Connect with us

Opinion

Centenary Honours Awards: What The People Say

Published

12 years ago

on

The Federal Government had, as part of the Centenary celebrations honoured some eminent Nigerians who have distinquished themselves in the service of the nation.
Expectedly, controversy has trailed the honours list with some people rejecting, especially the Ogonis, protesting the non-inclusion of late actvist, Ken Saro-Wiwa in the list.
Our Chief Correspondent Calista Ezeaku and photographer Dele Obinna sought the views of Port Harcourt residents on the issue.
Excerpts:

Mr Gboh Ebenezer Fege, Businessman
Truly, what I will say about the recipients list is that there are people who have contributed to the development of this nation, particularly Niger Delta, whose names were not included on the list. For instance, a person like Late Ken Saro-Wiwa, who we know his contributions towards the development of the Niger Delta and Nigeria at large. His name was not on that list. And if you refuse to include such person, how do you think people will believe that what you are doing is fair?  Some people on that list have not as much contribution to the development of the Niger Delta as Ken Saro-Wiwa did. So, for us, particularly the Ogoni people, we are not happy about that. The list is not people-orientated. I think the committee that compiled that list should have sought opinion of members of the public before coming up with the list.

Wele Promise Toochukwu, Public Servant.
Actually, the centenary award is a very good one for the country. I was opportuned to go through the list on a newspaper. I saw the names of those who rejected the award, the likes of the Kutis, Prof Wole Soyinka and Gani Fawehinmi’s families. They said until corruption is entirely wiped out from the country, until the federal government through NNPC accounts for the $20 billion from petroleum proceeds that is missing, until that is given a wider and explanatory view to convince the Nigerian public, they will not accept the award on behalf of their patriarchs.
Actually, I think the award is worth it, especially now that the country has come of age despite our challenges.
However, I think that there are some persons that should have been included on that list. These are human right activities, those who fought for the unity of this country, especially from this our own side, the Niger Delta. The likes of Ken Saro-Wiwa should have been included on the list. I think Saro-Wiwa as freedom fighter and a struggler for the people of the Niger Delta especially his tribe of Ogoni should have merited that  award. The likes of Tam-David West, Prof Nimi Briggs should have been on the list. Prof Briggs impacted greatly to us in the University. He brought sanity into the institution. And for Tam-David West’s quest for integrity, he should have been awarded.

Mr Jeffrey Ifeanyi, Businessman.
Majority of Nigerians don’t even know about the centenary celebration. The awareness is not there. The entire programme for the celebration, including the award is not really publicised, it is not really in the hands of the masses. So, for me, there is no criteria to begin to judge the award recipients, selection procedure. I don’t think I have what it takes to begin to criticise the list.  A committee was set up for the award which came up with the list. We all know what happens in Nigeria, but the committee should be given the benefit of doubt that they did their job. The award can’t be given to every Nigeria.
You see, the problem with our system is that we tend to bring politics into so many things.
There are things we should be doing and allow the process to run it self. There is no point saying you didn’t give the award to this man or you gave to this man. As I said earlier, a committee was assigned to do the job, they had  screened and presented the 100  distinquished personalities. So we should give them that benefit of doubt. Whether they came out plainly or they played some politics in the selection procedure, let us not go into that because these are the things that could create other problems. The country already has a lot of problems facing it – Boko Haram and others.
My emphasis is that this centenary thing is a Nigerian programme and every Nigerian across the country should have the feeling of the celebration. All Nigerians ought to be involved in the celebration either by wearing a centenary tee-shirt, dressing in Nigerian flag colours or anything. The atmosphere all over Nigeria should depict the celebration.
For the award recipients, they should see it as a call to serve. The award should ginger them to make more contribution toward the developing of the country.

