Opinion

2015 Election And Defection: What Do People Say?

Published

11 years ago

April 27, 2015

Following the victory of
the All Progressives Congress (APC) at the last presidential polls, there has been massive defection of politicians from their former political parties to the APC across the country.
This development has become worrisome to some people who think that it might lead to the death of opposition in Nigeria’s democracy.
How do Port Harcourt residents view the issue? Our Chief Correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Ibioye Diama went round the city to find out.

Mr Kelvin Sunju Ibiama – Politician
Well, we know very well that every human being will want to join the moving train. Nobody wants to sink with the sinking boat. So it’s part of the game. It is not unacceptable even though the winners will always want to say the losers that will come in shouldn’t come to displace them to benefit from the struggle. So it is a welcome idea. I know defection did not start today. So the massive defection is expected also considering the fact that APC is now the majority party that has won over 20 states. More will cross over through tribunal, through making sure that they remain in the moving train and you cannot stop people from moving from one party to the other except it will be enshrined in the constitution. For now, there is no embargo on defection from one party to another.
That said, I think the massive defection that is going on in the country now is a welcome development because if we all tilt to one side, the fight will be less. For instance if you look at second tenure elections, the fight is usually less than what we see during transition or free elections. The second tenure is always softened based on the fact that most people have accepted defeat, most people defected during the first tenure and all that. So if we all tilt to one side it will lessen the fight and create a more peaceful atmosphere for the electorate.
I am not saying opposition should be killed but if majority is on one it lessens the fight. It will Reduce violence in our elections. When there are strong oppositions definitely, the opposition plays a positive role in any democratic government. For instance, when we were all in PDP, what we heard was “carry go” when you shout PDP they would say “carry go, no shaking.”
But today, because of strong opposition you no longer hear carry go or no shaking. Every party now works. So when there is strong opposition, you know you cannot sleep until you get it right.

Mr Wosa Sunday Okedi- A Banker
Well, the issue is that Nigerians don’t play politics as sportsmen. They see politics as a do or die affair which is very bad. If you belong to a political party and at the end of the day that party does not win election, that does not mean that you should defect from your party to the winning party. Remain in your party and embrace the party that won. All we need is a peaceful atmosphere and development of the state and the nation.
Unfortunately, most of our politicians are extremely selfish. Their main reason for defection is to benefit from the ruling party and they go there they start to suppress other people. They are all the same people, moving from one party to another. The parties all have the same ideology, that is why the politicians can defect from one party to another easily. If they have different ideologies, the ideology of a particular party may not suit the members of another party, then they will not have any reason to defect. But because they have the same ideology, it is easy for them to move from one party to another.
I’m afraid, the massive, constant defection will affect our democracy if not checked. It will not allow our democracy to grow the way it supposed to grow. It will kill opposition and may lead to one party state which is not good. Opposition parties makes the ruling party to be up and doing. Opposition make the party in power to do something for the people and to fulfill their campaign promises.
So, the National Assembly should enact a law that will make it difficult for people to be jumping from one party to another. The law should state that once an election is conducted, there will be no room form defection. There should be a time frame for defection. If you don’t move from this period to this period, don’t move again, because your movement at this period may endanger our democratic process.

Mr Bestman Dinwee – Driver
What is there is that everybody has his own choice and there is nothing wrong with defection. Definitely everybody will not move to APC or PDP. There will still be those that will choose to remain in their parties. And that is why I condemn the recent warning by the publicity secretary of APC – Lai Mohammed that PDP member should stop defecting to APC. People have the right to join any party of their choice at anytime. Any where you see something coming out you go. There are so many reasons why people decamp. Somebody can give you some money to decamp from your party to another. Majority of our leaders do not help us, so anywhere you see help, you go.
But as I said earlier, it is a personal decision. For me, my party remains my party. PDP is the party I like and that is where I will remain. Others can decamp at any time, it is not my own problem. The important thing is that I’m still there and I don’t think anything will make me change my mind.

