Category: Opinion

By Igboeli Arinze

Though it barely makes newspaper headlines as a number of Nigerians are more seriously concerned with the question of who gets what, where and why, the stark reality before us is that the pervert culture of child molestation and sexual abuse in Nigeria is as prevalent as a number of other social vices such as armed robbery, murder, etc.

Sadly, our response to this has been a speedy or noisy reaction in our homes or on social media against the growing trend of pedophilia in Nigeria. Now, much as I may recognise this inclination of ours, the newsworthiness of such stories amidst the calls for justice are indeed welcome but we seem to be short sighted as we are neither attending to how we can get help for the survivors, as well as use such cases to protect more helpless children from becoming victims.

Like Alexis de Tocqueville did once say, “we cannot stop children from been sold into slavery but we can however reduce the amount of children being sold into slavery. “ Now, child sexual abuse is akin to slavery! Ask any survivor or victim, it largely goes beyond the physical, leaving psychological scars on the abused who are not equipped to deal with it. Worse still is when these children are only seen but not heard, the are then forced to bear the trauma alone resulting in the creation of all kinds of devils needing much more beyond psychological help.

Child sexual abuse is a tragedy and a trauma we ought not to let our little kids grow into, if we say these children are leaders of tomorrow, why stand and watch while a number of them pass through this harrowing experience?

Statistics on this growing prevalence has been hard to come by, though the figure states that one out of five children have reportedly been abused. Now, in the Nigerian way of playing the ostrich we would all churn out the words “Not my portion!” Agreed, then , but whose portion is it then? Whose child is it his or her portion to be sexually molested? If you ask me, na who I go come ask?

Yet, owing to our culture where parents tend to quickly dismiss such claims by the victim as silly and even tend to help to want to cover it up when they find out that such absurd acts did occur owing to the perceived stigma they believe will befall their ward should they deal with the matter appropriately. They tend to quietly close the chapter but forget that the child’s life is not a book as well as allow a pedophile to keep doing his thing.

Besides, these parents and guardians seem not to be prepared to acknowledge the fact that children are prone to becoming sexually abused by people we care about, close relatives, family and friends and not the assumed stranger. This way parents are wrongly not on guard while that close relative is wreaking havoc on these innocent wards. Now, since child sexual abuse is a crime of access, it is commonsensical to note that the abuser needs access to the child to carry out such crimes without arousing such suspicion.

When our society comes to terms with the numerous fangs and consequences of child sexual abuses, when we assess the very measures by which childhood sexual assaults can be better handled via recognising the importance for listening to our children, allowing them to express themselves as well as conversing with them about such matters and finally exposing the predator mostly within with the determination to prevent other innocent children from falling victim, only then can we be said to be proactive.

This ought to be the message, beached on the beliefs that child sexual abuse cuts across all ethnic, socioeconomic or religious boundaries of our society,  and that no one is immune to it.

Such a belief also believes that using public education, informing and teaching our children about their bodies, interacting with policy makers, large scale campaigns and the use of social media, we can do more to enable our children thrive in a healthy environment.

This article perhaps seeks to largely  serve as a wakeup call to all adults, parents, guardians and policy makers to speak up for every child that has been sexually abused and to protect others from such menace, it also salutes the efforts of a number of agencies and individuals who are heeding such a call.

By Bola Ajibola

A little over a decade ago, I started a campaign on why government must support private universities in Nigeria for obvious reasons. I actively did this in my capacity as the Chairman of Proprietors of Private Universities in Nigeria (CPPUN) and Founder, Crescent University, Abeokuta, an institution which prides itself as Citadel of Academic and Moral Excellence. It is heartening that other concerned stakeholders and private university human capital investors like Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) are now lending their voices to this growing concern of national interest.

The former Chairman of the National Universities Commission Standing Committee on Private Universities (SCOPU), Professor Nurudeen Olorun-nimbe Adedipe, once submitted in his paper entitled Challenges of Access to University Education in Nigeria that ‘I am aware of the enormous resources that proprietors of private universities pump into the establishment of their respective universities. They are unique members of the proprietorial stakeholdership. They need to be recognised for such facilities as Take-Off Grants and access to Educational Trust Fund (ETF) facilities, among others. The case of ETF support should, in fact, be taken for granted since the fund is an accrual of income-related taxes that are no respecter of whatever an institution is federal, state or private’. Several newspaper editorials have also been published extensively, advocating government support for private universities because that is the right way to go.

