Opinion

Corruption As Retrogression

Published

5 years ago

August 23, 2021

Henry David Thoreau, an American naturalist, wrote, in his book: Walden, Or Life in the Woods (1854) that a man is a fool when he pays too much for what he wants, in terms of what it takes out of his very existence. Our own Dr Goodluck Jonathan would tell us that a man can be corrupt without taking a dime; neither should we consider any man a fool who would say that his personal ambition is not worth the blood of any human being. What we find is that human values and perceptions vary widely, and also represent levels of personal maturity or development.
It was noteworthy and instructive to see President Muhammadu Buhari exchanging pleasantries with former President Jonathan during the 59th Ordinary Session of Authority of Heads of State and Government of ECOWAS in Accra, recently; (ref. The Tide of Monday, August 9, 2021, Page 10). Obviously the concept of corruption has to do more with the state of the mind of an individual, manifesting visibly through personal integrity and empathy. Noble ideals show in the ways that an individual relates with others and also in deeds.
Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, a professor of law, was quoted long ago as wondering why Nigerians had not shown aggressive rage over the issue of corruption in the country, through protests. Nigerian masses know better than taking such pig-headed action because such protest would be dealt with in such vicious manner by the coercive agencies of state in a way to serve as a deterrent and warning. Thus, corruption as a retrogression works through the process of psychological conditioning with fear as a tool.
Origin of retrogressive movements in human history took a long process, with Scholasticism and Materialism standing out as recognisable pillars. During the Middle Ages, scholasticism was enthroned as a mass movement, whereby authority of the church fathers held sway, coupled with hollow intellectualism. The more loquacious and aggressive your disputation, the more your opinion stands as truth. The scriptures would be cited and quoted forward and backward as a weapon to silence rational personal conviction. Thus independent thinking and verification of issues became heresies.
Materialism as a worldview began as a global movement also in the Medieval era, spreading the philosophy that “only things that are apparent to the five senses are real, and that all actions, thoughts and beliefs can be explained by the movements and changes of matter”. Materialist philosophy was an effort to narcotise and hold human consciousness within the limits of quantifiable and provable issues. Thus began a regime of sharpening the faculty of perception to be “objective” in the scrutiny and analysis of issues. This system was also followed by the adoption of war of words to win arguments.
Unfortunately, the scholastic and materialist movements culminated in a rigidity and retrogression of human consciousness, wearing the cloak of an intellectual culture. Frankly, the intellectual culture gave rise to a process of large-scale and pervasive corruption whose domain of anchorage is beyond the physical or taking of bribes. Like former President Jonathan would say, a man can be corrupt without taking a dime. Corruption means retrogression or degeneration in awareness.
Stages of the process of retrogression or degeneration are many, quite slow and not easily recognisable. It begins with an increasing denseness, obtuseness and insensitiveness which manifest in a focus of attention on myopic personal interests. Then there is an absence of empathy with a diminution of the feeling of shame, which manifest in actions of ignoble nature, coupled with an aggressive efforts to defend or excuse such acts. Thus, there is an increasing culture of blustering and duplicity, leading to a widespread social anomie.
Then human perception and values become pressed into narrow and obscure limits such that there is a gross diminution of the reality of issues. With glib talks the smart fellow becomes the winner in arguments that involve deep ethical perception and evaluation. So long as issues are not brought or tabled within the framework of quantifiable and measurable indices, then a case can be dismissed as irrelevant and not deserving any further waste of time on. So the retrogressive process goes on and on.
Human institutions come handy as willing accomplices in the continual diminution of the range of human perception to purely material domain. Since there is no art to tell the mind’s construction on the face, rich garments can be worn to cover and conceal skeletons. Neither are there many people willing to take the pains and a free mind to explore and scrutinise issues or dig deeper than the surface to pick out what is real and true. Thus are we continuously deceived by ornaments, glib talks and threats.
With regards to the plundering and looting of Nigeria’s commonwealth by smart and clever persons, it becomes obvious that politics is also an accomplice in the regressive process. How else do we explain a situation where political parties in power provide protection and immunity to treasury looters as a bait to lure such exposed looters to switch camp! Such looters and destroyers of the economy, despite clever cover-ups, blusters and political protection, must reckon with Nemesis whose verdict can never be influenced by anyone.
Like cancerous growth, the ultimate purpose of corruption as a retrogressive process is the elimination of what is weak, derelict and not fit to serve as an instrument of a fresh up-building. The process is not a physically visible affair but strikes at the root of human consciousness and perception. The visible end-result, which is what we become quite obsessed about, is what cannot be eliminated or cured without addressing the root and origin. What we observe currently is the excrescence of a decayed human condition which takes various guises.
The looting or money-related aspect of corruption is not peculiar or exclusive to Nigeria alone because the phenomenon is a global one, manifesting in various countries according to their political economy. It is obvious that everybody is infected by the cancer whose root lies in human consciousness and perception, but not everybody in the same degree. The devouring plague would have its worst effect with those in the upper extreme. The virus manifests worst in policies which undermine the well-being of the masses. Thus you join the devouring system, as you cannot fight it.
Dr Amirize is a retired lecturer from the Rivers State University, Port Harcourt.