Miss Joyce Loveday – Businesswoman
For me, it is not good for politicians to be jumping from one party to another. They should remain in their parties because I strongly believe that after the tenure of the in-coming elected officers the pendulum will surely swing to another party’s direction. If all the PDP members move to APC simply because APC will be the ruling party, it means they don’t want the existence of PDP. Despite the fact that I don’t know much about politics, I don’t think it should be played in that way.
When this side is bad, you run to the other side, when the other side is bad, you run to this side. What about those people that remained in their party, whether good or bad? If your house is not in order, you don’t run away, instead you stay in it and think of how to put it in order. You have to think of how to forge ahead because if there are no failures, there will be no success. When you fall, you try to rise up and move on. We are all bound to make mistake but when you make mistake you try and correct them and forge ahead.
However, in as much as I will want politicians to remain in their parties even when they lose, I will also want the winning party to carry members of other parties along, because there are good people in the opposition parties who can help in moving the nation forward. I believe people jump from one party to another because the ruling party controls almost everything but a situation where qualified people will be given appointments irrespective of their party affiliation, the rate of defection will reduce. The party at the top should ensure that everybody is carried along. The state, the nation belongs to us all and whichever party that wins should ensure that those that lost are carried along.

Chief Moses Daniel – Retired Civil Servant
I look at it as a fraud. I say is a fraud because this people are not sincere to themselves. You are in a party and you’ve nurtured the party up to an extent and it happens that your party did not win in an election and you defect to another party to do what? You should make sure your party grows instead of dumping it for another party.
Actually, I think our system encourages defection because our system is such that if you don’t belong to a rulling party, you will not partake in anything on the federal level. If you don’t belong to a rulling party, you will not be carried along. But I think that whether your party wins or not you are supposed to remain in your party because you don’t know tomorrow. The equation might change tomorrow.
This defection is actually affecting our democracy because it is the same people that are moving from one party to another. They are defecting to enable them go and make the same mistakes they made in their former parties that they couldn’t deliver. If you know yourself and you are a person of high principles, you have to remain in your party whether it wins or not because a looser today might be a winner tomorrow.

Mr Ikiriko Karibi Victor – Civil Servant
In the first place they say that success has many fathers and loosers are orphans. So I believe that those defecting from other parties to APC are doing so to see whether they can get money from the in-coming government. Secondly, they may also go there to cause problem because other people struggled to build up the party and they are now going there to go and cause confusion.
I think the law should take its course in this matter. For instance, we hear that in Ondo State, the court ruled that those who dumped their parties to other ones should vacate their seats. And so, if the law makers come up with a good law then the issue of defection will be reduced to the barest minimum because if nothing is done about the massive defection it might result to a one party system. I will also support the decision of the APC that politicians should remain in their parties. APC should close their doors against the defectors because if they don’t do so, everybody will join the party and we may end up with one party system.
And let me use this medium to advice those defecting to think twice because it might have adverse effect on their individual personalities. Let me give you an example, if Tonye Princewill had remained in ACN after contesting the governorship election under that platform perhaps Dakuku wouldn’t have be the governorship flag bearer of APC in the last election. Because he moved from one party to another, nobody has trust in him again. But for those who are consistent in their parties, they get better opportunities in future. So I will advise members of other political parties to maintain membership of their parties, nurture them into strong oopposition parties instead of drifting to the ruling party.

Opinion

Wike VS Soldier’s Altercation: Matters Arising

Published

1 week ago

December 8, 2025

The Tide

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

Opinion

Ndifon’s Verdict and University Power Reform

Published

3 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”But beyond the courtroom victory lies a pressing question: What next? How do we ensure that Nigerian universities no longer serve as hunting grounds for predatory academics? How do we guarantee that students—especially young women—can pursue education without fear of victimization?”

The conviction of Professor Cyril Ndifon, suspended Dean of Law at the University of Calabar, to five years in prison by the Federal High Court Abuja, provided a rare moment of relief amid the week’s troubling national events. Beyond punishing one individual, the judgment signaled that accountability—especially regarding sexual harassment and abuse of power in Nigerian higher institutions—may finally be gaining traction. For years, many students, especially young women, have quietly endured intimidation, coercion, and the misuse of academic privilege. Reports and surveys have consistently shown the depth of this problem. A 2018 World Bank survey estimated that 70% of female graduates had faced some form of sexual harassment in school, while a Nigerian study recorded sexual violence as the most common form of gender-based violence on campuses.

