Connect with us

Opinion

Taking The War To The Enemy

Published

5 years ago

on

Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot that it do singe yourself – King Henry VIII.

On July 30, 1966, a message intercepted in some monitoring quarters read as follows: “It is not over yet. Battle will be taken to the enemy’s home camp”. Without giving away further details, any serious investigator can find out what happened in Nigeria between July and December 1966, commonly called counter or second military coup in Nigeria.
When the current Inspector General of Police came to Rivers State recently to flag off a security outfit, there was a statement about taking the war to the camp of the enemy, rather than wait to be attacked first. Without revisiting the Nigerian Civil War, what gave rise to it and matters arising from it, there is a need that we be honest with ourselves. Being honest with ourselves would include admitting that the intercepted “top secret” message of 1966 was a clarion call in some quarters. In a similar way, it would be naïve to ignore certain utterances and actions coming from some quarters since 1966.
A hackneyed idiom that “Rome was not built in one day” is a reminder that the task of nation-building takes quite some time, patience, honest collaboration and patriotism. Yes, mistakes had been made in the past which included tolerating and pampering wrongs that were swept under the carpet. Similarly, we did not have the courage to tell ourselves that a war indemnity was cleverly imposed on a certain section of the country, since 1970.
Let us admit that what was known colloquially as the “Kaduna Mafia” came into existence and in connection with the intercepted security message of July 30, 1966. What became alarming to the few people privy to that message was a threat that “future generations will continue to pay for this audacious assault”. What was the audacious assault? That would be revisiting the military coup of January 15, 1966, which had been interpreted in some quarters as an assault on the North, by Igbo Army officers. Was it?
Let us admit that despite the “revenge coup” of July 1966 and the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970), that threat about future generations continuing to pay some price was neither empty nor is it over yet. The tag of hate speech would definitely not include saying the truth, so long as the way the truth is revealed does not jeopardise national security or unity. The purpose of what is being said here is to admonish that when vengeance is taken too far, it can become counterproductive. That is the essence of the quotation at the beginning of this article, coming from Shakespeare’s King Henry VIII.
Those who have taken the pains to study the trends of the decline of various powers and regimes in history, would have cause to express some fears about the future of Nigeria. The habit of showering praises and flatteries on rulers and leaders rarely demonstrates utmost good faith or patriotism. Rather, any leadership that thrives on and encourages such practices rarely hears the footprints of the ants. It takes deep introspection to be able to explore the “grapevine” in any system of management.
To say that security is a major challenge in the country currently is correct to the extent that prejudices can be kept aside in any effort to explore what brought us to where we are now. Surely, every country has its peculiar challenges which also include security. In every genuine effort to address security issues, it is expedient to look inwards in an honest self-examination. While it is easier and more common to blame everyone else when things begin to fall apart, wisdom would demand that we search ourselves first before pointing fingers at others, using the language they understand.
For quite a long time, a few honest Nigerians have been pointing out where things are going wrong in the country, with nothing serious being done to look into them. The most current is the Petroleum Industry Bill about to be signed into law. One Rev. Canon Chuka Opara, apart from pointing out how Southern lawmakers allowed themselves to be outwitted by their more alert Northern counterparts, said something revealing: “never you be eager to befriend anyone whose desire is always to cheat you” – ref. The Tide newspaper: Monday 12/7/2021.
To put the matter bluntly, there is a growing awareness in Southern Nigeria that there is a cheating game going on in the country. Was Femi Fani-Kayode wrong to say that “President Buhari’s Fulani cabal has conquered Nigeria?” After an unguarded statement by one Badu Salisu Ahmadu that there is a standing Fulani Strike Force ready to take over Nigeria, was he arrested or interrogated by security agencies? Neither did Dr. Obadiah Mailafia cry wolf when there are none.
It was late Senator Francis Ellah who raised the issue of a clever imposition of some penalty on South-Eastern Nigerians arising from the Biafra issue. But rather than address the issue with honesty, there have been series of acts of subterfuge and intimidation, making the people feel more bitter and estranged. Neither do we have the honesty to admit that the rising agitations from that part of the country has to do with disenfranchisement of the people of their natural resources. The issue of resource control is obviously dead now.
The more brazen acts of disrespect for the rights of South-Easterners include the invasion of their farmlands by marauding cattle, with no visible action seen to be taken by the Federal Government to check the impunity of herdsmen. Rather, there were appeals for Southern states to provide lands for Ruga and ranching, as if cattle business is state business rather than a private one. Even with a belligerent attitude of the organised body of cattle dealers, Miyetti Allah, the impression Southerners get is that they are being treated like a conquered people.
Partisan politics apart, the impression must not be given that the APC-led Federal Government is out to intimidate or oppress South-Easterners. Currently, the Ijaw ethnic nationality is holding consultations on how to leave Nigeria, quite apart from the Sunday Igboho issue. The time has come to ask if a section of the country is not unwittingly creating or heating the furnace so hot for us to bear. We were told that there was no victor, no vanquished in 1970, but there are overlords.

