Opinion
Developing Workers’ Capacity For Productivity
Capacity development is indispensable for enhanced productivity for efficiency and effectiveness of workers and ultimate development of society. You can imagine the ineptitude and ineffectiveness that will characterise production services without intentional, periodic manpower training. Using untrained workers for production processes is akin to using a blunt knife to fell a tree. The consequences are better imagined than experienced. The worker will be exhausted, unable to perform the work creditably, the work delivery will be longer than necessary ( if delivered at all). Compliance to specification and timeline is a mirage. And such situations will translate to counter-productivity. Developed economies are driven by efficient and effective manpower. There is no amount of resources channelled into capacity building that is a waste. In fact building the capacity of workers is a necessary investment that will yield short-term and long-term dividends. Employers who have discovered the value of manpower development stop at nothing, leaves no stone unturned in ensuring that their employees are trained.
Priority should be given to training of workers. No employer of labour should hope to get maximum and optimal productivity without training, and retraining of its workforce. Manpower, not capital, remains the most critical factor of production. It is manpower that determines the capital base, sustainability, and durability of any corporate organisation. It is the trained and well motivated manpower that drives realisation of corporate goals. When a worker is trained, the organisation has life. And its existence is guaranteed. A trained worker is the oxygen and lifeline of any organisation. When manpower or workers are neglected, demotivated and untrained, then the organisation will inevitably totter on the brink of bankruptcy and consequent extinction, its assets base notwithstanding. Lao Russell, the Russian philosopher and educationist once wrote, “In vain you build the city if you don’t first build the man”. This aphorism is a stark truth and incontestable. Most Unfortunately, many employers of labour place value on profit making while treating the training of workers with levity.
The output of a worker is the direct natural result of who he or she really is. No person gives what he or she does not have. The effeciency or inefficiency of a worker comes to bare on the work he or she does. Manpower training or capacity building is the bedrock for fulfilled dreams, vision and yearning. Periodic training, including pre-engagement orientation reduces job or occupation related hazards. It reduces ignorance-induced manhour losses and avoidable deaths. An accident that leads to death in companies that prioritise safety, grounds the wheel of industry and throws the work environment into an unpleasant euphoria. Multinational companies and other private businesses run on core management principles are irrevocably committed to the training of workers because they believe that the manpower is the engine of the company. When the engine malfunctions and eventually packs up then all hope is lost. With a trained workforce any business can rise from obscurity to stardom, from grass to grace and bankruptcy to affluence.
However, permit me say without fear of contradiction that manpower training seems alien to the public sector. Employment into the public sector is mostly based on paper qualifications without recourse to capacity to deliver on assigned responsibility. Learning on the job, which is conversely, a capacity building manpower development mechanism, or skill transfer is one way to generate knowledge and experience informally and deploy into the job for positive results. Since most public schools are theory based, leaving graduands with no requisite practical knowledge, on the job training and retraining remain the veritable measure to mitigate the consequent lacuna and deficiencies. I discover that God created humans with potentials most of which are latent and innate, only training, and retraining will develop and fan them to flames. Therefore, the public sector should place value on workers training so the best of the workers can be extracted and brought to bare on the work they do. I wish to reiterate that Productivity is proportional to capacity.
I hope public sector, especially government establishment, will place value on manpower training and retraining so workers can compete favourably with their private sector counterparts and rake in the revenue and profits that government needs. Government should also commit to capacity building by awarding scholarship to deserving students to study courses in higher institutions within and outside the shores of Nigeria to address the manpower needs of the States and Nigeria. The administration of former Governor Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State deserves commendation in this regard. The future depends on how much we invest in manpower or human capital development and not necessarily material infrastructure, like roads and bridges.
By: Igbiki Benibo
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
