Opinion

As The National Confab Kicks Off: What The People Expect

Published

12 years ago

March 17, 2014

History beckons today
at the National Judicial Institute, Abuja as some 496 delegates converge there for the much-awaited National Conference mooted by President Goodluck Jonathan.
Holding at a time the nation is bedevilled with debilitating socio-economic, ethno-religious and political challenges worsened by the seemingly intractable Boko Haram insurgency that now claims innocent lives on a daily basis, the delegates are expected to proffer solutions that will save Nigeria from the abyss and promote its much-desired unity, peace, progress and development.
Against the backdrop of several unresolved knotty issues and other lessons from past conferences, what do we expect from the delegates this time around?
The Tide Chief Correspondent Calista Ezeaku and photographer Ken Nwi-ueh got some view points.

Mr Onaiwu Emmanuel (oil company). We are recycling the same old politicians. Are they giving us a different thing entirely this time? No. I don’t expect anything different from them apart from their old ways and their old ideas because even from the composition of the delegates, to me, there was an error because the government’s delegates on the list are too much. The percentage is too great. Are they the ones going to represent Nigerians? To me, from the way the government is going about the national conference, I don’t think we are going to get anything different from it.
Those set of people there do not have solutions to Nigeria’s problems because many of them have ruled before. They’ve been in one position or the other. I would have preferred the delegates to be mostly ordinary Nigerians, the traditional class. I know they are represented but their numbers are small. Again, we’ve removed the unity of Nigeria among what should be discussed at the Confab. They should be free to discuss it, whether to remain as a single Nigeria or to go apart.
It does not mean we have to endorse whatever comes out of the conference but our ideas should have been allowed to come out freely. So the conference is just a waste of time, resources and what have you. That is how a lot of Nigerians see it, apart from the political class because it is just an opening for them to make more money. Imagine a past governor going there. What did he do when he was a governor? What is he going there to tell them about his people? He never developed his state, what is he going there to say about his people?

Mr Patrick Owuru ( business man). I will say that the conference seems to be a good idea but the timing seems to be wrong owing to the fact that in less than a year we will be going into elections. So the conference is looking as though it is a ploy to garner support for the present administration, which does not augur well for what the conference is aimed to achieve. The aim of the conference if allowed to go on now will be defeated definitely, because most speakers will be speaking from the political point of view or from the political stand point.
I will urge Nigerians not to expect much from the conference. The outcome of the conference will not yield much since it is not predicated on good premises in the sense that if the conference goes on now and election is just less than a year away, definitely there is no way Nigerians can deliberate and get the unity that the conference is supposed to achieve. We are supposed to put our cards on the table – all the stakeholders, all the tribes, all the sections of the country – we are supposed to talk about the differences we’re having now, which is why people are clamouring for the conference but the timing seems to be wrong.
Another big challenge is the composition of the delegates. The federal government cannot select people for the conference if they want people to present their issues the way they ought to be presented. They should allow the people to participate by selecting who should speak for them. The NBA and other professional associations should have some slots as they do now but in the main composition there should be nationality interest represented. I would have expected that there would have been a mini conference in phases, of different ethnic nationalities from where they will select and articulate what they want to present and probably select those that will go and speak on their behalf. By so doing, we’ll have the generality of interests properly represented in the conference.
So this conference is just one step to the solution of Nigeria’s problems. There might be other confabs in the future. Whatever outcome from this one could help in the composition of future confabs.
Another lacuna is that the conference does not have the backings of the law. So what happens with the outcome of the conference? That’s why I said the timing is wrong. First and foremost, they should have sponsored a bill to allow the conference to hold and whatever decisions reached in the conference should be brought to the National Assembly for ratification and acceptance, then it becomes a genuine document or law of the land. But right now you just go, talk, when you are through what happens next? How do you want to marry whatever you decide with the laws of the land? It’s only the legislators that have such powers. So it becomes another issue. We are trying to solve one issue and probably create nine.