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth

Published

13 minutes 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

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Sacrificing Humanity for Politics?

Published

2 weeks ago

August 3, 2026

The Tide

“Politics is temporary, but humanity is permanent. No politician is worth sacrificing genuine friendships, family bonds, or peaceful coexistence.””Politics is temporary, but humanity is permanent”.

Every election season leaves behind more than ballot papers and campaign posters. It often leaves broken friendships, divided families, fractured communities, and hearts filled with resentment. In the heat of political competition, many people forget a simple but profound truth: politics is temporary, but humanity is permanent. Across our communities, it has become increasingly common to see people sever lifelong relationships simply because they support different political parties or candidates. Individuals who once shared meals, celebrated milestones, and stood by each other during difficult times suddenly become strangers not because they committed any personal offence, but because they exercised their democratic right to think differently. This growing trend should concern every citizen. Politics is designed to provide leadership, shape public policy, and improve society.

It was never intended to become a weapon for destroying relationships or creating permanent enemies. When politics begins to erode our humanity, it ceases to serve its true purpose. A democratic society thrives on diversity of thought. Every citizen possesses the constitutional right to support any political party, candidate, or ideology without fear of intimidation or hatred. Political disagreement is not a crime; rather, it is evidence that democracy is alive and functioning. The true measure of political maturity is not our ability to silence opposing voices but our willingness to respect them. Unfortunately, many people have mistaken political loyalty for personal hostility. Instead of debating ideas, they attack personalities. Instead of discussing policies, they spread insults and misinformation. Instead of building bridges, they construct walls of bitterness.

Such behaviour weakens not only our relationships but also the democratic values we claim to defend. The reality is simple: elections are temporary. Political offices have fixed tenures. Governments change. Political alliances shift. Today’s political rivals may become tomorrow’s allies, while today’s allies may become tomorrow’s opponents. History has repeatedly demonstrated that politicians who once exchanged harsh words eventually sit together at negotiation tables in pursuit of shared interests. Yet ordinary citizens often remain trapped in unnecessary hatred long after political leaders have reconciled.This reality offers an important lesson. No politician should be worth sacrificing genuine friendships, family bonds, or peaceful coexistence. Political support should never require personal hatred. We can campaign passionately for our preferred candidates while still respecting those who choose differently.

Democracy flourishes when disagreement remains civil. One of the most dangerous habits in politics is inheriting other people’s enemies. Far too often, supporters adopt the personal conflicts of political leaders as though they were their own. People who have never met begin insulting one another on social media, damaging relationships, and sometimes engaging in violence simply because influential figures disagree.Such misplaced loyalty serves no meaningful purpose. Political leaders often possess the opportunity to reconcile, negotiate, and move forward after elections. Their supporters, however, are frequently left with damaged relationships, regret, and lasting divisions within their communities. Wisdom demands that citizens distinguish between political competition and personal relationships. Rather than inheriting hostility, we should cultivate independent judgment.

Judge individuals by their character, integrity, honesty, and personal conduct not merely by the colour of the political party they support. A person’s political affiliation does not automatically define their values, competence, or humanity. Equally important is the need to elevate the quality of our political conversations. Instead of engaging in personal attacks, we should focus on issues that genuinely affect people’s lives. Discussions should revolve around education, healthcare, infrastructure, security, economic growth, employment, agriculture, and accountable governance. These are the matters that determine the future of our nation not endless exchanges of insults. Social media has further amplified political intolerance. Behind anonymous profiles and smartphone screens, many people say things they would never express in person.

Every post, comment, and shared message has the potential either to promote understanding or to deepen division. Responsible citizenship requires restraint, accuracy, and respect, especially during politically sensitive periods. Politics should inspire service, not hostility. Leadership should unite rather than divide. Citizens should be free to disagree without becoming enemies. After all, beyond our political preferences, we remain neighbours, colleagues, business partners, classmates, worshippers, and fellow citizens who share the same hopes for peace, prosperity, justice, and national development. As another political season approaches, let us remember what truly matters. Campaigns will end. Elections will pass. Winners will celebrate, and losers will regroup. But the relationships we preserve, the respect we extend, and the humanity we uphold will remain long after the campaign slogans have faded.

The greatest victory in politics is not defeating an opponent at the polls; it is preserving our values while participating in democracy. Let us choose dialogue over division, understanding over intolerance, and respect over hatred. Above all, let us never forget this timeless principle: Politics should never be more important than humanity. And perhaps the wisest political advice anyone can embrace is this: Never inherit people’s enemies. In doing so, we preserve not only our relationships but also the very spirit of democracy itself.