Connect with us

Opinion

Centenary Honours Awards: What The People Say

Published

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.

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