Mr. Legzy Edet ( Businessman). As a Nigerian, I do not expect much from the conference because I see the same faces, the same people, speaking the same way. And you can’t keep doing things the same way and expect a different result. Again, it is always said that majority carries the vote. How are issues concerning the minority groups going to be addressed in view of the composition of the delegates. An issue like resource control, for instance will only likely be talked about by the people from the South South. Are we even ready to speak in one voice? If actually we need those things why should we project the same people we have projected before? They should allow the people to choose who will speak for them. The government compelled us by choosing who goes to speak on our behalf. So I don’t see anything different from what we had before. Some of the people representing us there are people who had the opportunity of changing this region. They had the opportunity, the resources, the power but we didn’t see anything good from them. So, why should we now expect a different thing from them. So the conference is definitely a waste of time and money.

Mr Allwell Ene (Journalist). I think the composition of delegates is not fair enough. I don’t think the diverse ethnic groups we have in the country were represented. Many ethnic groups are crying foul of the representation. How many traditional rulers do we have as delegates. Rivers State does not have a single traditional ruler among its representatives. From the whole of South South, we have only two traditional rulers. And if these people are not there, who will speak the minds of their people? It’s not all about gathering people, chosen by the federal government. The way I see this whole thing, it is a federal government selected delegates national conference not the people’s national conference. If it were the people’s national conference, the delegates would have come from the people.
I am not saying the conference should be an entirely ethnic groups issue, but at least all the ethnic groups should have had at least one delegate each. I know all the delegates belong to different ethnic groups but they did not go there on the auspices of their ethnic groups. They went on behalf of one group or the other not on behalf of the ethnic groups. So who is going to speak on behalf of that ethnic groups. Are they going to be heard? No that is why you see people crying foul everywhere. I hope the federal government listens to them and coopts some other ethnic groups into the confab.
From this conference, I expect a misrepresentation of the views of the people. I see a situation where the views of the Nigerian public will be inadequately represented. Don’t forget, what is bringing national conference is our existence. How do we move forward as a nation? Who are the people to decide that? It is the ethnic groups. The conference definitely will trash certain issues. It’s not that the conference will be a total failure but what I am saying is that the conference will fail to address the opinions of the generality of Nigerians because of the mis-representation. So I will advice the federal government to shift the commencement of the conference by one or two weeks to allow the people to go back and work inwardly and choose their representatives, vis-à-vis the ethnic groups.

Msgr Cyprain Onwuli (Priest). As a Nigerian and as a Catholic Priest, I know that it will not be easy for the individual, to carry the day because the government already knows what they are aiming at and what they want to achieve. But it will be necessary for anyone representing the people to really make known the sufferings of Nigerians from different areas of life. Any one representing Rivers State that goes in there to sleep or is just after money that will be given is a fool. He is not representing the Rivers people. Because if we are truthful to ourselves, two third of owners of Rivers State are living below N100.00 a day. And they are the ones producing billions of naira Nigeria is spending. So if anybody representing Rivers State goes to that conference and does not make it known to the people what we are going, what we are suffering he or she is not for us.
One of the issues I will want the conference to address is the issue of resource control. I know those from other parts of this country will not be ready for resource control, but if they can give t hose who are producing the money they are spending 40% of the money, if they can make sure that 40% of what they are generated be expended for the people of the oil producing areas, let them take the remain 60% to other parts of the country. That will be good. But not to carry everything away and the little they will even bring there, they steal away too, both those on the state level and national level. So they have to spend the money budgeted for this state for the people. They have to empower the people. They have to also give us some positions that should be duly our’s in the federal government because we have many educated people who can occupy such position.
As regards the representation for the conference I think what they should have done was to take note of people from different areas of this state. We have the Ogbas, the Ogonis, the Ikwerre, the Etche and other ethnic groups. They should have taken that into consideration in selecting who represents the state. The major thing really is understanding. If you are selected from an area, before you go, there should be some consultations. You bring some people who will advice you, who will tell you of their problems and then you marry all together. In your presentation, you touch most of those important things and make the nation know what your people are suffering.
For the delegates, I want to advise them to be conscious of the unity of this country as they deliberate. The conference should aim at putting food on the tables of the people. There should be justice and equitable distribution of our resource. Let us co-habit and tolerate one another.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

2 days ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “For the first time in years, Rivers journalists are not just hearing promises—they are seeing a union that works.”

