Opinion

Non-Violence Election 2015: How Realistic?

Published

11 years ago

February 2, 2015

The presidential candidates of the major political
parties taking part in this month’s general elections recently signed a non-violence pact, resolving to ensure peace before, during and after the polls.
A few days ago, the governorship candidates of the three most viable parties in the state – PDP, APC and Labour parties followed suit by appending their signatures to a similar agreement.
Will these accords minimize election violence that Nigeria’s elections are known for? What do Nigerians think of the development? How can we achieve peace in the country before, during and after the fourth coming elections.
Our chief correspondent, Calistar Ezeaku, sought answers to these questions from some members of the public.

Mr Ben Onitemeka
Community/NGO leader.
Peace agreement has noting to do with the followers of these candidates. You see, those of us who have been opportuned to be in the social media, will discover that their followers say many things that are very annoying. People use abusive languages and talk as if they are representing their pay masters. But, in the actual sense those are not what they should be saying.
The non-violence signed by the presidential candidates and the governorship candidates here in our state should have helped in minimizing violence but it is not happening the way it should have been because the followers are not following that agreement.
So the problem is not the candidates. The candidates are always very peaceful. The problem comes from their followers.
Incidentally, most of the people who make a lot of noise didn’t even register, they don’t even have Permanent Voters Card (PVC). So the only way we can have a better society is by going out to vote. It is only through your vote that you can retain or change a particular government. If you don’t have voter’s card and you keep making noise and all those things, it cannot change the situation. The most important thing, is to go out and vote.
It is unfortunate that here in Rivers State we have a lot of pre-election violence, destruction of posters and all that but I think the security apparatus should be at alert. A lot of these cases can be blamed on the lapses from the security apparatus. Assuming the police, civil defense, JTF and other security agencies are at alert, I think most of these incidents can be prevented.
However, to achieve a violence free election, all hands must be on deck. The civil society groups, NGOs, faith-based groups, have roles to plays. The churches can actually reach out to their members. Definitely every individual belongs to one religious group or the other or an association. We have to reach out to these associations.

Miss Odilabiebuma Adline
-Civil Servant.
I will say the signing of the peace accord is a good move but in actual practice I have not see it working. It is a good move that the candidates of the major political partners signed peace pact, that they should not use abusive languages, that they should do things in a way that should not affect the peace of the society. But after the agreement had been signed, looking at my locality, it doesn’t seem as if they signed anything.
You can still hear the politicians during their campaign attacking their opponents, they still use abusive languages. All those things are still going on.
So, we can only achieve a violence-free election if those involved will stick to the terms of the agreements. We can achieve a pre, during and post election violence if we educate the society. It might take time but we will certainly get there, remember Rome was not built in a day. We still need to talk, and talk and talk, create the awareness. Somebody recently said that we don’t have poverty as such that what we have is poverty of the mind. The mind needs to be educated. People need to know their rights. Not just knowing your right but knowing what to do and when to do it.
I want to also say that mothers have an important role to play. Most of the people causing these violent are youths. Parents, especially mothers need to caution their children and educated them on the dangers of violence.
I also think we need to start from the primary school to educate our children on their civic responsibilities. You don’t bend a tree when it is old. We have subjects like social studies and all that. We need to educate these children on the impact of being good citizens. So it is from the cradle that we need to build.
But what we are doing now is that we are trying to build from the top and you cannot achieve anything from the top when the foundation has not been laid.
So I think our foundation is part of the problem we have today because the people that believe in non-violence are very few.
Only a handful of people believe we can live amicably, that we can belong to different political parties, have different ideas but still live together peacefully.
I think we should always bear in mind that there will always be another election. So, that I don’t win today doesn’t mean I will not win tomorrow. In sports we say, let the best man win and that is what it should be in election, let the best man win.

