Editorial

Averting Third World War

Published

3 years ago

October 11, 2022

President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of parts of Russian-occupied Ukraine, after sham referendums there,
is at least as dangerous a moment in the war as the marathon televised spectacle that prefaced Russia’s invasion in February this year. Russia annexed four regions of Ukraine, namely; Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Together with Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, Russia now claims 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory.
With the invasion in February, Russia planned to quickly behead Kyiv’s political leaders, seize large swathes of territory, and exert influence over Ukraine, perhaps, leaving some troops there. Ukraine’s dogged resistance culminating in the lightning recapture of territories in the Kharkiv region has put the Kremlin on the back foot, compelling it to surge forward willy-nilly with what has ensued as its plan B.
Days earlier, Putin had warned Ukraine and the international community: “When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened … we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” adding, “it’s not a bluff.” The World should not squeeze at the implied nuclear weapons blackmail, but continue to push back at Putin’s megalomania. His strategy is no surprise, given his history of occupying and claiming for Russia territories that do not belong to it.
Many world leaders and security experts see the annexation and the threats to use nuclear weapons as acts of desperation. The myth of the unstoppable Russian army vanished on the battlefield. Putin and his generals, and even Western security experts, had expected Russian forces to defeat Ukraine within a month, but the conflict has stretched into eight months and the invaders have suffered humiliating reversals.
Putin is disadvantaged. His carefully cultivated image of masculinity as a winner and strategist has been tarnished both domestically and internationally. Desperate, armed with the world’s second-largest military, and the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and without effective institutional rail guards in the country, Putin is a dangerous cannon.
His latest tactic is to create a pretext for a full-scale mobilisation of the Russian people, rallying them to defend an imaginary invasion of Russia when Ukraine attacks invaders and pro-Russian rebels in the “annexed” areas. Using the same “defend the motherland” logic, he says the use of nuclear weapons is legal.
The vacuousness of annexation is evident on the ground. With Moscow formalising incorporation, Zaporizhzhia’s provincial capital and more than 40 per cent of Donetsk are under the control of Ukraine’s intrepid army, which has been reclaiming occupied territories. Unable to subdue Ukraine by conventional force, he is wielding the nuclear option.
But the United States National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has warned of “catastrophic consequences for Russia” if it crosses that red line, emphasising that the United States “will respond decisively.” “World peace is in jeopardy,” stated the European Union’s Head of Foreign Policy, Josep Borrel. “Threatening with nuclear weapons is unacceptable and a real danger to all.” This unassailable fact is underlined by the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Use of Nuclear Weapons, a legally binding instrument of the world body.
Ironically, Russia chairs the Security Council, the United Nations-mandated body for peace, just as many see it as the biggest threat to peace. Ukrainian Ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya even suggested removing Russia from the Security Council. But will this happen? That would require a vote of the United Nations General Assembly based on the recommendation of the Security Council. This has never been done. And given that Russia has a veto on the Security Council, the Council cannot recommend Russia’s removal without its approval.
The dictator clarified that his military was in Ukraine, but his war was against the post-Soviet global order as a whole, and he could not accept a world dominated by the United States and European allies, describing his crusades as one of “anti-colonialism”. It is ludicrous to imagine a figure like Putin building a better world. This language, as well as the madman’s recent dark warning that threats of nuclear retaliation were “not a bluff,” should worry us all.
Putin knows the power of spectacle, but he also knows it is not enough. Not a week after his annexation choreography, Ukrainian forces further routed his troops in the very areas Russian forces were supposed to now fully control. The attempt to draft men to replenish his dwindling forces is going terribly, with hundreds of thousands having fled already. Putin is running out of options, except for the most drastic one – the lever he can pull when all else fails.
Unfortunately, the unprecedented combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions, and exclusion from major international sporting events, has yet to produce the expected deterrent effect but has exacerbated economic problems for Russians and the rest of the world. Under the current circumstances, the international community has few options besides the potentially lethal path signalled by the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and European Union (EU) allies.
China can help intervene in Putin’s war against Ukraine. As the only country that still has leverage over Russia, it can do so by engaging constructively with belligerents and by avoiding overt support for Moscow’s military adventurism. President Xi Jinping and the ruling Communist Party need to look beyond their ongoing rivalry with the United States and NATO and their preoccupation with China’s geostrategic calculations, especially unification with Taiwan and control of the South China Sea.
No one will be free from nuclear war; once hostilities escalate beyond Ukraine, its course and outcome will be unpredictable. It is therefore crucial now to cut off Putin’s power. That means supporting Russians’ rejection of his corrupt leadership. He can always fight the outside powers he feels besieged by, but he cannot survive a collapse in his domestic authority. The Russian dictator should be persuaded not to use Russia’s nuclear stockpile of nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads.
This war must end. The West should intensify sanctions. China, recognising its role in the global economy, its slowing growth and long-term interests, should get rid of Putin to complete his isolation and impel him to withdraw. The United States, NATO, and the European Union should continue to support Ukraine, resist and work with the United Nations to seek a quick solution through enhanced tact.