The first year in office of the Paul Bazia-led executive of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), has offered something many had almost given up on—renewed confidence in union leadership. For a body as critical as the NUJ, whose responsibility goes beyond professional coordination to include the welfare, protection, and continuous development of journalists, expectations are always high. Unfortunately, past experiences had conditioned many members to expect less—less action, less visibility, and less impact.This is why the past twelve months stand out. Within a relatively short period, the Bazia-led administration has demonstrated a level of drive that distinguishes it from its predecessors. There is a noticeable shift from inertia to activity, from routine administration to purposeful leadership. Initiatives captured in the one-year report point to an executive that understands both the urgency of its mandate and the frustrations of its members.

Particularly commendable is the renewed attention to journalists’ welfare. For too long, welfare issues have lingered without meaningful resolution, leaving many practitioners feeling unsupported. The current leadership’s efforts—through engagement, structured support, and timely interventions—signal a welcome change in priorities. Equally important is the push toward professional development. In an era where journalism is rapidly evolving, capacity building is no longer optional. The administration’s commitment to training and skill enhancement reflects an understanding that a stronger union must be built on more competent and competitive professionals. There is also something to be said about visibility and voice. A vibrant NUJ must not only serve its members internally but also stand as a credible voice in the public space—defending press freedom, promoting ethical standards, and constructively engaging critical issues.

Encouragingly, the current executive appears more present and responsive, giving the union a renewed sense of relevance. Perhaps what resonates most, however, is the sense of movement. For many members, the difference between the present and the immediate past is not subtle—it is clear. Where there was once stagnation, there is now direction. Where there was doubt, there is growing belief. Beyond the visible strides recorded within this first year, what perhaps deserves even greater applause is the restoration of institutional confidence within the Nigeria Union of Journalists. For a long time, many members had grown disenchanted, viewing the union more as a ceremonial body than an active force capable of defending their interests and advancing their welfare. That narrative, however, is gradually changing. The Bazia-led executive has not only initiated programs but has also rekindled a sense of belonging among members.

Meetings appear more purposeful, engagements more intentional, and decisions more reflective of collective interest. This psychological shift—subtle as it may seem—is one of the most critical achievements of the past year, because a union that its members believe in is already halfway to effectiveness. It is also important to underscore the contrast with the immediate past, not as an exercise in criticism, but as a necessary context for measuring progress. Where previous administrations struggled to translate plans into action, the current leadership has shown a greater bias for execution. Projects that once lingered in discussion stages are now seeing tangible movement, and issues that were previously deferred are receiving attention. This difference in approach—moving from prolonged deliberation to decisive action—has helped reposition the union as a more responsive and relevant institution.

While no administration is without its shortcomings, the willingness to act, even in the face of constraints, marks a significant departure from what members were accustomed to. Looking ahead, the expectations of members—and indeed the wider public—will only grow stronger. With a solid first year behind it, the Bazia-led executive now carries the burden of consistency. Members will expect deeper welfare interventions that go beyond immediate relief to more sustainable support systems. They will look for expanded training opportunities that prepare journalists for the rapidly changing media landscape. They will also expect a firmer, more courageous voice on issues affecting press freedom and professional integrity. Above all, they will demand continuity—assurance that the progress recorded so far is not a fleeting phase but the beginning of a sustained transformation.

