabia to hold prayers, among other measures.
These steps have failed to address superfluous killings, hence, this latest despairing action to arm citizens who are called upon to be answerable for their safety. Assuming without conceding that this call is apposite in the circumstances, do the citizens have the means to procure multifaceted weapons that can correspond with those handled by the bandits? Perhaps, in frustration, the Zamfara government has deemed that calling people to arm themselves for self-defence is the last resort.
Matawalle was not the first governor who advocated self-defence. Before him, the sullen Governor Aminu Bello Masari, whose state, Katsina, is also in the eye of the storm, made a comparable call after he bargained and extended amnesty to bandits that later infringed on their promise to lay down arms. Benue State Governor, Samuel Ortom, also called on his citizens to arm themselves as part of efforts to rein in banditry in his state. Moreover, Lt-General Theophilus Danjuma made a similar appeal to his Taraba State citizens to take up arms and stand up for themselves against killer-herdsmen.
What is unusual is that Matawalle went one step further by requesting firearms licences to be authorised. Once people comply with this request, there will be a great circulation of small and light weapons with all the aftermath, including the possibility of an anarchic situation. We recognise that the state government has a dilemma. But then, the governor of Zamfara, like some of his colleagues who have issued similar appeals, must fathom that the distress signal is a reflection of a collapse of governance.
This is an unwholesome development that is pointing more and more to a failed state. While the Zamfara State governor’s counsel to citizens of the state to bear arms could be looked upon as a recipe for mayhem, does he have an alternative course of action in the face of the Federal Government’s atrocious flop to secure lives and properties? It must be a serious situation for the governor. But if people are allowed to carry weapons, terrorists could pass themselves off as citizens to get permits. What does the government intend to do about this?
Although Section 33 (2) of the 1999 Constitution allows citizens to defend themselves, the Zamfara situation signals a terrible omen for residents and Nigerians in its entirety. The Firearms Act (2004) provides procedures for citizens who wish to carry firearms. Permits for the use of personal firearms may only be issued by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP). The IGP is to issue such licences upon the principles decided by the President. He can also delegate this power to Commissioners of Police.
Egregiously, the Federal Government’s failure to protect citizens leaves the public with only one choice: to defend themselves. After all, self-preservation is nature’s first rule. Our fear, however, is that we may have finally arrived at the gates of the Hobbesian “state of nature” where human life is “solitary, poor, wicked, brutal and short”. Terrorists who kill, kidnap and occupy people’s land have unconstrained control because this government is not doing enough to keep people safe.
The premonitory signs of the failures of the Nigerian state luxuriate and are conspicuous all over the place. It is usually easier to ask people to arm themselves than to retrieve the projectiles when anarchy boils over. Even if guns in the hands of the common people ultimately result in the trouncing of the terrorists, it might also lead to the emanation of warriors who could divide the space among themselves, as was encountered in Somalia.
It is a severe denouncement of the Federal Government that some heads of subnational governments, out of resentment, are contemplating self-help as an attainable alternative to secure lives and properties within their jurisdictions. This represents a precarious signal for citizens and the global community. The Federal Government has to step up. Undoubtedly, the security situation in the country is tremendous, and it can only get worse unless germane actions, supported by essential political will, are brought to bear on the jeopardy to curb the increasing wave.

Editorial

In Support of Ogoni 9 Pardon

Published

2 days ago

November 3, 2025

The Tide

The posthumous pardon granted to the Ogoni 9 on the 1st of October, along with the national honours conferred on the Ogoni 4 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is commendable. It is a bold and humane initiative that signals a readiness to confront the difficult truths of Nigeria’s past. It also speaks to a willingness to mend fractured relationships and begin the process of national healing. This decision, though long overdue, has been widely welcomed and recognised as a considerable gesture of reconciliation.

For the Ogoni people, the development holds profound emotional meaning. Many families lost loved ones to the crisis that engulfed Ogoniland in the 1990s. To see the Nigerian state finally acknowledge that these individuals were wronged is a source of solace. This act affirms that the nation remembers the pain and sacrifices of its citizens, even when they are long gone.