Ndifon’s case has therefore become symbolic—challenging the belief that powerful academics can act with impunity. Justice James Omotosho’s ruling went beyond the conviction; it exposed the systemic rot that enables abuse. His description of Ndifon as a predator highlighted how institutions fail when they lack strong, independent structures for accountability. Although the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, many similar cases never reach court because victims remain afraid, discouraged, or convinced that the system will not protect them. A major difference in this case was that a government agency fulfilled its responsibility rather than letting the matter fade, as often happens with campus scandals. Too often, allegations arise but internal committees stall, victims lose hope, and the accused quietly escape consequences.

This time, however, the judiciary refused to allow such evasion. The court’s decision to center the victims and dismiss attempts to discredit them set an important precedent at a time when survivors are often blamed or pressured into silence. Yet the bigger question remains: What next? How can Nigerian universities become safe spaces where students, particularly young women, can pursue education without fear? First, reporting systems must be overhauled. Traditional structures—where complaints pass through heads of departments or deans—are inadequate, especially when senior officers are the accused. Independent, gender-sensitive complaint bodies are essential. Some institutions, such as the University of Ibadan and Godfrey Okoye University, have already taken steps by establishing gender-mainstreaming units. Other universities must follow suit, ensuring confidentiality, protection from backlash, and transparent investigations.

Second, proven cases of harassment must attract real consequences—not quiet transfers or administrative warnings. Sexual exploitation is not a mere disciplinary issue; it is a crime and should be promptly escalated to law-enforcement agencies. Treating criminal behaviour as an internal matter only emboldens perpetrators. Third, students must feel safe to speak up. As a senior lecturer at the University of Abuja advised, silence fuels impunity. Students need to believe that justice is attainable and that they will be supported. This requires consistent sensitization efforts by student unions, civil society groups, gender advocacy organizations, and ministries of women affairs. New students, in particular, need early guidance to understand their rights and available support systems. The recent approval of the Sexual Harassment of Students (Prevention and Prohibition) Bill, 2025, prescribing up to 14 years imprisonment for educators convicted of harassment, is a step in the right direction.

Quick presidential assent and domestication by states will strengthen legal protection. As Nelson Mandela said, “A society that fails to protect its women cannot claim to be civilized.” This principle must guide Nigeria’s legislative and institutional reforms. The legal profession has its own soul-searching to do. Law faculties are expected to model ethics and justice. When a senior law academic betrays these values, the damage extends beyond the victims—it undermines confidence in both higher education and the justice system. The judiciary’s firm stance in this case therefore reinforces the idea that the law exists to protect the vulnerable, not shield the powerful. Yet, this moment should not end with celebration alone; it must ignite a broader institutional awakening. Universities must begin to review their staff appraisal systems to include behavioural ethics, not just academic output.

Governing councils should strengthen oversight mechanisms and ensure that disciplinary processes are free from internal politics. Alumni associations and parents’ forums can also play a monitoring role, demanding higher standards of conduct from staff and administrators. Importantly, the government must provide universities with the financial and technical support needed to establish functional gender desks, counselling units, and digital reporting platforms. Only when all stakeholders take ownership of the problem can lasting reform be achieved. Professor Ndifon’s sentencing represents justice for one victim, but it must inspire justice for many more. It should mark the beginning of a nationwide resolve to reclaim Nigerian universities from those who misuse authority. The future of education in this country must be shaped by knowledge, dignity, and integrity—not fear or manipulation. The judgment is a call to action: to build campuses where students are safe, where lecturers are held accountable, and where power is exercised with responsibility. Only then can Nigeria truly claim to be nurturing the leaders of tomorrow.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

As Nigeria’s Insecurity Rings Alarm

Published

3 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria a Country of Special Concern and further threats to intervene in countries experiencing religious persecution reflect a growing international concern regarding Nigeria’s deteriorating security situation.”