By: Bright Amirize

Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Gift Or Will: Why Wait Until Death To Give?  

Published

7 days ago

on

October 19, 2026

By

Quote:”The value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?”

Will and gifts are subjects that many people, particularly in this part of the world, are reluctant to discuss. This may be due to the misconception that they are matters reserved for the dying and that talking about them could somehow invite death. Yet, both are important subjects that everyone, young and old alike, should understand. Every property owner should ask a fundamental question: Why wait until death before allowing the people we love to enjoy the fruits of our labour? Many parents spend their productive years acquiring houses, land, businesses and other valuable assets, yet postpone sharing these blessings with their children and loved ones until they are no longer alive. They prepare Wills, appoint executors and hope their wishes will eventually be fulfilled. But is there a case for giving more generously during one’s lifetime?

A Will is an important legal instrument, and nobody should be discouraged from making one. However, lifetime gifts deserve greater attention because they allow property owners to witness the benefits of their generosity and, where properly completed, transfer ownership before death. One practical difficulty with inheritance is that writing a Will does not automatically make the property available to beneficiaries upon the testator’s death. Ordinarily, executors must obtain a grant of probate from the appropriate Probate Registry before administering the estate under the Will. The process may involve producing the original Will and death certificate, identifying executors and beneficiaries, preparing an inventory and valuation of assets, completing prescribed forms, paying applicable fees and satisfying other registry requirements. Procedures vary across jurisdictions in the country and depend on the circumstances of each estate. 

Where documentation is incomplete, the estate is complex or questions arise about the Will, administration may be delayed. Matters become more difficult when a relative or beneficiary challenges the Will, enters a caveat or commences litigation. Legal expenses accumulate, family relationships deteriorate, and intended beneficiaries may wait for years before receiving their inheritance. A child expecting to inherit a house may be unable to deal freely with the property while administration remains outstanding. Similarly, a beneficiary hoping to use inherited funds to establish a business may be frustrated by delays. Across Nigeria, families have experienced difficulties accessing their late parents’ estates because of disputes over Wills and prolonged legal proceedings. See Dan Jumbo v Dan Jumbo. Where a court declares a Will invalid, those named as beneficiaries may lose their entitlement under that document, and the estate may instead be distributed under the applicable intestacy rules. Consequently, people the deceased deliberately intended to benefit may receive nothing under the disputed Will. Ajibaiye v Ajibaiye

This does not mean every challenge will succeed or that all beneficiaries will necessarily be excluded. It nevertheless highlights a risk in postponing every act of generosity until death: the intended beneficiaries may have to establish their entitlement through a process whose outcome is uncertain. A lifetime gift, commonly called a gift inter vivos, is a gift intended to take effect during the donor’s lifetime. Where validly completed, ownership of the transferred interest generally passes to the beneficiary, and the property ordinarily ceases to form part of the donor’s estate.This distinction is significant. A beneficiary who acquires valid ownership of property during the donor’s lifetime does not ordinarily have to establish entitlement to that property through the donor’s Will. The claim rests on the completed transfer rather than a testamentary promise. For instance, a parent with several properties may transfer a house to a child who needs accommodation or give land to another who wishes to build a home. A business owner may transfer an interest in a business to a child already involved in its management. These arrangements provide practical support while allowing the giver to witness the benefits.