It is widely accepted that the crisis divided the Ogoni people considerably. The internal fractures that emerged during the struggle for environmental justice prevented the area from realising its developmental aspirations. Communities were split, brothers turned against one another, and the collective strength of the Ogoni nation weakened. Despite various interventions from government, non-governmental organisations and international agencies, the deep wounds remained largely unhealed.

Past administrations, particularly at the federal level, failed to demonstrate the political will required to meaningfully address the grievances of the Ogoni people. While statements of sympathy were made and committees were set up, concrete steps were too often absent. The sense of abandonment festered and deepened. In contrast, President Tinubu’s action represents a recognition that a grave error was committed, one that cost lives and damaged a people’s connection to the Nigerian state.

The concerns of the Ogonis, especially regarding environmental pollution and land degradation, remain pressing. The establishment of Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) was intended to address these concerns, yet progress has been slow and uneven. It is time to ensure that the clean-up and environmental restoration are treated as matters of urgency. In equal measure, the Ogoni people must also give peace a fair chance. They have suffered greatly and lost many illustrious sons. A cycle of distrust cannot be allowed to define their future.

Reconciliation requires both justice and forward-looking commitment. Therefore, the Ogoni people must embrace unity and abandon practices that perpetuate division. They must consider the development opportunities available when they work together with the government. For Ogoniland to thrive, both sides must show willingness to move forward.

Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, deserves acclaim for his contributions toward restoring peace among the Ogonis. His efforts to encourage dialogue and his support for the newly established Federal university in the area reflect a practical commitment to development. We urge him to sustain this approach and continue to stand as a bridge between the state and the Ogonis.

The pardon and the posthumous honours must now create avenues for deeper engagement between Ogoni leaders and the Nigerian state. The proposed return of oil exploration in Ogoniland must be approached inclusively and transparently, ensuring that the people benefit meaningfully from their resources. Economic development must not come at the expense of dignity or community welfare.

However, unity among the Ogoni people themselves is an essential condition for progress. It is disheartening that some have rejected the President’s gesture. This moment should serve as a rallying point rather than a trigger for further division. If Ogoniland is to progress, it must speak with one voice on matters of collective interest.

It is worth noting that several Presidents have come and gone since the execution of the Ogoni 9. Yet it is President Tinubu who chose to take this courageous step. In doing so, he has attempted to correct one of Nigeria’s darkest and most shameful episodes. He has also sent a clear message that the state can, indeed, admit when it has erred.

The pardon signals a broader preparedness to redress past injustices. For too long, Nigeria has professed the intention to build equity while failing to address historical grievances. If national unity is to be genuine, it must be grounded in accountability. President Tinubu’s gesture marks a momentous shift in that direction.

For the Ogoni people, the pardon provides a measure of comfort. It affirms that voices long stifled can still be heard. It also offers hope to other marginalised communities still waiting for justice. Nigeria’s diversity will only become a strength if all groups are assured that they matter.

To ensure that this gesture is not dismissed as mere political theatre, the Federal Government must make good its commitment to the Ogoni clean-up exercise. Words must translate into sustained action. The Ogoni environment must be restored, livelihoods must be rebuilt, and trust must be re-established. Only then will the pardon and posthumous national awards become a true foundation for peace and renewal.

Editorial

Strike: Heeding ASUU’s Demands

Published

1 week ago

October 27, 2025

The Tide

The recent warning strike declared by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) on October 13, though short-lived, has once again drawn national attention to the lingering crisis in Nigeria’s tertiary education sector. The strike was intended to last two weeks, but was suspended after appeals by eminent Nigerians. However, ASUU has warned that if the Federal Government fails to take concrete steps in addressing the issues, the union may have no option but to embark on an indefinite strike. This is a fearful prospect.

At the heart of this recurring crisis is the non-implementation of the 2009 agreement that the Federal Government willingly signed with the union. It is disheartening and embarrassing that more than a decade after that pact was reached, it remains a subject of dispute. The failure to uphold the terms of the agreement reflects a deeper malaise in the country’s governance culture: the inability to honour commitments.