Meeting these expectations will not be easy, but it is precisely this challenge that defines enduring leadership. That said, this moment of applause must also serve as a moment of reflection. A strong first year inevitably raises expectations. Journalists in Rivers State will now look beyond initial achievements toward consolidation. Welfare interventions must become more structured and far-reaching. Training programs must be sustained and expanded. Advocacy must become more consistent and impactful. Most importantly, the unity of the union must be strengthened, ensuring that all members feel included and carried along. Transparency will also be key. Continued open communication about finances, decisions, and challenges will deepen trust and set a standard for accountable union leadership. The task ahead is clear: to convert early momentum into lasting institutional progress.

For the Bazia-led executive, the opportunity is significant. It has, within one year, reawakened belief in what the NUJ Rivers State Council can be. The next step is to ensure that this renewed energy does not fade, but instead becomes the foundation of a stronger, more responsive, and more respected union. For the members, the message is equally clear—expect more, demand more, and support what works because in the end, a vibrant union is not built by leadership alone, but by a collective commitment to progress. And for now, under Bazia, that progress has truly begun.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

As Service Chiefs Relocate To Borno

Published

2 days ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Relocation may signal urgency, but without structural reforms, it risks becoming a cycle of temporary relief and recurring crisis.”

Here we go again. We have seen this script play out before. Under the administration of Muhammadu Buhari, service chiefs were directed to relocate to security hotspots as a demonstration of urgency and resolve. Today, under Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the same approach is being repeated. Following the recent suicide bombing in Maiduguri, Borno State, which claimed scores of lives, the President ordered the immediate relocation of service chiefs to take charge of the situation. On paper, the directive appears logical and commendable. It suggests a hands-on approach aimed at enhancing coordination among security agencies, improving response time, and restoring public confidence. However, the critical question remains: has this strategy ever truly worked? Experience suggests otherwise. While such relocations often create a temporary sense of calm, the effect is usually short-lived.

The presence of high command tends to produce what may be described as “cosmetic stability”—a brief period of intensified operations and visibility. Yet, once the service chiefs return to Abuja, the underlying problems resurface. A clear example can be drawn from January 2018, when President Buhari ordered the then Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to relocate to Benue State in response to escalating violence. At the time, the directive was widely praised. Yet years later, killings, displacement, and destruction of livelihoods persist, raising doubts about the long-term effectiveness of such measures. This recurring pattern has led many observers to describe relocation orders as political theatre—a performative gesture designed to project action rather than deliver sustainable results. While this may seem harsh, it is difficult to ignore the structural deficiencies that continue to undermine the nation’s security framework.

First is the issue of intelligence. Effective security operations depend not just on troop deployment but on timely, accurate, and actionable intelligence. Yet the nation’s intelligence-gathering mechanisms, particularly at the grassroots level, remain weak and poorly coordinated. Relocating service chiefs does little to address this fundamental gap. There is also the challenge of resources. Many security personnel on the frontlines continue to grapple with inadequate equipment, insufficient logistics, and poor welfare conditions. In such circumstances, the physical presence of top commanders cannot substitute for the systematic investment needed to strengthen operational capacity. Equally important is the issue of sustainability. Security is not achieved through sporadic interventions but through consistent, long-term strategies.

The relocation of service chiefs is, by its nature, temporary and does not build enduring institutions capable of sustained response. Beyond these concerns lies a pressing question: what criteria determine which states receive such high-level attention? While Borno has long been an epicentre of insurgency, other states such as Plateau and Benue have also experienced alarming levels of violence, including banditry and communal clashes. Why were similar measures not applied there? The truth is that the nation’s current approach to tackling insecurity is insufficient. One alternative that has gained traction is the establishment of state police. Nigeria’s policing system remains highly centralised, with command structures controlled from Abuja—a model that has proven increasingly inadequate in addressing localised security challenges.