Properly completed lifetime gifts may also reduce the assets that must subsequently pass through probate, potentially simplifying the administration of the remaining estate. However, such transfers must comply with applicable law. A mere declaration or unfulfilled promise to give land may not be sufficient. Depending on the circumstances, a gift may require an appropriate deed, acceptance, execution, registration and any necessary consent. Sections 21 and 22 of the Land Use Act 1978 regulate certain dealings involving statutory and customary rights of occupancy. Lifetime gifts are not immune from disputes though. Transfers may be challenged on grounds such as fraud, undue influence, incapacity or failure to comply with legal formalities. Proper legal advice and documentation are therefore essential. Encouraging lifetime gifts does not mean abandoning Wills. A Will remains useful for assets an owner wishes to retain throughout life, property acquired later and assets not transferred before death. It also allows the testator to appoint executors and give instructions for distributing the remaining estate.

Property owners must also avoid giving away assets indiscriminately. Adequate provision should be made for personal upkeep, accommodation, healthcare and other financial responsibilities. Parents should never be pressured into transferring their entire estates or surrendering their financial independence. Where a donor wishes to retain the right to occupy a gifted house, that arrangement should be properly structured and documented. Ultimately, the value of wealth is measured not only by what a person leaves behind but also by the good it accomplishes during that person’s lifetime. A gift of land may enable a child to build a home; financial assistance may help a young person establish a business; and a properly transferred property may provide security while the donor is still alive to share in the beneficiary’s joy. Probate is a necessary safeguard, not a reason to dismiss Wills. Nevertheless, where appropriate, lifetime gifts can reduce the property left for administration and help beneficiaries avoid waiting for assets that could have been transferred earlier.

My appeal is simple: let us cultivate a culture of thoughtful giving. Make a Will, but also consider what you can responsibly give today. Seek legal advice, document your intentions and ensure every transfer is properly completed. Why wait until death to give when we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of those we love today?

By: Calista Ezeaku

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Opinion

Nigeria’s Anti-corruption Institutions: How Independent? 

Published

7 days ago

on

October 19, 2026

By

Quote:“Nigeria’s anti-corruption battle is too important to be reduced to political contests or personalities. It must rise above administrations, parties and individuals and become a sustained national institutional commitment.”

Corruption remains one of Nigeria’s most persistent governance challenges. It affects public resources, weakens institutions, undermines service delivery and erodes citizens’ confidence in government. For decades, successive administrations have declared their commitment to fighting corruption, while agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) have investigated and prosecuted numerous cases. Yet, beyond the number of arrests, investigations, prosecutions and convictions, there is a more fundamental question Nigeria must continue to confront: How independent and fair are the institutions entrusted with the fight against corruption?

This question matters because the success of anti-corruption agencies depends not only on their legal powers but also on the confidence citizens have in the manner those powers are exercised. An agency may possess extensive statutory authority, but if citizens believe that its decisions are influenced by political considerations, public confidence can suffer. The ICPC Act provides for the Commission’s independence, stating that in discharging its functions, it shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. This statutory provision is significant. An agency charged with investigating public officers and institutions must be sufficiently protected from improper influence if it is to perform its duties objectively.