In recent years, Nigeria has witnessed an alarming evolution of insecurity that threatens not only the stability of the nation but also the broader West African region. Bandit attacks on schools, farms, mosques, and Christian worship centers have become distressingly commonplace, painting a grim picture of a country under siege from multiple fronts. The rise of kidnappings for ransom, coupled with the persistent threat of terrorism from groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP, has ignited fears among communities and hampered economic activities. As neighboring Sahel countries grapple with coups and the spread of extremist ideologies, Nigeria finds itself at a precarious crossroads that demands urgent attention and action.

According to media tally, about 2,496 students have been abducted in 92 school attacks since the Chibok saga of 2014. And prompted by recent incidents in Kwara, Kebbi and Niger states, where hundreds of pupils were abducted, state governments across northern Nigeria are shutting down, or relocating schools. Even the federal government last week, via the Federal Ministry of Education hastily ordered principals of 41 unity schools across northern Nigeria, to shut-down.The increasing frequency and audacity of bandit attacks highlight a troubling trend in Nigeria’s security landscape. Schools, once seen as sanctuaries for learning, have become targets for kidnappers seeking to exploit vulnerable students. These attacks not only disrupt education but also instill fear in families, leading to mass withdrawals from schools. Should we raise a generation of children deprived of their right to education?

Similarly, farms and places of worship have not been spared. Communities that once thrived on agriculture and faith, now live in constant dread of violent incursions. The targeted killings of Christians and attacks on mosques further exacerbate religious tensions, threatening to disrupt the social fabric that holds Nigeria together.The situation is compounded by the unsettling developments in the Sahel region, where coups and the rise of jihadist groups have created a volatile environment. The spillover effects of this instability are palpable in Nigeria, as extremist ideologies proliferate and armed groups gain confidence. The porous borders of the region facilitate the movement of militants and weapons, making it increasingly difficult for Nigerian authorities to contain the threats. As Nigeria struggles to secure its territory, the consequences of failure become more pronounced, with the potential for a broader regional crisis looming on the horizon.

President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria a Country of Special Concern and further threats to intervene in countries experiencing religious persecution reflect a growing international concern regarding Nigeria’s deteriorating security situation.

While such attention can bring much-needed awareness to the plight of affected communities, it also underscores a significant truth: the responsibility for addressing these challenges ultimately lies with the Nigerian government. The inaction and apparent inability to protect citizens from violence and ensure justice for victims send a troubling message about the state’s commitment to safeguarding its populace. The economic ramifications of this evolving insecurity are dire. Foreign investment, a critical driver of economic growth, is deterred by the pervasive violence and instability.

Investors are wary of committing resources to a country where the risk of loss is heightened by kidnappings and attacks on businesses.Additionally, agricultural production suffers as farmers abandon their lands, fearing for their safety. The recent upsurge in insecurity coincides with a crucial harvest season, when farmers need to recoup investment to finance the next round. A decline in harvests this year would reverse recent gains of recovery in food production and exacerbate poverty, further straining the nation’s resources. Socially, the implications of failing to tackle insecurity are profound. Mistrust in government institutions grows as citizens witness a lack of effective response to violence and crime. This erosion of faith can lead to civil unrests, as frustrated populations demand accountability and action.

Moreover, the vulnerability of young people in conflict-affected areas increases the risk of radicalization, as they seek identity and purpose in extremist movements that exploit their disillusionment. The South-East crisis is peculiar in this regard. The evolving insecurity in Nigeria is not merely a national crisis; it poses a significant threat to regional stability and international interests. The convergence of banditry, terrorism, and political instability in the Sahel creates a complex security environment that requires a coordinated response. The Nigerian government, in partnership with regional allies and international partners, must adopt a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root causes of insecurity, strengthens law enforcement, and fosters community resilience.

It’s time Nigerians address all regional grievances with reconciliation and empathy, rather than with coercion. As citizens, civil society, and international stakeholders, it is crucial to advocate for effective policies that prioritize security, justice, development and inclusiveness. A collective effort is needed to ensure a safer, more stable future for Nigeria and the West African region. Ultimately, Nigeria stands at a critical juncture. The path forward demands decisive action to restore security, rebuild trust, and ensure that all citizens can live without fear. The time for complacency has passed; the stakes are too high, and the consequences of inaction are too grave. A collective effort is essential to navigate this challenging landscape and forge a safer, more stable future for Nigeria and the West African region.

By: Joseph Nwankwor