Editorial

Task Before New Defence Minister

Published

14 hours ago

December 8, 2025

The Tide

The appointment of General Christopher Musa as Nigeria’s Defence Minister has been met with widespread approval across the nation, and rightly so. After his commendable tenure as Chief of Defence Staff, where he demonstrated exceptional leadership and strategic acumen, Nigerians are justified in their optimism that he possesses the requisite credentials to tackle the country’s mounting security challenges. This is not merely another political appointment; it represents a deliberate and overdue shift towards placing experienced military personnel at the helm of our defence apparatus. The stakes could not be higher, and the nation’s expectations are correspondingly elevated.

For once, the Senate demonstrated the thoroughness that Nigerians have long demanded from their legislators. During approximately five hours of screening, General Musa faced rigorous questioning rather than the perfunctory “take a bow and go” treatment that has become the hallmark of senatorial confirmations. This meticulous approach signals a refreshing departure from the rubber-stamp mentality that has characterised many previous appointments. The lawmakers deserve commendation for recognising the gravity of the defence portfolio and subjecting the nominee to proper scrutiny. We can only hope this sets a precedent for future ministerial screenings.

President Bola Tinubu deserves credit for making what appears to be a pragmatic and judicious decision. By appointing someone with robust military credentials and intelligence expertise, the President has demonstrated an understanding that Nigeria’s security crisis demands specialised knowledge and battlefield experience. This appointment suggests a willingness to prioritise competence over political patronage, a quality that has been sorely lacking in previous administrations. The President must be encouraged to maintain this standard across other critical appointments.

The departure of Mohammed Badaru Abubakar from the Defence Ministry should serve as a lesson in the importance of matching expertise to responsibility. Whilst Mr Abubakar may possess political acumen, his lack of military background rendered him ill-equipped for the complexities of national defence. He was, in every sense, a square peg in a round hole. The previous arrangement, which saw two politicians manning the Defence Ministry, was nothing short of a misnomer. One cannot credibly oversee military operations without understanding military strategy, tactics, and the psychology of warfare. The mistake should not be repeated.

Whilst we applaud both the President for this appointment and the Senate for their diligent screening, the real test lies ahead. General Musa must now prove his mettle in the theatre of action. Words and credentials, however impressive, mean little without tangible results. Nigeria has suffered too long under the scourge of insecurity, with bandits, terrorists, and kidnappers operating with impunity across vast swathes of the country. The new minister must act decisively to save the nation from the embarrassment of continued security failures. The time for excuses has passed; Nigerians demand results.