Mr Ifeanyi Ajaegbu
-Human Development Expert
It is a positive step that they came together to agree that the election should be violent free. But beyond signing peace pacts, we need to ask further questions – how many of their constituencies have they visited with this message of peace. How many of the constituencies have committed themselves to behaving non-violently because signing a peace pact at the national and state levels does not mean that in the rural communities, in the fishing pots the people are going to abide by such pacts. So we need to go beyond agreement. We need to make more concrete commitments. There should be punitive measures agreed upon by all the aspirants that anyone who goes outside the agreement will be punished in this way or the others. From the day they signed the agreement there have been shootings, burnings and all that. So people will just sign the agreement and continue with what they are doing.
My advice to the young ones who are used to commit violence during elections is that they should remember that there is a future beyond the elections. They should remember that they are worth more than the elections. They are worth more than whatever they are going to gain from committing violence and a dead man has no future. Secondly, they should also remember that if they fight and kill each other to put the wrong person on the seat, we are all going to bear the consequences of whatever wrong decision made by the person. The worst thing is that they can even die doing what they are doing.
Each political party has a youth wing. They should turn these youths wings into a conglomerate of young people who could work together for a better Nigeria instead of turning them into thugs.

Mr Anthony Ogina
-NOA Staff.
What I have to say is that we must ensure peace in the country. We are all one Nigeria, so we should not take elections as a do or die affair. Election is just like a football match, a particular team must win.
So a loser should also embrace whoever emerges the winner.
It’s true the peace accord had been signed but the leaders of political parties are not helping matters. They are supposed to tell their followers and the states where they come from to embrace peace that nobody should go into violence. I heard this morning that they stoned President Goodluck Jonathan’s convoy in Taraba State. This is not what we want and it makes nonsense of the peace agreement. Everybody should embrace peace.

Mr Chika Emeh
-NGO Project Manager.
Looking at the violence going on in different parts of the country this period, we must ask ourselves what really do we want and how do we want to achieve it? If we say we want violence –free election then we must ask ourselves how do we achieve it. We should use the religions, the ethnic groups and other aspects of the community to address the issue.
So I will like to see a situation where religious leaders mount the pulpit or go to their mosques and preach violence-free elections. I want to see a situation where ethnic group leaders speak to their people using the media and other means of communication to urge them to shun violence. I want to see a situation where political parties and politicians educate their followers on the dangers of election violence before, during and after the elections.
Infact, more and more studies are now showing that our problem is not pre or during election violence. The major concern is post-election violence. Look at what is happening in Ekiti State. The elections were very free and fair, there were no violence but after the elections, the violence started. Why? Because people do not seem to agree with the results of the elections. There is also this attitude of winner takes it all and all of that. So, if we must check-mate this type of violence, effort must be focused on dealing with post-elections violence-free activities. And that has to do with setting up the necessary structures in the community that will actually looking into the grievances of those who are aggrieved and do we have the judiciary that will be empowered and are ready to dispense as at when do? Do we have the machinery in place to make sure that those who perpetuate violence are punished or are we just leaving them to do whatever they wish?
Again, many people are concerned about INEC’s preparadeness to conduct a credible election. You see, INEC started early enough but surprisingly, it does appear that they are not really prepared.
What we are seeing now with the PVC distribution is not a good testimony because as we speak now, millions of Nigerians do not have access to their permanent voters card. And if care is not taken some people might be disenfranchised and this can lead to violence.
So, I will advice INEC to make sure that every voter who has been registered receives his/his voters Card.

Opinion

Wike VS Soldier’s Altercation: Matters Arising

Published

2 days 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

Opinion

Ndifon’s Verdict and University Power Reform

Published

2 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”But beyond the courtroom victory lies a pressing question: What next? How do we ensure that Nigerian universities no longer serve as hunting grounds for predatory academics? How do we guarantee that students—especially young women—can pursue education without fear of victimization?”

The conviction of Professor Cyril Ndifon, suspended Dean of Law at the University of Calabar, to five years in prison by the Federal High Court Abuja, provided a rare moment of relief amid the week’s troubling national events. Beyond punishing one individual, the judgment signaled that accountability—especially regarding sexual harassment and abuse of power in Nigerian higher institutions—may finally be gaining traction. For years, many students, especially young women, have quietly endured intimidation, coercion, and the misuse of academic privilege. Reports and surveys have consistently shown the depth of this problem. A 2018 World Bank survey estimated that 70% of female graduates had faced some form of sexual harassment in school, while a Nigerian study recorded sexual violence as the most common form of gender-based violence on campuses.

