Connect with us

Opinion

 Southeast: Epicentre Of Insecurity?

Published

on

If there is any issue in the country that needs urgent attention, it is the terrible insecurity situation in the Southeast. The problem has reached an alarming rate and it is high time politics, ethnicity and other unhealthy considerations were set aside so as to address the challenge squarely. It does not give joy that for the past years, the once peaceful zone has remained the epicentre of insecurity in the country. No day passes without a report of one kidnapping or the other in the region, particularly, in Enugu State. The Enugu-Ugwuogo-Opi Nsukka Road; 4-Corner-Udi Road; Old Udi-Oji River Road, and virtually all the express roads in the state have become kidnapping zones. People that go to work in Enugu from Nsukka and other towns in the state now do so at a high risk as the possibility of their safe arrival at their workplaces and return is not guaranteed.
Even when attending events in the villages, you are not safe. On Friday, August 25, there was an attempt to kidnap a classmate of mine and a journalist, Mr. Ikem Okuhu, at Umabor, Eha Alumona, Nsukka, during a burial ceremony, by men disguised as police officers. But for the intervention of friends and other people at the event, it would have been a different story. Other Southeastern states are not any better securitywise. Kidnapping, killing and other forms of insecurity have become the order of the day. Last Tuesday, the nation received the shocking news of the killing of about eight security operatives comprising soldiers, policemen and men of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps at Umualumaku community, Ehime Mbano Local Government Area of Imo State. The Southeast definitely cannot continue like this. It is affecting the people’s source of livelihood, their health, their psychological well being and everything
You can imagine the people, having to live in fear over these years both in their homes, on the road, at public places, everywhere. It is high time the southeast governors came together, kept their political ambitions, their selfish interests behind and found a lasting solution to this insecurity problem that is destroying the region. Governance is not just about what you will gain as a leader. It should be more about what you should do to better the lots of your people. The immediate past governors of the region came up with the idea of setting up a security outfit, Ebubeagu, similar to Amotekun that exists in the Southwest but that was dead on arrival because of the selfish interests of the governors and their failure to work as a body. The current governors have shown a sign of their willingness to work together.
Rising from their meeting in Enugu some weeks ago, they made known their resolution to fight insecurity decisively in the region individually and collectively, in partnership with the Federal Government and other Stakeholders. However, it is over a month after the meeting. We expect to see the road map of how they intend to tackle the menace. The people have heard sweet talks and empty promises for a long time. What they want to see now is action. They want to see the governors truly committed to this cause through good governance and physical development of their states. Economic development of the region is key in solving this problem. By creating jobs and economic opportunities, the appeal of criminal activities for young people can be reduced. This can be achieved through investments in infrastructure, education, and entrepreneurship programmes. Sometimes when you go to a state like Enugu you wonder how they survive due to the dearth of industries
. Those involved in agriculture find it difficult to do so because their farms have been taken over by criminals. In a national television interview recently, the former Governor of Enugu State, Dr Okwesilieze Nwodo, spoke the mind of many people on the causes of youth restiveness and crime in the South East and the way forward. He listed unemployment and lack of sincere dialogue with the youth as the major things fuelling insecurity. The former PDP national chairman observed that despite the fact that there are no jobs, the young people also feel extremely marginalized in their own country. They feel that instead of the Federal Government dialoguing with them, the various governments of the South East are in close cooperation with the federal government to stifle their agitation and they react by fighting back.”The country does not give them any hope and they accuse us their leaders of having failed them so they want self-help and we work very hard to counsel them that self-help will not take them anywhere, that it can only bring federal action to eliminate those who resort to self-help”, he said.
Coupled with these is the endless, senseless, mandatory Mondays sit-at-home order.  It is difficult to comprehend why the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) or whatever group that gives such order has continued on this fruitless trajectory for many years. How can you claim to be fighting for the liberation of your people when you continue to kill them, maim them, destroy their property and cause them pain?  Somebody will be sitting comfortably in a safe foreign country and issuing orders on how to make his homeland unsafe and some people are sheepishly carrying out the order? We have seen some past and current governors like Chukwuma Soludo of Anambra State and Peter Mba of Enugu State making efforts to put an end to the sit-at-home order, yet it persists. The criminals seem to have dared them by continuing the rain of mayhem on the states
So, there is no end in sight to the insecurity problem in the South East without the youths, the politicians who sometimes fuel the crisis and other stakeholders. It was good to hear the South East governors say they will partner with the federal government to tackle the high insecurity in the region because without the federal government’s commitment, the situation may not change. Ours is a system where the federal government is in charge of the police, army and other security agencies, where on paper the governors are said to be the chief security officers of their states but in practice they are not. With this, it is almost an impossible task for the governors to handle the situation effectively. They lack the capacity to face the criminals. The federal government must address the underlying grievances of the South Easterners through dialogue and negotiation. As have been severally suggested, the government must find a political solution to Nnamdi Kanu’s case.
The current insecurity problem in the South East is rooted in this case and the sooner it was addressed, the better. As Nwodo suggested, “The federal government should negotiate with our youth. Invite the young people and leaders from the zone and show the government’s sincerity and commitment to solving the problem. Find out from these young people why they are kidnapping, raping their people. The government and leaders of the zone will then make a commitment to solving this problem.” There is also a need for political and economic inclusion of the zone. Ensuring that the region is adequately represented in the political landscape and receives its fair share of economic resources can help address some of the underlying grievances that fuel insecurity. The nepotic tendencies in President Bola Tinubu’s appointments as being observed by many people is enough to aggravate the insecurity and agitation not only in the South East but also in other regions of the country.
Nigeria belongs to all the states and all the tribes and they all deserve to be involved in the administration of the country. That is what the Federal Character Principle which is enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution entails. To fight the lingering internal insurrection, those in authority must dispense equity, fairness and good governance. There must be good governance. Without these, the states and the country at large will continue to grapple with insecurity.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Continue Reading

Opinion

One Attack Too Many 

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth  

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s  Outburst

Published

on

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
Continue Reading

Trending