Opinion

State Police And Food Security In Nigeria

Published

3 years ago

February 9, 2024

As part of the measures to address the increasing prices of food and hunger in the country, the federal government on Tuesday disclosed its plan to release food from the storage facilities across the country. Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, who made this known after a meeting of the Presidential Committee on Emergency Food Intervention in Abuja, said President Bola Tinubu is concerned about the pains Nigerians are going through as it concerns food availability and affordability and is taking concrete steps to alleviate the suffering. Nigerians need to be thankful to the women and youth of Niger State, who earlier in the week took to the streets of the state capital, Minna, to protest against hunger and hardship in the nation. That action has awoken the authorities from their slumber and they are now running helter skelter to see that more food is made available to the citizens.
Incidentally, even the government knows that the release of food from the National Food Reserve is just a stopgap measure to the serious problem and that the sooner actions that will bring about permanent solutions to that challenge and stop Nigerians from dying of hunger and starvation were taken, the better for the country. How long will the food to be released last? And what is the assurance that when it is released it will get to poor masses? How are we sure that the politicians and those in the chain of distribution will not divert a greater quantity to themselves and release just a handful to the public? The federal government needs to show more commitment to the challenges facing the country. There should be sincere efforts towards dealing with the deplorable state of security across many parts of the country, including the Federal Capital Territory. It is no news that many farmers can no longer access their farm lands for fear of being killed or kidnapped by terrorists and bandits. Consider the latest attacks in Plateau and Benue States which left hundreds of people dead, their houses destroyed and bags of their harvested grains carted away by the bandits.
A particular farmer from Kaduna State recently told a story of how, upon losing his job in a furniture company in Abuja, he borrowed money from a money lending institution to go into farming. It was a bumper harvest for him as he got over 40 big bags of maize and beans. He had negotiated with the buyers and was waiting for them to come, pay and carry them when bandits invaded his village and carried all the bags of grains, including his hoes.The most painful thing is that he, just like many other farmers who take the risk of going to farms to produce food for Nigerians to eat, “settled” the bandits heavily to enable him access his farms and do any farm work. So, it is imperative that the government sincerely deals with insecurity in the nation to enable farmers to go back to their villages and farms. And with the current level of insecurity, the sophistication and all that, it is obvious that the 370, 000 federal policemen can no longer cater for the security of the over 200million Nigerian population. Police devolution is absolutely important now more than ever before to ensure adequate security of lives and property of Nigerians. The clamour for state police must be considered now. Yes, over the years, there has been an argument that Nigeria is not ripe for state police because governors, politicians and well-to-do people in the states will abuse the police and use them for the oppression and intimidation of their opponents and the poor.
Valid as that proposition may be, it lacks substantive weight when weighed against the gains of state police in the present daunting security challenges in the country. Last week, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) governors forum, for the umpteenth time, made a case for state police, saying that the decentralisation of the security apparatus, including the police, will go a long way in addressing the current security challenges facing the country. Speaking during a visit to Governor Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau State, the governors noted that “The ratio of police to the citizens is very low and the governors know the peculiarity of their states and how to tackle this challenge.”Similarly, the governor of Anambra State, Chukwuma Soludo, during a book launch a few days ago, noted that decentralisation of the police, strengthening of the institutions and a review of the 1999 Constitution are inevitable steps to take towards addressing insecurity and other challenges facing the country. Some past leaders like Olusegun Obasanjo, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, some notable religious, ethnic and professional groups have also lent their voices to the clamour for decentralisation of police as a way of stemming insecurity in Nigeria
. It is important that authorities, particularly the National Assembly set politics aside, reconsider the traditional centralised law enforcement model and explore the benefits that state police could bring to the table and take necessary steps to actualise it.One of the benefits of state police is depth of localised expertise. Nigeria is a nation with distinct cultural, social, and economic differences among its states. State police forces, intimately familiar with the dynamics of their respective regions, are better positioned to address and prevent crime effectively. This local knowledge can enhance community policing initiatives, fostering trust and collaboration between law enforcement and the public. A major advantage of state police is quick response. In almost all the attacks in communities across the country, the survivors narrate how the late arrival of the police or other law enforcement to the scene resulted in more damage and deaths. In a country as vast and varied as ours, response time is crucial. State police can provide quicker responses to incidents within their jurisdiction, minimising the impact of criminal activities. Moreover, the flexibility inherent in state police allows for the development of tailored policing strategies, addressing specific challenges unique to each state. Also, State police, by virtue of being closer to the communities they serve, have the potential to build stronger relationships with residents.
This proximity not only facilitates better understanding of local issues but also encourages citizens’ participation in crime prevention efforts. Increase trust between law enforcement and the public can contribute significantly to maintaining peace and order.Many times, we have heard some state governors lament over their inabilities to curtail raging crime and insecurity in their domain because the state police commissioners would not take instructions from them rather they wait for directives from Abuja. Most times, before the directive comes a great harm must have been done. It therefore makes a great sense that the police are decentralised to give the governors more power over the security affairs of their states. It is a known fact that the bulk of the financing of the federal police is done by the state governors. So, financing the state police might not be a big issue as being speculated by some people. Rather, as State police allow for a more localised approach to resource allocation, states can tailor their budgets and resources to address specific security challenges prevalent in their regions. This ensures that law enforcement agencies are equipped to handle the issues most pressing to their communities, leading to more efficient resource utilisation
However, despite the immense benefits of state police, the concerns about potential abuse of power, political interference, and coordination issues between states must be addressed. Implementing robust oversight mechanisms, strict adherence to professional standards, and fostering inter-agency collaboration can mitigate these risks. Conclusively, the establishment of state police in Nigeria represents a crucial step towards enhancing the nation’s security apparatus. Recognising the unique needs of each state and empowering local law enforcement to address these needs directly can lead to a more effective and responsive policing system. Striking the right balance between local autonomy and centralised coordination is key to navigating the challenges and reaping the benefits of a state police system in Nigeria. It is time for the nation to embrace this reform and work towards a safer and more secure future and availability of food at affordable prices for all its citizens.

Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

One Attack Too Many

Published

2 days ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

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

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth

Published

2 days ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

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

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s Outburst

Published

2 weeks ago

August 3, 2026

The Tide

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