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

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