State police would allow for more community-based policing, enabling officers familiar with local terrain and dynamics to respond more effectively. It would also improve intelligence gathering, as local officers are more likely to build trust with residents. However, the idea is not without its critics. Concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse by state governments, particularly in using the police to intimidate opponents or suppress dissent. Funding is another major challenge, as many states already struggle to meet basic financial obligations.These concerns are legitimate but not insurmountable. They can be mitigated through robust legal frameworks, effective oversight mechanisms, and a clear delineation of powers between federal and state authorities. Establishing independent State Police Service Commissions to handle recruitment, discipline, and promotions could help safeguard institutional integrity.

In addition to decentralising policing, there must be a renewed focus on intelligence reform. Investing in modern surveillance technologies, data analysis, and inter-agency coordination is essential. Security agencies must move beyond reactive strategies and adopt proactive approaches that anticipate threats. Equally important is addressing the socio-economic drivers of insecurity. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of education continue to create fertile ground for criminality and extremism. Any meaningful security strategy must therefore include efforts to improve livelihoods, expand access to education, and promote inclusive development. Furthermore, there is a need for greater accountability within the security sector. Transparent evaluation of strategies, clear performance benchmarks, and consequences for failure are necessary to ensure that policies are not just announced but effectively implemented.

Ultimately, the fight against insecurity requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands bold, innovative, and sustained reforms that address both immediate threats and their root causes. The relocation of service chiefs may offer temporary visibility, but it cannot substitute for a comprehensive national security strategy. The nation stands at a critical juncture. Continuing to rely on approaches that have yielded limited results in the past is unlikely to produce different outcomes. It is time to rethink, recalibrate, and rebuild a security architecture that is responsive, resilient, and grounded in the realities of our society.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Beyond the Adichie Tragedy

Published

1 week ago

March 16, 2026

The Tide

Quote:: “Justice must never depend on fame, wealth, or connections. The child of a roadside trader deserves the same standard of care as the child of a globally celebrated writer. When accountability works only for the prominent, public trust in institutions quietly erodes.”

Public reaction to the suspension of doctors by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) following the death of the son of celebrated Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie reveals something deeper than outrage over a single tragedy. Across social media and public commentary, a recurring sentiment stands out: many Nigerians believe justice was served only because of the prominence of the family involved. Comments such as “The doctors were punished because Chimamanda is well known,” or “If it was a poor man’s child, the case would have been swept under the carpet,” capture a troubling lack of faith in the system.

Whether these perceptions are always accurate is not the most important issue. What should concern the nation is that so many citizens instinctively believe that justice in Nigeria often depends on status, wealth, or influence.The tragedy that befell the Adichie family is heartbreaking. No parent should have to bury a child, particularly under circumstances that raise questions about professional responsibility. But beyond the grief lies a larger national concern: medical negligence in Nigeria is far more widespread than the few cases that attract public attention. Across the country, families quietly lose loved ones in hospitals and clinics under troubling circumstances. Patients are sometimes misdiagnosed. Emergency cases may be delayed. Surgical procedures may be mishandled, while basic standards of care can be compromised due to negligence, poor supervision, or systemic pressure on medical staff.

In many situations, grieving families simply accept their loss and move on, believing there is little they can do. The result is what can only be described as a silent epidemic of unreported medical negligence.In more developed healthcare systems, such incidents rarely go unexamined. Independent regulatory bodies investigate complaints, enforce professional standards, and sanction erring practitioners. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Care Quality Commission inspects hospitals, clinics, and care providers to ensure strict compliance with safety and quality standards.Nigeria does have oversight institutions, notably the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria. However, enforcement often appears inconsistent, and many cases of negligence never reach the stage where regulators can intervene. Sometimes victims are unaware of the complaint process. In other cases, fear, cost, or bureaucracy discourage families from seeking justice.