Independence, however, should not be confused with freedom from accountability. Anti-corruption agencies must themselves operate within the law and remain subject to appropriate constitutional, judicial and institutional checks. The power to investigate and prosecute is enormous, and such power must always be exercised responsibly.This is where fairness becomes indispensable.  An effective anti-corruption campaign cannot be built on the perception that the law is tough on some people and gentle on others. Citizens should be able to believe that allegations are examined on their merits, evidence determines the direction of investigations, and suspects are afforded due process irrespective of their political status, social standing or connections.

The presumption of innocence must remain sacrosanct. Being investigated is not the same as being guilty, just as being charged is not the same as being convicted. The media and the public also have a responsibility to distinguish allegations from established facts. At the same time, fairness must not become an excuse for inaction. Where credible evidence exists, investigations should proceed without fear or favour. The challenge, therefore, is to build anti-corruption institutions whose actions are guided by law rather than personalities. Their credibility should not depend on who occupies political office, which party is in power or whose interests may be affected by an investigation. Nigeria has made important institutional investments in the fight against corruption.

The EFCC’s mandate covers the investigation and prosecution of economic and financial crimes, while the ICPC combines enforcement with preventive measures, including institutional reforms and anti-corruption initiatives within public institutions. But enforcement alone cannot eliminate corruption. Institutions must also close the loopholes that make corrupt practices possible. Procurement systems, financial controls, public-sector accountability and transparency mechanisms must be continually strengthened. Prevention is often more effective and less costly than waiting for corruption to occur before pursuing those involved. The judiciary also has an important role. Courts provide the constitutional and legal checks necessary to ensure that anti-corruption powers are exercised within the law.

Judicial oversight should not be regarded as an obstacle to the anti-corruption fight. Rather, it is part of what gives the fight legitimacy. There is also a need for greater transparency in the work of anti-corruption agencies. Nigerians deserve credible information about institutional performance, while sensitive investigations must be protected from unnecessary exposure. Regular publication of statistics, outcomes and institutional reports can help citizens distinguish between genuine enforcement and publicity. Ultimately, Nigeria does not need an anti-corruption campaign that is powerful only when directed at particular individuals. It needs institutions that remain strong regardless of who is being investigated. The real measure of progress should therefore go beyond the number of people arrested or prosecuted.

It should include whether public institutions are becoming more transparent, whether public funds are better protected and whether citizens believe that the law applies fairly. Nigeria’s anti-corruption battle is too important to be reduced to political contests or personalities. It must rise above administrations, parties and individuals and become a sustained national institutional commitment. Independent institutions, impartial investigations, due process, judicial oversight and equal application of the law are not competing objectives. They are the pillars upon which a credible anti-corruption system must stand. If Nigeria succeeds in building institutions that can investigate without fear, prosecute without favour and operate without improper political interference, the country will have moved beyond the politics of anti-corruption to the establishment of a genuine culture of accountability. The ultimate victory over corruption will not come merely when more people are punished; it will come when Nigerian institutions become strong enough to make corruption increasingly difficult to commit, conceal and protect.

By:  Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Opinion

Nigeria On Age of Prosperity?

