Opinion

Centenary Honours Awards: What The People Say

Published

12 years ago

March 3, 2014

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.

Opinion

Towards Affordable Living Houses

Published

1 day ago

December 22, 2025

The Tide

Quote:” Increasingly viewed as a commodity, housing is most importantly a human right. Under international law, to be adequately housed means having secure tenure—not having to worry about being evicted or having your home or lands taken away”

The rising cost of house rents across cities and urban areas across Nigeria is most worrisome to say the least. More worrisome is the fact that while house rents are on a geometric increase, and the cost of living is astronomically high, the economy has remained most unfriendly and salaries very disproportionate to the basic necessities of life. Some State legislatures, like Lagos, have legislated on house rent control to check the Shylock attitude of some landlords. As good and necessary as such Legislative intervention, the feasibility of effectively controlling housing rents without adequate participation of public and organized private sector in remedying the housing deficit in Nigeria, in my considered view, is like building castles in the air, which will inevitably translate to an exercise in futility.

The reasons are not far-fetched: the spiralling prices of building materials today leaves much to be desired bringing house owners to face the challenge of property maintenance. No doubt the cost of building a house is about ten times more than it was five years ago. It is so bad that people wonder if civil servants and other low income earners can ever build a house. The hyper inflationary trend in the country has compounded the situation reinforcing the reality of the economic law that increase in the prices of essential commodity will inevitably result in increase in the prices of other commodities because the dealers will need to increase the price of their products or commodities to remain in business.

Though Nigeria is not as populous as China with a conservative 1.4 billion population, and having the capacity to provide to the housing needs of her people, it is not saying a new thing that the growing population of Nigeria and rural-urban migration has heightened the quest for decent living houses with more money chasing scarce accomodations.The terms of payment is very outrageous as house agents cash on housing deficit to connive with landlords to unwittingly increase rents and the monetary requirements to access a decent living place. One can’t imagine how a two bedroom flat will go for N1.2 million to be paid for two years, exclusive of the pecuniary benefits accruing to the house agents and legal fees and other outrageous charges.

Corruption is another major problem of housing deficit as government allocations to the housing sector were either outrightly embezzled or misappropriated with impunity. Housing need remains endemic in most nations of the world, including Nigeria. As a basic material necessity, of humans, availability of adequate and affordable housing has become one of the challenges government at all levels, multinational or corporate organisations must grapple with. The United Nations’ Year 2000 Millennium Development Goals which includes “Shelter for all”, has failed to address housing deficits 25 years after it was initiated. According to reports, of a global population of about eight billion people, more than 1.8 billion people live in informal settlements or inadequate housing with limited access to essential services such as water and sanitation, electricity and are often under threat of forced eviction.

One of the most severe violations of the right to adequate housing—homelessness—has been on a steep increase in many economically advanced countries. Housing is a right not a commodity. Increasingly viewed as a commodity, housing is most importantly a human right. Under international law, to be adequately housed means having secure tenure—not having to worry about being evicted or having your home or lands taken away. It means living somewhere that is in keeping with your culture, and having access to appropriate services, schools, and employment. Too often violations of the right to housing occur with impunity. In part, this is because, at the domestic level, housing is rarely treated as a human right. The key to ensuring adequate housing is the implementation of this human right through appropriate government policy and programmes, including national housing strategies.

Adequate housing was recognized as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 11.1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Other international human rights treaties have si

nce recognized or referred to the right to adequate housing or some elements of it, such as the protection of one’s home and privacy. According to the UN Charter and Declaration, adequate housing is protected against forced evictions and the arbitrary destruction and demolition of one’s home; free from arbitrary interference with one’s home, privacy and family; and right to choose one’s residence, to determine where to live and to freedom of movement.

Looking at what adequate housing entails, it is obvious that fixing housing deficits is capital intensive project that will be perennial to achieve through private and government synergy. The roles of housing as the basis of stability and security for an individual or family can not be undermined. As the centre of our social, emotional and sometimes economic lives, a home should be a sanctuary—a place to live in peace, security and dignity. According to The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights the right to adequate housing should not be interpreted narrowly. Rather, it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. The characteristics of the right to adequate housing are clarified mainly in the Committee’s general comments No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing and No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions.

Therefore, Government at all levels should synergise with the Private sector to intentionally and consciously drive the initiative to mitigate housing deficit in Nigeria. Government budgetary allocations should not be seen as a national cake but be made to perform optimally by those in the saddle. Value should be given to every kobo, while corruption should be checked.

By; Igbiki Benibo

Opinion

The Labour Union We Want

Published

1 day ago

December 22, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”Symbolic street protests are not enough; workers want actions that translate into real improvements in their daily lives.”