That students and parents had begun to believe that ASUU strikes were gradually becoming a relic of the past makes the situation more regrettable. There was a general sense of relief after previous strikes ended, with many hoping that meaningful progress had been made. Unfortunately, the old cycle appears to be repeating itself. This latest action represents a huge setback for the education sector.

Historical records show that ASUU strikes have seldom benefited anyone. For students, the consequences are painful and lasting. Academic calendars are disrupted; graduation timelines become uncertain; careers are stalled before they even begin. Research activities, many of which are time-sensitive and tied to grants or international collaborations, are abruptly halted.

It is all the more lamentable that this impasse concerns a long-concluded agreement on the welfare of lecturers and the funding of universities. That successive governments have failed to honour commitments they voluntarily undertook raises questions about the seriousness of Nigeria’s leadership regarding education. Why should an agreement take over a decade to fully implement?

The constant resort to industrial action also highlights the plight of students, who remain the innocent casualties in this tussle. Many of them come from struggling homes, and their futures hang precariously in the balance each time universities are shut down. The insensitivity displayed by authorities in allowing matters to deteriorate to this level is deeply troubling.

Indeed, this development raises broader concerns about the Federal Government’s crisis management capability. The perception is that government officials are unbothered because their children are not affected by strikes; many school abroad or attend expensive private universities locally. This is a sad reflection of the decline in confidence in public institutions.

University lecturers should ideally be devoting their time to research, mentorship, publications and innovation. Instead, many are forced to expend creative energy on survival. It is no secret that some lecturers, faced with poor remuneration and harsh economic conditions, resort to unethical means such as demanding payment from students. When the system fails, moral decay becomes inevitable.

The salary disparity between Nigerian lecturers and their counterparts in other African countries is glaring. A Nigerian lecturer reportedly earns the equivalent of between $300 and $600 per month depending on rank, while a lecturer in Ghana earns about $1,200 on average. In Kenya, salaries range around $1,000 monthly, and in South Africa, they are higher, with lecturers earning between $2,000 and $3,500 monthly. Such disparities contribute to brain drain and low morale among Nigerian academics.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has continued to expend enormous sums on non-essential ventures. Billions have been spent on luxury vehicles for political office holders, frequent foreign trips, inflated contracts and poorly managed subsidy schemes. These funds, if redirected, could strengthen university infrastructure, boost research grants and improve staff welfare.

It is therefore crucial for the government to adopt a more proactive approach. The usual threat of “no work, no pay” will not resolve the crisis; rather, it deepens mistrust. ASUU has demonstrated time and again that it cannot be cowed into submission. Genuine dialogue, not intimidation, is the only path forward.

The union’s persistence is fuelled by the government’s perceived insincerity. ASUU is not asking for anything new; it is simply requesting that promises already made be fulfilled. This scenario mirrors the broader challenge of governance in Nigeria, where stakeholders grow tired of endless promises and little delivery.

If this situation is allowed to escalate, the consequences could be dire. Students forced out of academic activity for long periods may become vulnerable to crime, drug abuse and social vices. The nation can ill afford another contributing factor to youth restiveness at this delicate time.

The Minister of Education must handle this matter with urgency and diplomacy. Nigeria is already grappling with economic distress, insecurity and political tension. A full-scale ASUU strike would only deepen national instability. The authorities must act now—honour agreements, restore trust, and place education where it truly belongs: at the centre of national development priorities.