During his screening, General Musa made a particularly important pledge: to end the patronage of bandits and terrorists by state governors. This commitment strikes at the heart of one of Nigeria’s most troubling security contradictions. The practice of negotiating with criminals, often facilitated or endorsed by state governments, has emboldened these miscreants and transformed banditry into a profitable enterprise. Such negotiations amount to nothing less than aiding and abetting criminality. General Musa’s promise to treat these elements as the criminals they are, rather than as legitimate negotiating partners, is commendable and must be pursued with unwavering resolve. There can be no compromise on this principle.

The new minister must undertake a comprehensive overhaul of Nigeria’s security architecture to enhance military effectiveness. This requires close collaboration with the service chiefs to establish clear objectives and ensure coordinated execution. Beyond structural reforms, General Musa must address the discipline deficit within the military ranks. Reports of corruption, negligence, and complicity in security breaches have eroded public confidence in the armed forces. Restoring discipline is not merely an administrative matter; it is fundamental to rebuilding the military’s credibility and operational effectiveness. Without discipline, no amount of equipment or funding will suffice.

General Musa’s promise to investigate the mysterious withdrawal of soldiers from the school in Kebbi State, which preceded the kidnapping of students, demonstrates a welcome commitment to accountability. This incident exemplifies the inexplicable lapses that have characterised Nigeria’s security response. Someone ordered or permitted that withdrawal, and the timing suggests either catastrophic incompetence or deliberate sabotage. The minister must get to the root of this matter and ensure that culprits face appropriate sanctions. Only through such decisive action can he send a clear message that negligence and complicity will no longer be tolerated.

However, Musa cannot succeed without adequate resources. The Federal Government must provide sufficient funding to enable the Defence Ministry to perform optimally. Next year’s budgetary allocation must reflect the enormous task at hand. It is counterproductive to demand results whilst starving the military of the resources necessary for modern warfare. This includes investment in intelligence gathering, modern weaponry, surveillance technology, and troop welfare. A poorly equipped and demoralised military cannot be expected to defeat well-armed insurgents and bandits who increasingly possess sophisticated weaponry.

The political class must resist the temptation to interfere with the General’s work. Whilst many politicians publicly profess support for the fight against insecurity, evidence suggests that some work surreptitiously to undermine these efforts for personal or political gain. Whether through the aforementioned negotiations with bandits, the protection of criminal elements, or the diversion of security funds, political interference has consistently sabotaged military operations. General Musa must be given the autonomy to perform his duties professionally. Only then can he be fairly held accountable for outcomes. The President must shield him from political machinations and vested interests.

The military must abandon its reactive, fire brigade approach to security operations. Waiting to respond only after attacks have occurred is a strategy of perpetual failure. The armed forces must take the fight to the criminals’ hideouts, conducting sustained offensive operations that dismantle their infrastructure and eliminate their capacity to strike. This requires robust intelligence, rapid deployment capabilities, and the political will to sustain operations until objectives are achieved. Proactive military engagement, not defensive positioning, is what the situation demands.

Nigeria’s porous borders represent a critical vulnerability that demands immediate attention. Countries around the world have recognised that border security is fundamental to national security. India has erected comprehensive fencing along its border with Pakistan specifically to prevent terrorist infiltration. Israel has constructed sophisticated barrier systems along multiple borders. Hungary built fences along its borders with Serbia and Croatia. Even the United States has invested billions in border security infrastructure. These nations understand what Nigeria seems reluctant to acknowledge: that uncontrolled borders invite national disaster.

Our borders remain scandalously porous, serving as entry points for the foreign fighters who constitute a proportion of those conducting attacks on Nigerian soil. The Lake Chad Basin, where Nigeria shares borders with Cameroon, Niger, and Chad, has become a particularly problematic corridor through which terrorists move freely. Without proper border infrastructure, surveillance systems, and adequate personnel deployment, Nigeria will continue to face an endless influx of armed criminals. The Defence Minister must prioritise border security as part of a comprehensive strategy to protect Nigerian lives and territory. The appointment of a competent Defence Minister means little if our borders remain open highways for those who wish us harm.