Chief Jude Nwoka, Lecturer.
To some, the list is okay. We are celebrating 100years of amalgamation but the integrities of that celebration is what we need to ask. Have we done well within this number of years? Let us look at some major dates in the history of the country. In 1950, we discovered oil, 1960 we had independence, 1970 they said Malaysia came and took palm oil seedlings from Nigeria. Look at those indices, how have we fared?
By now it is expected that we would have had a lot of mechanism to fight corruption because our major problem in this country is corruption. And I am saying that the best way to fight corruption is to deal with corrupt people face to face. You know Nigeria has the best developmental plans. We have good brains, the human capital is there but the problem has always been implementation.
If our leaders will judiciously use our money to do things that are tangible and last over time, people will enjoy it. But this idea of a winner takes all has kept the country the way it is.
So that we are 100years today and people still survive after the amalgamation, we should celebrate, but the real issue is, how have we fared in that 100years?
Now talking about the award recipients, for people like Zik and other, yes they merit the award because of their fight for amalgamation. But after the amalgamation what have we been able to do? Have we left an, enduring legacy for the democracy. Often we are told that youths are the future hopes. Where are the young ones? The old ones want to remain power.
And what are the legacies they are leaving?
What I am saying in essence is that giving an award is not the issue. The people you want to give the award, what is their contribution. What are their sacrifices for the nation? Our past leaders like Zik, Awolowo, Tafawa Balewa never had sky scrapper. They never had 100miilion stories in Kano, 10 billion stories in London. They were simple men with simple character. The same thing with people like Ken Saro-Wiwa. They made sacrifices for the people. How many of such leaders do we have today?

Mr Iheanyi Ezinwo, Publisher.
I think it was a thoughtful thing for the federal government to decide to celebrate 100 years of amalgamation of Nigeria. I think we have come a long way.
And coming to the award, ordinarily the centenary could have been celebrated without the award, but I want to see it as one of the highlights. One of the items that the organisers want use to add colour to the centenary celebration. So to that extent I want to say that it is in order. And don’t forget that 100years is not a joke. Except in some rare cases, many of us who are here today might not be there when Nigeria will be celebrating another 100years years anniversary. So it is an occasion that is worth marking in as many significant ways as possible.
Now coming to the list, I want to believe that the list was compiled by a committee. And members of this committee are Nigerians eminently seen to be qualified to do the job. I want to believe that they were given a guideline for the job I want to also believe that those who commissioned them were satisfied with the job they did. That was why they decided to go ahead with the 100 names.
That is not to say that there might not have been same other people whose names should have been included.
But don’t forget, maybe they were given a target that it should not be more than 100 people.
Now, coming to the controversy, because of the polaristic nature of Nigeria, especially the misguided religious and tribal sentiment that has become so prominent during this administration of president Goodluck Jonathan, the controversies are not unexpected. There are some people who are just there to crticise the  policies of this administration. Remember when there were plans to declare a state of emergency in three states some people opposed it but at the end of the day, Nigerians saw reasons with the government. Ogoni people are saying that somebody like Ken Saro-Wiwa should have been included among awardees. Then the family of Gani Faweni is rejecting the honour because they say that it is impossible for them to stand on the same podium to receive the same award with somebody they alleged contributed to the early demise of their father. So the controversies are expected. There is no how you compile the name that there will be no controversy.
There is no how that list can accommodate everybody who has contributed significantly to the development of this nation.
On the question of whether some names on the list ought not to have been there, it depends on the criteria used in selecting the people. If I’m the one drawing the criteria, I can say somebody like Abacha shouldn’t have been included because his administration brought untold hardship to us in this country, not to talk about the massive looting. As a matter of fact, if I were to draft the criteria, all the past military heads of state should not be included.  So I want to appeal to Nigerians to give this present administration the benefit of doubt because I want to believe that the president means well.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Wike VS Soldier’s Altercation: Matters Arising

Published

4 days ago

on

December 8, 2025

By

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

Continue Reading

Opinion

Ndifon’s  Verdict and University Power Reform

Published

3 weeks ago

on

November 24, 2025

By

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
Continue Reading

Opinion

As Nigeria’s Insecurity Rings Alarm

Published

3 weeks ago

on

November 24, 2025

By

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
Continue Reading

Trending