Published

3 weeks ago

on

October 5, 2026

By

Quote: “The real test of prosperity is not what government announces, but what the ordinary Nigerian can afford, earn and hope for.”
Nigeria’s 66th Independence Anniversary came with a message of hope from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu: the country has moved beyond the difficult phase of economic reforms and is now entering what he called an “age of prosperity.” In his October 1 national broadcast, titled From Reform to Prosperity, the President argued that the painful economic measures of the past three years had corrected the country’s economic direction and laid the foundation for shared and widespread prosperity.
The declaration is significant because Nigerians have lived through an extraordinarily difficult period. The removal of fuel subsidy, exchange-rate reforms, rising living costs and other economic adjustments have placed considerable pressure on households and businesses. Government’s argument has consistently been that these sacrifices were necessary to correct structural weaknesses and prevent an even deeper economic crisis. President Tinubu therefore used his Independence Day address to announce what he sees as the beginning of the reward phase.
According to the President, the economic indicators now point in the right direction. He said Nigeria’s economy had grown by more than four per cent in 2026, while both the oil and non-oil sectors contributed to the growth. He also cited declining oil theft, falling inflation from its peak, rebuilt foreign reserves, greater stability in the foreign exchange market and more than $6 billion in non-oil export revenue in 2025.
But economic statistics, important as they are, must eventually be translated into household realities. For the average Nigerian, prosperity is not merely a matter of GDP growth, foreign reserves or export figures. It is the ability to buy food without anxiety, pay school fees without borrowing, travel at affordable cost, access healthcare, secure decent accommodation and earn an income that provides dignity.
This is where the President’s new promise becomes particularly important. He said prosperity would mean a Nigeria where farmers can cultivate their land safely, produce at lower cost and earn decent returns; where factories have reliable electricity; where businesses can obtain credit; where young people can find productive employment; and where food, transportation and education become more affordable.
That vision places production at the centre of the prosperity agenda. Nigeria cannot permanently consume its way out of poverty. The country must produce more food, manufacture more goods, create more jobs and export more competitive products. This requires reliable electricity, good roads, efficient rail and port systems, accessible credit, security for farmers and investors, and an environment in which businesses can survive and expand.
The President’s emphasis on agriculture is therefore noteworthy. Nigeria has vast arable land and a large youthful population, yet food insecurity and high food prices remain major concerns. Expanding irrigation, mechanisation, access to inputs, storage and transportation could help reduce production and distribution costs if properly implemented. The challenge, however, will be moving from policy announcements to measurable results across the farming communities.
The same applies to employment. Nigeria’s youthful population can become an enormous economic advantage, but only if young people have opportunities to acquire relevant skills and participate meaningfully in the economy. President Tinubu spoke of expanding digital connectivity, supporting industries, using domestic gas to power factories and helping Nigerian businesses grow.
These are areas that deserve sustained attention because prosperity cannot be built on government spending alone. It must be driven by productive citizens, viable businesses, innovative entrepreneurs and industries capable of creating wealth and employment.
Yet, the transition from reform to prosperity must also recognise the millions of Nigerians who cannot afford to wait indefinitely for the benefits of future growth. The President acknowledged that many families still struggle with food, school fees, medical expenses and transportation. His administration therefore pointed to social support programmes, education loans, consumer credit and other interventions as bridges towards greater economic opportunity.
The question Nigerians will inevitably ask is: when will the promised prosperity become visible in their homes and communities?
That question should not be dismissed as impatience. It is the legitimate demand of citizens who have been asked to endure sacrifice in anticipation of better times. If reforms are to retain public confidence, their benefits must progressively become tangible. Lower production costs should ultimately mean lower prices. Increased investment should create jobs. Higher agricultural output should improve food availability. Economic growth should broaden opportunity rather than remain concentrated in statistics and balance sheets.
President Tinubu’s declaration that “the age of reform has done its work” therefore carries a heavy responsibility. The next phase must demonstrate that the sacrifices of Nigerians were not merely endured but converted into lasting national benefits.
Nigeria’s journey since independence has been marked by repeated promises of a better future. At 66, the country cannot afford another cycle in which hope rises with political declarations only to fade under the weight of everyday hardship. The promised age of prosperity must be measured by the quality of life of ordinary Nigerians.
The President has declared that Nigeria has passed through its own “Red Sea” and that the destination is now in sight. The road ahead must therefore be one of delivery, accountability and inclusion. Prosperity must reach the farmer in Rivers, the trader in Kano, the manufacturer in Lagos, the student in Enugu and the young entrepreneur in every part of Nigeria.
The age of prosperity, if it is to mean anything, must not remain a presidential phrase. It must become an experience Nigerians can see, feel and confidently pass on to the next generation.
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Continue Reading

Trending