It was refreshing to see the leadership of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) finally spring into action after many months of apparent silence. For a long time, organised labour seemed to have slipped into a coma while workers groaned under worsening economic and social conditions. Poor governance, rising insecurity, and deepening poverty continued unchecked, yet labour’s voice was barely heard. This silence understandably drew criticism from workers and the wider public, many of whom questioned whether the NLC was still living up to its historic role as defender of the masses. Historically, Nigerian labour has stood firmly on the side of the people. From the anti-colonial struggles of the 1940s to resistance against military dictatorship and anti-people economic policies, labour has played a critical role in shaping national consciousness. The historic 1945 strike, which lasted 45 days, forced the colonial government to improve wages and working conditions and cemented labour’s place as a force for social justice.

During the military era, particularly under Generals Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha, the NLC was among the few institutions bold enough to challenge authoritarian rule and oppose the Structural Adjustment Programme, warning—correctly—that it would deepen poverty and inequality. Perhaps the most defining moment in recent labour history came in January 2012, when the NLC and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) led nationwide protests against the removal of fuel subsidy by the Goodluck Jonathan administration. The Occupy Nigeria protests paralysed economic activities and forced a partial reversal of the policy, reminding Nigerians of the power of a united and courageous labour movement. Against this backdrop, the NLC’s decision to call a nationwide protest on Wednesday, December 17, over rising cost of living, poverty, and insecurity came as a welcome relief.

It rekindled hope that organised labour is reclaiming its relevance. For workers enduring hardship with little institutional backing, the protest symbolised courage, consistency, and a willingness to confront policies that worsen the lives of ordinary Nigerians. However, Nigerians expect more than symbolic street protests. The real test lies ahead. Labour leaders must counter the long-held perception that union leadership often “sells out” during negotiations, placing personal or political interests above collective welfare. Whether fair or not, this perception has weakened trust in organised labour. As former NLC president Adams Oshiomhole once warned, labour must not become “a pressure group that barks but does not bite.” Workers expect transparency, firmness, and outcomes that translate into real improvements in their lives.

One urgent issue demanding labour’s sustained attention is fuel subsidy removal. President Bola Tinubu justified the policy in 2023 as necessary to curb corruption and free funds for development. Nigerians were promised that savings would be redirected into infrastructure, social welfare, and economic growth. Two years later, however, many citizens see little evidence of these gains. Instead, they face skyrocketing fuel prices, transport costs, food inflation, and an unbearable cost of living.Labour must therefore demand accountability: How much has been saved? Where has the money gone? Which projects are directly linked to these funds? These are legitimate questions that deserve honest answers. Closely related is the unresolved issue of Nigeria’s state-owned refineries in Port Harcourt, Warri, and Kaduna. Billions of dollars have reportedly been spent on turnaround maintenance, yet the refineries remain largely non-functional.

Former NNPC chief Mele Kyari repeatedly assured Nigerians that the refineries would be operational by 2023, promises that were not fulfilled. Today, conflicting claims about their status continue to fuel public frustration.This presents another opportunity for organised labour to assert relevance by demanding transparency on funds spent, current operational capacity, and accountability for failures. Without this, Nigeria risks repeating cycles of waste and deception. Beyond petrol, the rising cost of cooking gas has become a major burden for households. Despite Nigeria’s vast gas reserves, inadequate domestic production, limited processing facilities, and poor infrastructure have made locally sourced gas scarce and expensive. Heavy reliance on imports paid for in dollars means that naira depreciation continues to drive prices upward.

Labour must expand its advocacy beyond wages to include structural reforms that reduce import dependence and shield workers from inflationary shocks. Security also remains a critical concern. While recent steps such as reducing police protection for VIPs and recruiting more officers are commendable, they are insufficient. Nigerian workers still live in fear of kidnapping, robbery, and violent attacks. Many now weigh personal safety before accepting jobs or commuting to work. No worker should risk their life simply to earn a living. Labour must consistently pressure government to prioritise security, intelligence, and community-based policing while addressing root causes like unemployment and poverty. At the heart of labour agitation is workers’ welfare. Nigerian workers need wages that reflect harsh economic realities, not salaries eroded daily by inflation and currency depreciation.

Prompt salary payments, regular minimum wage reviews, inflation-linked adjustments, job security, and enforcement of labour laws are no longer optional—they are essential. Casualisation, arbitrary dismissals, and denial of pensions have become widespread and must be firmly resisted. Most importantly, workers need hope—hope rooted in job creation, affordable healthcare, quality education, and dignity for labour. The labour union Nigerians want is not one that surfaces only in moments of crisis, but one that remains vigilant, principled, and unwavering. It must understand the pulse of the people, confront injustice boldly, and refuse to compromise workers’ welfare for anything less than the collective good.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Wike VS Soldier’s Altercation: Matters Arising

Published

2 weeks 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