Editorial

Making Rivers’ Seaports Work

Published

3 weeks ago

October 17, 2025

The Tide

When Rivers State Governor, Sir Siminalayi Fubara, received the Board and Management of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), led by its Chairman, Senator Adeyeye Adedayo Clement, his message was unmistakable: Rivers’ seaports remain underutilised, and Nigeria is poorer for it. The governor’s lament was a sad reminder of how neglect and centralisation continue to choke the nation’s economic arteries.
The governor, in his remarks at Government House, Port Harcourt, expressed concern that the twin seaports — the NPA in Port Harcourt and the Onne Seaport — have not been operating at their full potential. He underscored that seaports are vital engines of national development, pointing out that no prosperous nation thrives without efficient ports and airports. His position aligns with global realities that maritime trade remains the backbone of industrial expansion and international commerce.
Indeed, the case of Rivers State is peculiar. It hosts two major ports strategically located along the Bonny River axis, yet cargo throughput has remained dismally low compared to Lagos. According to NPA’s 2023 statistics, Lagos ports (Apapa and Tin Can Island) handled over 75 per cent of Nigeria’s container traffic, while Onne managed less than 10 per cent. Such a lopsided distribution is neither efficient nor sustainable.
Governor Fubara rightly observed that the full capacity operation of Onne Port would be transformative. The area’s vast land mass and industrial potential make it ideal for ancillary businesses — warehousing, logistics, ship repair, and manufacturing. A revitalised Onne would attract investors, create jobs, and stimulate economic growth, not only in Rivers State but across the Niger Delta.
The multiplier effect cannot be overstated. The port’s expansion would boost clearing and forwarding services, strengthen local transport networks, and revitalise the moribund manufacturing sector. It would also expand opportunities for youth employment — a pressing concern in a state where unemployment reportedly hovers around 32 per cent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Yet, the challenge lies not in capacity but in policy. For years, Nigeria’s maritime economy has been suffocated by excessive centralisation. Successive governments have prioritised Lagos at the expense of other viable ports, creating a traffic nightmare and logistical bottlenecks that cost importers and exporters billions annually. The governor’s call, therefore, is a plea for fairness and pragmatism.
Making Lagos the exclusive maritime gateway is counter productive. Congestion at Tin Can Island and Apapa has become legendary — ships often wait weeks to berth, while truck queues stretch for kilometres. The result is avoidable demurrage, product delays, and business frustration. A more decentralised port system would spread economic opportunities and reduce the burden on Lagos’ overstretched infrastructure.
Importers continue to face severe difficulties clearing goods in Lagos, with bureaucratic delays and poor road networks compounding their woes. The World Bank’s Doing Business Report estimates that Nigerian ports experience average clearance times of 20 days — compared to just 5 days in neighbouring Ghana. Such inefficiency undermines competitiveness and discourages foreign investment.
Worse still, goods transported from Lagos to other regions are often lost to accidents or criminal attacks along the nation’s perilous highways. Reports from the Federal Road Safety Corps indicate that over 5,000 road crashes involving heavy-duty trucks occurred in 2023, many en route from Lagos. By contrast, activating seaports in Rivers, Warri, and Calabar would shorten cargo routes and save lives.
The economic rationale is clear: making all seaports operational will create jobs, enhance trade efficiency, and boost national revenue. It will also help diversify economic activity away from the overburdened South West, spreading prosperity more evenly across the federation.
Decentralisation is both an economic strategy and an act of national renewal. When Onne, Warri, and Calabar ports operate optimally, hinterland states benefit through increased trade and infrastructure development. The federal purse, too, gains through taxes, duties, and improved productivity.
Tin Can Island, already bursting at the seams, exemplifies the perils of over-centralisation. Ships face berthing delays, containers stack up, and port users lose valuable hours navigating chaos. The result is higher operational costs and lower competitiveness. Allowing states like Rivers to fully harness their maritime assets would reverse this trend.
Compelling all importers to use Lagos ports is an anachronistic policy that stifles innovation and local enterprise. Nigeria cannot achieve its industrial ambitions by chaining its logistics system to one congested city. The path to prosperity lies in empowering every state to develop and utilise its natural advantages — and for Rivers, that means functional seaports.
Fubara’s call should not go unheeded. The Federal Government must embrace decentralisation as a strategic necessity for national growth. Making Rivers’ seaports work is not just about reviving dormant infrastructure; it is about unlocking the full maritime potential of a nation yearning for balance, productivity, and shared prosperity.