While government institutions must improve their oversight mechanisms, citizens must also confront a difficult truth: Nigerians often fail to pursue their rights when they are violated. Too frequently, when injustice occurs, people retreat into resignation. Instead of filing complaints or seeking legal remedies, many respond with the familiar phrase: “God will judge them.” Faith is important, but it should not replace civic responsibility. A society that leaves accountability solely to divine intervention risks allowing negligence and impunity to flourish. Some commentators have suggested that the Adichie family likely pursued the matter relentlessly through petitions and formal complaints before authorities acted. If that is the case, it demonstrates a path other citizens can follow. When malpractice occurs, persistence in seeking justice can make institutions respond.

If more families reported cases of medical negligence to the appropriate authorities, regulatory bodies would have stronger grounds to investigate. Public pressure would also push healthcare institutions to improve their standards. Negligence, as defined by Nigeria’s Supreme Court in Odinaka v. Moghalu, refers to the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under similar circumstances. Within medical ethics, physicians are expected to provide competent care with compassion and respect for human dignity. These principles form the foundation of the duty of care that patients rely upon. Citizens must therefore be able to recognise signs of negligence and take appropriate steps to seek redress. Patients and families should learn to document incidents, keep medical records, ask questions about treatment decisions, and report suspicious circumstances surrounding medical care.

Where necessary, formal complaints should be lodged with regulatory authorities or pursued through the courts. Civil society organisations, advocacy groups, and the media also play a crucial role. By exposing cases of negligence and demanding accountability, they help ensure such incidents do not disappear into silence. A healthcare system shielded from scrutiny cannot improve. Nevertheless, responsibility cannot rest solely on citizens. Government must take decisive steps to strengthen healthcare regulation and reduce medical negligence. Hospitals and clinics—both public and private—should undergo regular inspections to ensure compliance with professional standards, safety protocols, and ethical guidelines. Persistent violations must attract meaningful sanctions. Legal practitioner and Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olisa Agbakoba has suggested the creation of an independent health regulatory authority and the restoration of Chief Medical Officers at federal and state levels.

In the past, these officials, alongside health inspectors, helped enforce professional standards and ensured accountability within healthcare facilities. Government must also invest more seriously in the training and continuous education of healthcare professionals. Medicine is an evolving field, and practitioners must constantly update their knowledge and skills. Mandatory professional development programmes, stricter licensing renewal requirements, and improved mentorship systems could help reduce errors arising from outdated practices or inadequate training. At the same time, systemic challenges within the healthcare system cannot be ignored. Many Nigerian doctors and nurses work under extremely difficult conditions—overcrowded hospitals, outdated equipment, staff shortages, and overwhelming patient loads. Such pressures increase the risk of mistakes and professional burnout.

Improving healthcare infrastructure, funding, and staffing is therefore not merely an administrative matter; it is a fundamental requirement for patients’ safety. Equally important is transparency when allegations of negligence arise. Investigations must be timely, credible, and accessible. Families deserve to know what happened to their loved ones and whether professional standards were breached. Regulatory bodies must ensure that findings are communicated clearly so that public confidence in the healthcare system is strengthened. The tragedy that drew national attention to medical negligence should not be treated as an isolated incident involving a prominent personality. Rather, it should serve as a wake-up call for systemic reform.

Every Nigerian life carries equal value. Justice must not depend on prominence or privilege. When citizens demand accountability and institutions respond with fairness and transparency, trust begins to grow. Nigeria’s health sector is filled with dedicated doctors, nurses, and medical workers who save lives daily despite difficult conditions. Recognising their commitment, however, should not prevent society from confronting the reality that negligence sometimes occurs—and when it does, it must be addressed firmly. If this painful moment encourages Nigerians to speak up, demand accountability, and push for stronger regulatory systems, it may yet produce meaningful reform. Citizens must refuse to accept negligence as fate, while government strengthens oversight and improves healthcare conditions. Only through this collective effort can Nigeria build a healthcare system where every patient—regardless of social status—receives safe, responsible, and dignified care.

By: Calista Ezeaku