Editorial

HYPREP And The Collapsed Water Tank

Published

2 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

The recent collapse of a water tank built by the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) in the Gwara area of Ogoni in Rivers State is an alarming reminder of how easily public faith in government interventions can erode when development projects fail so soon after their unveiling. The incident has stirred deep concern across the state, raising doubts about whether the communities can truly rely on the structures meant to improve their lives.

Only days earlier, the Minister of Environment, Balarabe Lawal, had proudly inaugurated two water projects in Bane and Gwara communities in the Khana Local Government Area, with residents celebrating what they believed would mark a new chapter in access to clean and safe drinking water. The communities had hoped these projects would bring long-awaited relief and stand as symbols of meaningful government presence.

Yet in an unexpectedly disturbing turn of events, the Gwara water station, designed to supply potable water to about 14 communities, collapsed merely three days after the commissioning. This rapid failure has left residents not only shocked but also frustrated, as such an outcome suggests deep flaws in planning, execution, supervision, or all three combined.

Some natives allege that the debacle resulted from the use of inferior construction materials, raising a serious accusation that calls into question the level of professionalism involved. If such claims turn out to be true, then the collapse becomes more than an accident; it becomes evidence of negligence that could have endangered several lives.

Others are alleging outright sabotage, a troubling claim that suggests there may be forces actively working against the progress of development projects in the area. This possibility only widens the scope of questions that investigators must answer to restore public confidence.

Meanwhile, HYPREP insists that its water projects in other Ogoni communities are functioning efficiently and that this particular incident does not define the overall quality of its work. However, this defence, while necessary, does little to calm a community that has already seen too many failed promises over the years.

This situation raises an important question about whether the good work of HYPREP is being undermined by unscrupulous individuals whose interests may not align with the welfare of the people. If sabotage is indeed at play, then identifying those responsible becomes crucial in preventing further setbacks.

Given the gravity of the matter, the collapse requires an immediate and rigorous investigation to uncover what truly happened and why. It is reassuring that a committee has already been set up to delve into the details, but the public expects nothing short of a transparent and thorough process.

The fact remains that if the tank had collapsed on people, the community would be counting casualties and dealing with a deeply grievous tragedy. The near-miss should serve as a wake-up call about the potential dangers that poorly executed infrastructure projects pose in vulnerable areas.

It is therefore expected that the findings of the committee will expose the actual competence or otherwise of the contractors HYPREP engages. Only a reliable and professional team can successfully deliver the kind of durable infrastructure that the Ogoni people deserve.

If such a catastrophe can occur just days after commissioning, it indicates that similar incidents may happen again in the future unless deliberate and strategic efforts are made to prevent them. Preventive measures must become a standard part of project planning and monitoring.

The public cannot help but question why an organisation as financially endowed as HYPREP appears unable to deliver a credible water project for the Gwara community. With the massive resources at its disposal, the people expect excellence, not excuses.

Ogoni, being a historically volatile area whose people have endured relentless injustice and environmental degradation, cannot afford provocations of this nature. A crisis could easily have been triggered if the collapse had caused casualties or severe destruction.

More regrettably, the Ogoni clean-up has evolved into a lucrative cash cow for corrupt officials who seem more interested in contracts and kickbacks than in the wellbeing of the people. Meanwhile, residents continue to drink polluted water, suffer from inadequate healthcare, and navigate treacherous road networks.

Communities across Ogoniland must refuse to remain silent when substandard projects are imposed on them. Their voices and vigilance are vital in demanding accountability and ensuring that development interventions truly meet their needs.

HYPREP, on its part, must reaffirm an unwavering commitment to quality, transparency, and accountability in all ongoing and future water projects across Ogoni. Only through this can it rebuild trust and demonstrate that it genuinely prioritises the people.

Finally, HYPREP must enforce rigorous internal and external quality assurance mechanisms that leave no room for negligence. Restoration work should commence urgently, with all efforts dedicated to ensuring that project delivery meets global standards and restore hope to the long-suffering communities of Ogoniland.

