Connect with us

Opinion

Curtailing Wastage In Governance

Published

on

After the election of Bola Tinubu as the President of Nigeria, his highly elated wife, Oluremi, told the nation that her family is rich and does not need the wealth of the nation to survive. She said, “Nigeria’s wealth is the commonwealth of all. It belongs to everyone. God has blessed my family. We don’t need the wealth of Nigeria to survive but to do the right thing. And I promise you on this altar, that with your help, with the help of God, we will set this nation on the right path.” As a matter of fact, many Nigerians rooted for Tinubu as the president because they believed that he was very wealthy and would have no need for the nation’s wealth. Some say he was richer than the country and that there was no better person to manage and grow the country’s economy than Tinubu, a “successful business man.”
Incidentally, the administration’s persistent habit of extravagancy belies these claims. From the reforms that have impoverished millions of Nigerians, to the budgeting of billions of Naira for the purchase of presidential yacht, luxury vehicles for the president, his wife, the vice-president, renovation of the VP’s official residence in Lagos and now the purchase of a multi-million Dollar presidential jet, it seems like our billionaire president, his family and hangers are actually there to use the taxpayers money to maintain their lavish lifestyle despite the economic pain of such to the nation.For ten days at the beginning of this month, Nigerians were on the streets across the country protesting bad governance, hunger and economic hardship.
They made several demands, which include a return of fuel subsidies, improvements in living standards, cuts in the cost of governance, reduction in electricity tariffs, and solutions to escalating insecurity, among others. Not less than seven people died during the protest. And the government that could not meet these demands, went ahead to purchase a jet for the president? If that is not the height of insensitivity to the citizens’ plight then tell me what to call it.The same government that lavishes money on things that do not align with the needs and priorities of the people have been choking the people with all manner of taxes and has been preaching to the citizens to endure the hardship and consider it as a sacrifice being made for the nation’s brighter future.
The worst is that the authorities keep taking the citizens for granted. When the idea of a new presidential jet was muted by government officials who claimed that Boeing B737-700 (BBJ) was in bad shape and no longer safe for the president, Nigerians opposed it on the basis of the harsh economic realities of the country. But the government, as usual, neglected their opinion and went ahead with the purchase secretly. Perhaps, Nigerians would have still been kept in the dark about the purchase of the Airbus A330 but for the Nigeria-Ogun-Chinese Company embarrassing controversy. No transparency. No accountability.Expectedly, the presidency has been defending the purchase of the jet. The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga wants Nigerians to jubilate because, “The new plane, bought far below the market price, saves Nigeria huge maintenance and fuel costs, running into millions of dollars yearly.”
Onanuga and some other government officials have also justified the purchase of the jet based on the age of Boeing and safety of the President and other of its users. Nigerians love their president and other leaders and wish them well but Nigerians also expect their leaders to show leadership by example and sacrifice for the betterment of the country. They want the president and other leaders to prioritise the welfare of the people over short-term political gains. Nigerians want their leaders to prioritise the needs of the country in view of the nation’s scarce resources. And in doing that, food, security, power, functional government refineries, welfare of workers, good roads, adequate power supply and other basic needs of the masses should be given utmost attention than a presidential jet.
Nigerians want their president to be transparent and accountable to the citizens that put him in power. As the 2023 Presidential Candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi admonished, “Now that the jet is here, Nigerian taxpayers whose money was used to purchase it need to be privy to how much it costs, how old the aircraft is and how long it’s been in operation. “In addition, Nigerians also deserve to know about how the old jets are being disposed of, how many of them, how old they are, and why they are being sold. Transparency and Accountability should be the hallmark of any genuine leadership.” And talking about age, reports have it that the Boeing B737-700 (BBJ) which has operated for 19 years is just four years older than the new jet which is 15 years old.
This makes one agree with the opinion of some experts that age should not be a detrimental factor as long as the maintenance schedule is strictly adhered to and spare parts are provided as at when due.  Isn’t the Boeing 747 (the Air Force One) used by the US President, said to be 34-year-old and has served no fewer than six Presidents, including the incumbent Joseph Biden? Therefore, without a good maintenance culture, the new aircraft will not last as long as expected. We must discard the habit of handling government’s property with negligence. People must be made to sit up and carry out their duties diligently to avoid the wastage of scarce resources.Wasteful spending not only drains the nation’s coffers but also erodes public trust in the government.
When citizens witness the lavish lifestyles of public officials—characterised by fleets of luxury vehicles, endless foreign trips, and grandiose state events—they justifiably question whether their leaders have their best interests at heart. This erosion of trust can fuel public discontent and even destabilise governance. The economic repercussions of wasteful spending are severe. Every naira spent on unnecessary luxury is a naira that could have been invested in critical sectors like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and security. Nigeria’s infrastructure deficit is estimated to be in the billions of dollars. Yet, instead of channeling resources towards closing this gap, successive administrations have prioritised short-term, high-visibility projects that offer little long-term value.
Furthermore, wasteful spending contributes to the nation’s growing debt burden. Nigeria’s debt profile has ballooned in recent years, with a significant portion of the national budget now dedicated to debt servicing. This leaves little room for capital expenditure and social programmes that could uplift millions of Nigerians out of poverty. The cycle of borrowing to finance wasteful projects is unsustainable and jeopardises the country’s economic future. To curtail wasteful spending, the budget process must be overhauled to eliminate non-essential expenditures. This means cutting down on excessive allowances for public officials, reducing the number of government agencies and the president announced, and prioritising spending on projects that have a clear, measurable impact on the populace.
Strengthening institutions that monitor and evaluate government spending is crucial. Agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) must be empowered and adequately funded to carry out their mandates. Public access to government spending data should be improved, allowing citizens to track how their money is being used, while lawmakers at all levels must wake up to their responsibilities of checking the excesses of the executives instead of acting like partners in crime. Reducing wasteful spending is not just a matter of fiscal prudence; it is a moral and economic imperative that could determine the future trajectory of the nation. As President, governors and local government chairmen, our leaders have the power to set the tone for the nation’s administration. By adopting a modest lifestyle and eschewing unnecessary extravagances, they can send a powerful message that wasteful spending will not be tolerated. This could inspire a broader culture of prudence within government circles and can restore public trust.

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