Ndifon’s case has therefore become symbolic—challenging the belief that powerful academics can act with impunity. Justice James Omotosho’s ruling went beyond the conviction; it exposed the systemic rot that enables abuse. His description of Ndifon as a predator highlighted how institutions fail when they lack strong, independent structures for accountability. Although the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, many similar cases never reach court because victims remain afraid, discouraged, or convinced that the system will not protect them. A major difference in this case was that a government agency fulfilled its responsibility rather than letting the matter fade, as often happens with campus scandals. Too often, allegations arise but internal committees stall, victims lose hope, and the accused quietly escape consequences.

This time, however, the judiciary refused to allow such evasion. The court’s decision to center the victims and dismiss attempts to discredit them set an important precedent at a time when survivors are often blamed or pressured into silence. Yet the bigger question remains: What next? How can Nigerian universities become safe spaces where students, particularly young women, can pursue education without fear? First, reporting systems must be overhauled. Traditional structures—where complaints pass through heads of departments or deans—are inadequate, especially when senior officers are the accused. Independent, gender-sensitive complaint bodies are essential. Some institutions, such as the University of Ibadan and Godfrey Okoye University, have already taken steps by establishing gender-mainstreaming units. Other universities must follow suit, ensuring confidentiality, protection from backlash, and transparent investigations.

Second, proven cases of harassment must attract real consequences—not quiet transfers or administrative warnings. Sexual exploitation is not a mere disciplinary issue; it is a crime and should be promptly escalated to law-enforcement agencies. Treating criminal behaviour as an internal matter only emboldens perpetrators. Third, students must feel safe to speak up. As a senior lecturer at the University of Abuja advised, silence fuels impunity. Students need to believe that justice is attainable and that they will be supported. This requires consistent sensitization efforts by student unions, civil society groups, gender advocacy organizations, and ministries of women affairs. New students, in particular, need early guidance to understand their rights and available support systems. The recent approval of the Sexual Harassment of Students (Prevention and Prohibition) Bill, 2025, prescribing up to 14 years imprisonment for educators convicted of harassment, is a step in the right direction.

Quick presidential assent and domestication by states will strengthen legal protection. As Nelson Mandela said, “A society that fails to protect its women cannot claim to be civilized.” This principle must guide Nigeria’s legislative and institutional reforms. The legal profession has its own soul-searching to do. Law faculties are expected to model ethics and justice. When a senior law academic betrays these values, the damage extends beyond the victims—it undermines confidence in both higher education and the justice system. The judiciary’s firm stance in this case therefore reinforces the idea that the law exists to protect the vulnerable, not shield the powerful. Yet, this moment should not end with celebration alone; it must ignite a broader institutional awakening. Universities must begin to review their staff appraisal systems to include behavioural ethics, not just academic output.

Governing councils should strengthen oversight mechanisms and ensure that disciplinary processes are free from internal politics. Alumni associations and parents’ forums can also play a monitoring role, demanding higher standards of conduct from staff and administrators. Importantly, the government must provide universities with the financial and technical support needed to establish functional gender desks, counselling units, and digital reporting platforms. Only when all stakeholders take ownership of the problem can lasting reform be achieved. Professor Ndifon’s sentencing represents justice for one victim, but it must inspire justice for many more. It should mark the beginning of a nationwide resolve to reclaim Nigerian universities from those who misuse authority. The future of education in this country must be shaped by knowledge, dignity, and integrity—not fear or manipulation. The judgment is a call to action: to build campuses where students are safe, where lecturers are held accountable, and where power is exercised with responsibility. Only then can Nigeria truly claim to be nurturing the leaders of tomorrow.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

As Nigeria’s Insecurity Rings Alarm

Published

2 weeks ago

November 24, 2025

The Tide

Quote:”President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria a Country of Special Concern and further threats to intervene in countries experiencing religious persecution reflect a growing international concern regarding Nigeria’s deteriorating security situation.”

In recent years, Nigeria has witnessed an alarming evolution of insecurity that threatens not only the stability of the nation but also the broader West African region. Bandit attacks on schools, farms, mosques, and Christian worship centers have become distressingly commonplace, painting a grim picture of a country under siege from multiple fronts. The rise of kidnappings for ransom, coupled with the persistent threat of terrorism from groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP, has ignited fears among communities and hampered economic activities. As neighboring Sahel countries grapple with coups and the spread of extremist ideologies, Nigeria finds itself at a precarious crossroads that demands urgent attention and action.