Editorial

Resurgence Of Illegal Structures In PH

Published

3 weeks ago

November 19, 2025

The Tide

The resurgence of illegal structures in Port Harcourt has become a thing of deep concern for residents who remember what the city once looked like and what it has now become. From street corners to backyard spaces, unapproved buildings and makeshift extensions are rising once again, disturbing the orderliness that once defined the capital of Rivers State. The return of this ugly trend signals a worrying decline in urban discipline.

Illegal structures were decisively prohibited during the administration of Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, who enforced the ban in 2008. His government recognised that Port Harcourt was slipping into chaos, and firm action was taken to restore the integrity of the city’s physical environment. What followed was a sweeping clampdown on structures that violated the city’s masterplan.

The enforcement was so severe and so uncompromising that many residents of the Garden City took it upon themselves to demolish their own illegal structures in order to avoid heavier sanctions. It was a defining moment in the city’s recent history, because it demonstrated that with political will and consistent implementation, urban order could be restored.

The demolition exercise brought back the beauty of Port Harcourt. The city began to breathe again as congested spaces opened up and previously blocked access routes became free. There was a noticeable improvement in cleanliness and spatial organisation, and the renewed aesthetic appeal was appreciated by many who had longed for a well-planned urban landscape.

Many backyards became so spacious that they were not only neat but motorable. Before the enforced clean-up, these same spaces had been used for all kinds of menial activities. Some were turned into mechanic workshops, while others were cluttered with kiosks and shanties that distorted the environment. The transformation that followed the demolition was evidence of what strong governance can achieve.

When former Governor Nyesom Wike assumed office in 2015, he sustained the ban and continued the demolition of illegal structures. This ensured that the gains of the previous administration were not eroded. Residents saw a continuation of orderliness and appreciated the consistency in urban policy.

Sadly, today, illegal structures have returned in full force, defacing the state capital and reintroducing the very problems that had earlier been tackled. These structures now appear everywhere, giving Port Harcourt the look of a city sliding back to its infamous reputation as a Garbage City. This development is unacceptable and raises questions about the laxity of enforcement agencies.

We therefore urge the Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development to halt this dangerous trend by rigorously enforcing the ban on illegal structures across Port Harcourt. Without immediate action, the city risks losing the gains of years of disciplined planning.

Such structures must be identified and demolished without hesitation, and their owners prosecuted in accordance with the law. This is necessary to send a clear message that Port Harcourt cannot be returned to filth, especially in an era when cities around the world strive to modernise and maintain order.

Additionally, the Urban Development Ministry should intensify the monitoring and control of physical development in the city. Before any new site is approved, the Ministry must ensure that access roads, drainage systems, markets, and other social amenities are included in the layout. Proper planning must precede construction.

The Rivers State Government must take more than a passive interest in the development of virgin areas within the metropolis. It is discouraging that illegal structures continue to spring up even in locations where earlier demolitions had taken place. This shows a lack of consistent supervision.

A responsible government sustains good policies introduced by previous administrations rather than discarding them. The fight against illegal structures should not depend on who occupies the Brick House, but on the collective desire to preserve the city’s integrity.

One of the primary features of a modern city is its aesthetic value, complemented by good roads and effective sanitation. Illegal structures distort these values. They obstruct traffic, endanger pedestrians, and increase the likelihood of accidents. When order is compromised, everyone suffers.

There must also be policies to regulate the indiscriminate sale of properties in the state. Many illegal structures exist because land transactions are poorly monitored. Enlightenment campaigns will help residents understand the dangers and legal implications of contributing to urban disorder.

Finally, the authorities must rise to their responsibilities. The Ministry of Urban Development must take immediate action to restore sanity. Port Harcourt is the only real metropolitan centre that Rivers State can boast of, which means it must be carefully maintained. Its masterplan should not be tampered with, and the city must be preserved for future generations.