Opinion

Should Buhari Probe Jonathan’s Govt?

Published

11 years ago

August 3, 2015

In the past few weeks, President Mohammadu Buhari
has left nobody in doubt about his determination to probe former ministers and other officials who served in the immediate past administration of President Goodluck Jonathan who allegedly stole Nigeria’s oil and diverted government’s money to personal accounts.
What do Nigerians think about this development, especially in view of the fact that before leaving office, Jonathan had reportedly said any probe of the current government would be seen as “witch hunt” if it fails to go beyond his administration?
Our Chief Correspondent, Calista Ezeaku got the views of some members of the public on the burning issue. Our photographer, Ken Donatus captured their images.

Mr. Igwe Kelvin – Unemployed graduate
I don’t see any reason why President Buhari will probe Jonathan’s administration. There were many administrations before Jonathan’s and even some of the people that served under Jonathan were part of previous administrations, yet there was nothing like probe at the end of the administrations.

So I don’t know why those public servants that served under Jonathan should be probed. If Buhari has any indictment on any of Jonathan’s ministers, he should come up with it and let the public know. If he has any true evidence against them, he should make it public and may be people will support him. But since he started talking about this probing, we have not been made to know their “sins”. So it’s like Buhari has something against Jonathan’s government. I’m not saying that if there are people that stole public fund they should not be punished but you must have concrete evidence against them before going after them so that everybody will see that what they did was bad and your action is justified. Let the probe not be a kind of witch hunting.
Again, if Buhari wants to probe Jonathan’s administration he should be ready to probe other administrations before Jonathan’s because we are aware that most of the people that occupied public offices in the past stole peoples’ money. This corruption they are talking about now is not a new thing. We have been hearing of our leaders looting our treasury long before Jonathan’s government.
So, I will advise President Buhari to be careful the way he goes about the probe so that he does not cause more problem in the country.

Arch Bishop Harry Nelson Miracle, A Cleric
Well, probing is good but then he has to start from the beginning. If President Buhari wants to probe past government officials, he must start from previous governments before Jonathan’s administration. But if he wants to restrict the probe to Jonathan’s administration then indirectly he is witch hunting that administration and that is not a proper procedure to take.
So, I am not against the probe but all previous administrations before Jonathan’s should be probed before Jonathan’s administration or else it makes no sense. If he insists on starting from Jonathan’s government then the truth is that he is deceiving himself. You start counting from seven without first counting zero? If as he claims that he is transparent, let him start from the beginning. Whatever you do must be from the foundation. There is no structure without a foundation. So let him go back to the status quo. If he wants to probe let him start from the first administration then we will all accept it. But if he cannot do that then he shouldn’t even try it because it will simply mean he has a hidden agenda and he is looking for trouble.
Jonathan’s administration as far as I know and they also know is the very best Nigeria has ever had because what Goodluck did, He, Buhari cannot even do that. So let him be sincere to himself. They should just let the sleeping dog lie. If they do not want to start from the beginning they should forget about the probe. The truth is that they don’t have anything to probe about Jonathan’s administration. He is just trying to make a name for himself and then raise dust where there should be none. This is not the first time we are hearing that money was looted from the treasury. So the probe should start from the beginning to this point. They should go back to the root.
If you don’t kill anything from its root you are wasting your time. If he can kill the root then the branches will die but if you don’t kill the root you are wasting your time.
Mr. Kingsley Timothy
The truth is that if Buhari wants to probe past public servants, let him start from the governments before Jonathan’s regime. This is democracy. You don’t jump from one government to another one. Not because you have the people that served in past regimes as your followers then you decide to probe the people that served in another government that are not your followers. It doesn’t work that way. He should go back to when he himself headed the petroleum sector. He should probe them.
Yes he should go ahead and probe but he should start from the beginning. He has once been in the system. He knew what was in the system. Look, the truth is that if you are looking at what another man did because you want to score a point, it will make you to be so angry about what the last person before you did.
But if you think of when you started fighting to come into position, then you will know that you will start from that time that you started fighting to check mate everybody, not check-mating the last person that left the office before you.
We all know everything that happened before he came into power. So if you want to check-mate, start from the beginning. Yes, we all know that the level of corruption in the country is very high but then we have to deal with it from the root. If probing will stop corruption they the past leaders before Jonathan.
In any case, I even doubt it because when you go into the probing very well, you will see that so many people will be apprehended. There are many corrupt people in Nigeria. Every sector in the country is corrupt, we all know it. But the truth is, if you want to deal with it, start from the root. That is the only way corruption will stop.

Mr. Sunday Dumle – An Economist
I think the probe is a welcome development. Our leaders do not want us to benefit from the country’s resources. Whenever they occupy leadership positions, they loot money here and there. So they should be probed. But the probing should start from Obasanjo’s administration because if they start from Jonathan’s administration it will cause more problems. They should be probed and if found guilty they should face the law because the money is not meant for them. It is for the entire Nigerians. If the money looted by our leaders was used in developing this country we will not be suffering as we do today.

Msgr Cyprain Onwuli-Cleryman
Really, how can he probe some individuals without probing the whole administration and if he is probing the whole administration it has to start with him. The probing has to start from the time the military took over because that was when Nigeria started to decay. Right from the military coup in the 60s till now, he should probe everybody who had administered this country. That should be justice and not selective punity, you punish some people and leave others.
Look, people are also accusing him and the past governments he served under, let him clear the air. That will give him a stronger backing to probe others. There is nobody who is an administrator who will say he was hundred percent good in handling the affairs of any segment of the society-church, school or what have you. So to clear the air, let him start from himself.
But I will prefer he starts from the first military coup till today, because they are the ones that destroyed this country. The civilians who ruled this country are saints. The destruction of wealth, stealing, killing came more with the military. So let them probe themselves first, then they can probe others. Looting did not start today and it will not end tomorrow. Let us start cleaning from the beginning so that those who will rule tomorrow will become conscious of themselves.
Let us really rule and be conscious that we are in a fragile country. If he probes some people and leaves others, that will divide this country more. That will bring disunity and I can assure you, if expose more people you teach others how to steal in different ways will learn different ways, will learn different methods of destroying and stealing and then insecurity will grow, security situation will be worse. So let us be careful.
I think the gospel message of forgiveness should be there and the law makers should insist that anybody who does any nonsense from now should either be removed or punished. It should enter into law because they are the ones that open the doors to all the nonesense people are doing. So let us forgive the past and focus on the future so as to make the future better.
Fighting corruption, stealing, looting and other vices will not be easy but then it has to start with the highest ruler and those who work with him. Once he is a disciplinarian and is able to carry that out, live a clean life and not be ready to tolerate any nonsense, Nigeria will change. He will make sure that those he will appoint as ministers, ambassadors, those heading different departments are guided. Really, they should send in their resignation letters before they are sworn-in so that if there is any nonesense, all he need do is to call the person, hand him over his resignation and send the police and others to go and take over until a new person is appointed, to make sure he doesn’t go back there to loot more.

Miss Chinenye Nwangwu-Self Employed
In the first pace I don’t know why President Buhari should choose to probe Jonathan’s administration or even some of his officials. What about those that served in pervious administrations before Jonathan’s, did they not steal our money? What has happened to them? I think if Buhari must probe, let him start from the first civilian government. Let me also remind our President that during his inaugural speech, he told Nigerians and the whole world that he would not go after any past government official, that he would start on a clean slate. Why is he no longer keeping to his words?
So for me, I don’t think probing only one particular past administration is right and just. If he must probe, he should probe all past leaders, including past governors irrespective of their political affiliation or their relationship with the current administration.

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