Opinion
In Need Of History Teachers
I wish to to congratulate the Governor of Rivers State, Rt. Hon. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi on his recent decision to employ about ten thousand teachers and non-teachers to equip the education sector with enough man power. Certainly, when this is done, it would bridge the gap between free quality education and Rivers people as well as portray the Amaechi Government as an education-friendly one. However, I also wish to draw the good attention of our amiable and award winning Governor to one crucial area of need as he is determined to employ more manpower in the education sector. This is History which has been neglected and abandoned over the years in our secondary school system as a teaching subject, especially in this technological or computer age where science subjects are the be-all and the end-all.
History is ubiquitous, and everyone and everything have a history. For this reason, History has been variously defined by various scholars, including practising historians. Generally, History, as an academic subject, is viewed as the study of past important events, to appreciate the present and plan for the future. Unfortunately, the study and teaching of History has not been accorded its pride of place in the scheme of things. According to Obaro Ikume, Emeritus Professor of History and one time Chairman of Historical Society of Nigeria, HSN, “Nigeria is the only country known to me that deliberately decided that the history of its people must not be taught to its people! In the last twenty odd years, our children were hardly taught Nigerian History at the primary or secondary school”. This assessment is most pronounced in Rivers state secondary schools where most students are denied of the existence of History as one of the academic subjects due to lack of trained History teachers.
Worse still, the educated proprietors of privately owned schools and principals of public/government schools do not seem to see the need for History to be taught and learnt in their schools. Available evidence at my disposal indicates that in most of these schools, the administrators campaigned against the offering of History as a teaching subject. They queried, what will the study and teaching of History offer the students in this computer age?” The practice is to encourage students to offer Government instead of History. Obviously, this misinformed action has denied their learners the opportunity of knowing their past which is very important to the development of the children and the country.
Obviously, the abandonment of History which ostensibly arose due to gross ignorance and misinformation about the nitty-gritty of the subject matter of History has led to many avoidable mistakes in our development. It is instructive to note that most of our challenges today in the nation building project in a democratic dispensation emanate from our poor grasp of History as a concept. As Daniels (1972:6) reminds us “History is the memory of human group experience, if it is forgotten or ignored, we cease in that measure to be human… historical events have created the basic human groupings – countries, religious classes and all loyalties that are attached to these. History is a source of inspiration as it holds up to us the tradition and the glory, the clashing passions and theroic exploits of past generations.
History deserves to be studied … without History, we have no knowledge of who we are or how we came to be. We come to be like victims of collective amnesia, groping in the dark of our identity…” through History, a nation which wishes to develop sees the need for solidarity and identity so provided as a necessary ingredient for national consciousness which ultimately becomes the hallmark for nation building.
Infact, “a nation that does not know its history is fated to repeat”.
It needs to be stressed also that History occupies an important place, in the education of the young ones. Whitehead (1959) perceptibly notes “If education is to sit a child for life the, the present is the outcome of the ideals, conflicts, stresses, pressures, accidents, and intentions of the past and that to understand the society one lives one needed a knowledge of its historical development”. The Newton Report (1963) luminously adds that “a man who is ignorant of the society in which he lives, who knows nothing of his place in the world and has not thought about his place in it, is not a free man even though he has a vote”. To properly situate man in his milieu and to enable him give back to the society as a functional member, the teaching of History is expedient.
It is instructive to point up that History from the outset has been used as the main mirror in which the society sees itself for reappraisal, re-examination and revalidation. History, the “Queen of the Arts’ and ‘the Ambassador of humanities’ as variously described has been a veritable tool for organising and understanding man’s society the world over. History makes room for identity, settles conflicts, offers citizenship education, helps in the intellectual development. Of the citizens/leaders, provides hindsight for policy makers, gives one a sense of international value, provision of information and research as well as provide the very tap root that prevents our culture from being blown away by the wind of technology sweeping across the globe.
N-ue (2001) in his monumental work entitled the, “Utility of History and Historical Scholarship” discloses that History is necessary in a town before an avoidable mistake will occur. He stresses that the people of Niger Delta scornfully look at an individual who displays gross sense of ignorance of their much cherished local or community history. Such people are dubbed Nee Saanee, meaning a stranger. A cliché in Sogho (Ogoni) oral tradition says Nee Saanee, na sua bana mani, thismeans it is only a stranger in the community who does not know its loo. This is similar to the Ijo tradition which states that Ama nimighabo/Dudu Ogono, which literally means “A stranger in town walks over hallowed graves”. Alagoa (2006:37) sharply observes that it is only a stranger that could be assumed to be ignorant. The consequences of such ignorance is the descration of taboos, such as walking over graves, which the Ijo described as Nondo (ie.e non-human). Nondo is a severe case of loss of humanity.
From the above, it is historically plausible to deduce that a stranger showed this sense of negligence of the ethos, custom and tradition of the land due to lack of historical knowledge. Thus, the study and teaching of Nigerian history is crucial especially in this era of globalization when our culure is threatened.
To be continued.
Samuel wrote from Port Harcourt.
N-ue, UeBari Samuel
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