According to media tally, about 2,496 students have been abducted in 92 school attacks since the Chibok saga of 2014. And prompted by recent incidents in Kwara, Kebbi and Niger states, where hundreds of pupils were abducted, state governments across northern Nigeria are shutting down, or relocating schools. Even the federal government last week, via the Federal Ministry of Education hastily ordered principals of 41 unity schools across northern Nigeria, to shut-down.The increasing frequency and audacity of bandit attacks highlight a troubling trend in Nigeria’s security landscape. Schools, once seen as sanctuaries for learning, have become targets for kidnappers seeking to exploit vulnerable students. These attacks not only disrupt education but also instill fear in families, leading to mass withdrawals from schools. Should we raise a generation of children deprived of their right to education?

Similarly, farms and places of worship have not been spared. Communities that once thrived on agriculture and faith, now live in constant dread of violent incursions. The targeted killings of Christians and attacks on mosques further exacerbate religious tensions, threatening to disrupt the social fabric that holds Nigeria together.The situation is compounded by the unsettling developments in the Sahel region, where coups and the rise of jihadist groups have created a volatile environment. The spillover effects of this instability are palpable in Nigeria, as extremist ideologies proliferate and armed groups gain confidence. The porous borders of the region facilitate the movement of militants and weapons, making it increasingly difficult for Nigerian authorities to contain the threats. As Nigeria struggles to secure its territory, the consequences of failure become more pronounced, with the potential for a broader regional crisis looming on the horizon.

President Donald Trump’s designation of Nigeria a Country of Special Concern and further threats to intervene in countries experiencing religious persecution reflect a growing international concern regarding Nigeria’s deteriorating security situation.

While such attention can bring much-needed awareness to the plight of affected communities, it also underscores a significant truth: the responsibility for addressing these challenges ultimately lies with the Nigerian government. The inaction and apparent inability to protect citizens from violence and ensure justice for victims send a troubling message about the state’s commitment to safeguarding its populace. The economic ramifications of this evolving insecurity are dire. Foreign investment, a critical driver of economic growth, is deterred by the pervasive violence and instability.

Investors are wary of committing resources to a country where the risk of loss is heightened by kidnappings and attacks on businesses.Additionally, agricultural production suffers as farmers abandon their lands, fearing for their safety. The recent upsurge in insecurity coincides with a crucial harvest season, when farmers need to recoup investment to finance the next round. A decline in harvests this year would reverse recent gains of recovery in food production and exacerbate poverty, further straining the nation’s resources. Socially, the implications of failing to tackle insecurity are profound. Mistrust in government institutions grows as citizens witness a lack of effective response to violence and crime. This erosion of faith can lead to civil unrests, as frustrated populations demand accountability and action.

Moreover, the vulnerability of young people in conflict-affected areas increases the risk of radicalization, as they seek identity and purpose in extremist movements that exploit their disillusionment. The South-East crisis is peculiar in this regard. The evolving insecurity in Nigeria is not merely a national crisis; it poses a significant threat to regional stability and international interests. The convergence of banditry, terrorism, and political instability in the Sahel creates a complex security environment that requires a coordinated response. The Nigerian government, in partnership with regional allies and international partners, must adopt a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root causes of insecurity, strengthens law enforcement, and fosters community resilience.

It’s time Nigerians address all regional grievances with reconciliation and empathy, rather than with coercion. As citizens, civil society, and international stakeholders, it is crucial to advocate for effective policies that prioritize security, justice, development and inclusiveness. A collective effort is needed to ensure a safer, more stable future for Nigeria and the West African region. Ultimately, Nigeria stands at a critical juncture. The path forward demands decisive action to restore security, rebuild trust, and ensure that all citizens can live without fear. The time for complacency has passed; the stakes are too high, and the consequences of inaction are too grave. A collective effort is essential to navigate this challenging landscape and forge a safer, more stable future for Nigeria and the West African region.

By: Joseph Nwankwor