Opinion

Emergency Rule Extension; How Desirable?

Published

12 years ago

May 19, 2014

Last week, President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan
sent a proposal to the National Assembly seeking the extension of the state of emergency in the North Eastern States of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa even as Senators from these states have vowed to ensure that the proposal does not sail through.
What do the public think about the contentious issue? Our chief correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer went round the town to seek answers to the question.

Comrade Larry Owhonda – Chairman National Union of Printing Publishing Rivers State.
Well, the proposal by the president to extend the state of emergency in the three North Eastern States of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa is good because the insurgency in these states is still not settled. If not for the emergency rule probably the number of casualties would have been more than what we are currently experiencing. On the issue of National Assembly members from the North East kicking against the extension and claiming that the emergency rule has not been effective, I think they are not being sincere. They can not say the emergency rule has not benefited them. If they say it has not benefitted them, they should go home and see whether they can stay. They can’t stay in Abuja and say it has not benefitted them while their people are suffering at home. They should even be grateful to the president because he cares for the people or else they cannot stay in Abuja and be talking about voting against the president and yet they say they are representing the people. They are not representing the people if that is the case. Because as legislators, they are even the ones who should give support to the president, making sure that this insurgency comes to an end by supporting the emergency rule.
I will even advocate that there should be total emergency, the governors should all go so that the military can take full control of that area, because even among the politicians there are informants to Boko Haram. So if there is total emergency rule, the military can now be on top of the security situation in that area.

Mr. Paul Daga – Journalist. I think that proposal is very appropriate. I say so because the rate of insurgency in the north is becoming alarming. Just recently, over 200 Chibok School Girls were abducted and there is rampant cases of criminality. Every now and then, you hear people being killed. What that means, is that if the emergency rule was not in place, there would have been nobody in that region. Everybody would have ran away from there.
Yes, the emergency has been effective despite the abduction of the Chibok girls. But you don’t expect the military to be every where. Even we, over selves, have to be security conscious.
Even if we know that some security officials are around, we still have to employ some measure of security for ourselves. Those girls were taken in the night and you don’t know the terrain, you don’t know the nature of the area.
I disagree with the legislators from the north east saying the emergency rule has not yielded any positive result. During the last presidential media chat, the president rightly said that if we think the emergency rule is not working let’s ask all the security personnel to withdraw and you will see what happens there. So, it is working and the extension is necessary. It should be extended by six months after which we review the situation and if there is need for more extension, the president should go ahead and extend it. That place must be sanitised, I would have wished that the emergency rules should be total, every political structure should be disbanded, the army should take over the whole place so, that they can be very effective.

Mr. Abel Ohiomoje- Banker. Personally, I don’t think it is the extension of the state of emergency that will solve the issue of insurgency in Nigeria. We really need to look at the root causes of this problem. I think it is politically motivated more than what they are portraying in the media. All these issues came into play when somebody from the minority ethnic group took over the mantle of leadership of the country. If Boko Haram is really a terrorist organization, how come we were not hearing much about them, they weren’t this active. I know they’ve been on ground for some years now but it wasn’t up to this scale. The issues of suicide bombing and so on just started when somebody from the minority took over power. The truth is that our mentality as Nigerians have to change especially the mentality of having three major tribes. I have never been a fan of it. I don’t see a country where you say that it is just three tribes out of so many that are meant to rule. That has been our problem from the genesis.
Secondly, our political offices are just too attractive financially. If our political offices are not that financially attractive, if it such that if you are going there, you know that you are going there for the service of humanity not to make millions, I don’t see how politicians will make it a do or die thing, such that they will go to the extent of arming youths to get their selfish interests carried out.
So far with the state of emergency in place, insecurity problem has not be tackled. It is even growing by the day. So I don’t think extending it will be called for rather should be called off but the people from these communities must be involved in securing their localities. If they are involved I don’t see how Boko Haram members will be succeeding. This people are not spirits. They stay somewhere, they have neighbours. You can’t just tell me they disappear into tin air. From all the scenario being played out especially in the case of the Chibok girls kidnapping it is obvious that our security has been compromised. It has gone beyond what we are actually seeing on TV.

Comrade Kelvin Acha – Student. For me, I like the idea of extending the emergency rule because really the terrorists have been disturbing and if the state of emergency is not extended they will begin to disturb the nation the more I believe the state of emergency reduces the activities of Boko Haram a bit compare to when they are free. But if you ask me, I would have suggested that the extension should be for only four moths instead of six months that the president proposed.

Mr. Hope Solomon – Civil Servant. It is a good proposal. It’s a good thing to extend the emergence rule so that the place can be sanitised. As far as I am concerned, the emergency rule has been effective if it has not been effective Boko Haram would have taken over the North East. The way they came, they would have taken over the place. Northern Senators said they would vote against the emergency rule proposal. Tell me, is this country their own? But the president has the power to veto it even if they vote against it. For the lives of the people there, let the emergency rule continue. I will even prefer a total state of emergency. Let the military take absolute control. The senators are in Abuja and do not suffer what the people in their villages are passing through. They should go to their villages, let the terrorists come and lets see what will happen. Let’s see if they can defend themselves.

Daerefama Anabraba – Legal Practitioner. For me, what we should ask ourselves is, prior before now the emergency rule has been on, what effect has it created and why should we extend it? That is what we should think about. And I think if the thing is not working out we should find any other means of solving the problems of the northerners and not by always extending the emergency rule.
Let us see the state of emergency from the perspective of the senators from the affected states. Although Goodluck Jonathan is our brother but let us see it from those legislators perspective. How far, how well has it gone? So I think for now let the president look for a better panacea than always extending the emergence.
I think the involvement of foreign nationals in the fight against Boko Haram is a good development. So I think government should go for that one instead of extending the emergency rule. There shouldn’t be any extension for now.

Opinion

One Attack Too Many

Published

3 days ago

August 17, 2026

The Tide

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

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth

Published

3 days 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