Opinion

Should Amnesty Programme End In 2015?

Published

13 years ago

February 4, 2013

The Special Adviser to President Goodluck Jonathan on Niger Delta, Kingsley Kuku, a few days ago disclosed that the Presidential Amnesty Programme started in 2008 to empower ex-militants from the Niger Delta region will end in 2015. Is it right or wrong for the programme to end at the stated period? Our correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Dele Obinna went to town to seek answers to the question from the public.

Excerpts:

Mr Zephaniah Egbufor-Businessman

I feel the programme should even end earlier than 2015. My reason is that by now the people in charge of this programme and the government should be able to assess how far they have gone over the years. All the money they have spent on these boys, are they getting the desired result? They should be able to assess the impact of this programme and know whether they should be spending that money or not. I heard that some people including women were protesting their exclusion from the programme. There is no way everybody in the Niger Delta would be part of the programme. I think what government should do is to provide social amenities for the Niger Delta region. They should provide things that will have positive impact on the daily life of everybody. They should go to some key underdeveloped areas and improve the standard of living of those people.

Apart from that, they should look for a way of making sure that the boys that have taken part in this programme are ready to start making a living for themselves. It’s not just about spending the money, some of them when you give them that money they don’t do anything with it. They first take it like salary. It shouldn’t be that way. If you place them on monthly salary it means you are encouraging other people to want to be militants.

So they should be able to see how they cannot encourage people to be jobless. They should encourage people to make use of the brains and achieve something. They should help these boys to be self sufficient. Fine, the trainings have been okay but this time, they should be able to assess what positive impact the programme has made on the people. There should be a way of ensuring that these boys give back to the communities in the Niger Delta where they come from.

Mrs Perpetua Muruako – Applicant

I’m fully in support of the programme ending in 2015. Many of them were sent to different countries overseas to learn one thing or the other and when they came back they had nothing to offer. They just depend on the monthly allowance given them by the government. So they are supposed to use the knowledge they acquired over there, to help the society instead being liabilities to government. I agree, some of them that were sent abroad for studies or whatever are serious but some are not serious at all. They came back with nothing. So let’s see the result of the money spent so far before we start talking of adding more years.

However, I am of the opinion that in order to prevent the occurrence of agitation when this programme ends in 2015, government should really consider how to help the people of the Niger Delta. They should empower their youth, provide them with free education, good roads, good water and what have you.

Hon Chike Chinwo – Politician

Personally, I will say if government says they will end the programme in 2015, there should have been an adequate arrangement to that effect. Whether the programme should end in 2015 or not is not the issue. The question is, is the amnesty actually affecting the people for whom the amnesty is declared or are there people using it to sap the government? This is because often a time we have read through the media that some persons are either involving those people who are not militants or the freedom fighters as the case may be. Therefore we are calling on government to actually investigate properly if those people who are concerned are actually the people benefiting from the programme. If they are not, then there is need for the extension of the time. And if actually they are trying to stop it by 2015, they should make adequate preparations for them so that those insurgences would not rise up again. I heard some of the people who were sent out for training, on coming back were left alone. I heard some of them are crying. So I think if you actually trained persons, at the end of the training you have to equip them. You have to mobilise them or look out for jobs for them to do to sustain themselves. If you just abandon them without nothing, they will go back to the creeks .

If these boys are not empowered, they might start the agitation again in 2015. Government should also look into the reasons for the agitation in the first place and if they find out the problem, then the problem should be solved, the people should be compensated. Just like what is happening in Ogoni land now, the UNEP report recommended that the place should be cleaned up. But up till now, nothing has been done. And if the people come up again to demand for their rights, we will start talking.

So, government is not helping us. if they say they want to do something for the people, they should implement it to the letter so that at the end of the day we’ll have a relaxed mind. So the amnesty programme should be extended to a reasonable time when people must have been acquinted with it and gained from the programme.

Engr. Edward Worgu- Off shore Engineer

For me, if federal government said they had a package for the ex-militants and they want to end it all of a sudden, for me it is not carried. They should ensure that everything they have promised these guys is in place, because if you suddenly stop the amnesty programme, it will generate another problem.

Come to think of it, you are giving amnesty to most of these people that are not even graduates, and you see them being paid and given contracts, good! May be that is done to make peace and all that but what about the graduates? What about the graduate that finished school and he is not doing anything?.

He will also want to carry gun to enable him benefit from the monthly allowance. So things have to be generally spelt out for people to know or do the right thing. You cannot just say amnesty programme will end in 2015 when most of them have not been settled. Some of them are still roaming the streets. And if you must know, some of the things that had piped low for sometime, are now coming up again, so much incidents now happening here and there.

So, for me, amnesty programme should not end in 2015. The programme should carry on and then they should get a proper medium of managing these militants and the graduates. Another thing, I will tell you is that most people that wrote their names for the amnesty programme are not really the ex-militants. This needs to be checkmated. There is also need to deal with the root causes of all these problems. How did amnesty programme come about? Have the problems that led to agitation been tackled? Niger Delta needs to be overhauled. Amenities should be put in communities, people should be given jobs. If you come to Rivers State, most people are not working, jobless graduates everywhere. So things should be put in place. They (government) should go to all these companies in the state, know how many of the people working there, are Niger Delta people and follow it up. If you go to some companies they will say, “we need graduates”. It’s a lie. They train people on the job. It’s not always about the certificate thing. They should employ the people and train them on the job and all these crimes will be reduced.

So, for me, I know the amnesty programme will come to an end one day but before then, things have to be put in place. These boys need to be engaged. They say that an idle man is the devil’s workshop. When you are idle mind will want to acquaint yourself with something that will fetch you good money. So, they should be involved in one thing or the other.

You know, honestly this amnesty programme has been a success, though not hundred per cent. Some of the ex-militants have truly repented. It was like a crusade that helped people repent to become better citizens

Ikenna Obineche – Journalist

I don’t know if these boys have actually gotten what they need from the federal government vis-à-vis empowering them, providing jobs for them. So for me, the amesty programme should be extended beyond 2015. If they end the programme in 2015, most of these boys will be idle and they might be tempoted to take up arms. So, I’m not in support of the programme ending in 2015. I’m not saying the programme should last forever. But let it be a gradual process. Let it be extended till the next 10years. These boys, have been hurt. You know what they were fighting for. Their lands were taken, their farm lands were destroyed, their rivers were polluted and all that. So the boys really need to be balanced financially. There should be a psychological healing too.

Apart from empowering the boys, government also has to provide the rural communities in the Niger Delta with infrastructures that will make their lives more meaningful. They should actually develop these oil bearing communities. If you go to some of these places like Oloibiri, it is a mess. I mean, check out other oil producing countries, check out a place like Texas, USA which is like the heart of the oil producing industry. Check out how developed Texas is. there is no way you can compare other oil producing countries with the oil communities in the Niger Delta. So, serious attention should be paid to these communities and the people there-the youth, women, graduates and all that.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

21 hours 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

21 hours 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