Without any doubt or contradiction, private universities have made huge contributions to the development of education in Nigeria since their emergence over two decades ago. They have added significant fillip to university education hitherto provided by Federal and State universities alone. As stakeholders, private universities are closing a gap in the attainment of university education of our youths.

Somebody of my calibre and age could not have been motivated by pecuniary gains to start Crescent University. As a beneficiary of good education myself, I was motivated, like other good-spirited Nigerians, to contribute to the upliftment of education and to give back to my country by developing future talents not only in academics but also in moral rectitude.

Education experts have long told us, and we have witnessed that ourselves, that whoever wants to make money should not venture into private university as a business as it would take well over twenty-five years to break even. Why would somebody like me who had attained the age of 70 at the inception of our university need to wait for another twenty-five years or further to amass more wealth especially after having trained all my children and they were doing very well in life? That will be preposterous!

It is a fallacy for anyone to assume that private universities are for profit. There is no evidence for this anywhere because running a university is a different ball game when compared to kindergarten, primary and secondary education. Those who erroneously had that intention to start a private university now have a sorry tale to tell after sinking billions of Naira in expenditure without any return in sight. University education is an expensive venture. No single individual can handle it successfully as it is a philanthropic venture. Hence, government should not allow them to die.

It is imperative for the government to support private universities through Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) since the bulk of these funds emanates from taxes from private sector including private universities. The products from these institutions are citizens of Nigeria who are already contributing positively to the country’s economy. In fact, many of them who are now either entrepreneurs or employees are already contributing to the payment of these taxes. Since TETFund was formed to support delivery of tertiary education for all qualified Nigerians, excluding patrons of private universities would amount to discrimination since government cannot provide that for all qualified Nigerians. If the NUC can be formed to oversee tertiary education, private or public, it is discriminatory against private universities to deny them TETFund access.

The statement credited to the Executive Secretary of TETFund, Professor Suleiman Bogoro that since private universities contribute only about 6% of the population of tertiary students, they should not be included in the scheme is an unfortunate one. Rather than looking at the percentage, we should consider the total number of graduates in their thousands already produced by these institutions for the benefit of the Nigerian economy. After all, only 2% education tax received by TETFund from assessable profit of companies registered in Nigeria translates to a huge sum of money. With the growing strength of private universities, the current percentage/population is likely to double in another decade since several of them still need to fill their admission quota as regulated by the National Universities Commission (NUC).

It is on record that Crescent University, like several other private universities in Nigeria, took the lead in online digital teaching, assessment and grading when Covid-19 locked students and their lecturers out of the campus for physical learning. We were able to achieve this through our robust digital learning platforms while public universities now struggle to toe this line. Apart from this, the 2019 Final Bar Examinations conducted by the Nigerian Law School was led by a private university product who clinched the overall best that year. I am glad to report that while two out 50 candidates presented by Crescent University for that examination successfully got a first class, many government-owned universities who presented hundreds of candidates did not have a single first-class grade. This shows the quality of product by private universities like ours, a result of dedicated faculty members and quality teaching.  Final Bar examination can be likened to the Olympics where the best talents emerge at the end of the competition. Private university candidates are now emerging ahead of their counterparts from government-owned universities.

Ideally, individuals with social corporate philanthropy have come up, through their various foundations, to support private universities for further development. A few of these people are Alhaji Aliko Dangote, Chief Kesington Adebutu, Mr. Babatunde Folawiyo and several other Nigerians, who as private entrepreneurs have envisioned a bright future for private universities, through severally endowed projects for development. But their philanthropic support cannot be enough for these private institutions.

At this juncture, relevant laws should be amended by the National Assembly to accommodate private universities in the allocation of this commonwealth for the development of education sector. Tremendous development of education is indeed sine qua non to the development of any nation in the world.

This is imperative as private universities have provided option for students, reducing capital flight of our economic resources abroad. For instance, it is lamentable that over 78,000 Nigerians are studying in Ghana paying in dollars as overseas students. What they pay in that country is in fact more than the budget of federal universities in Nigeria. However, it would be a win-win situation if, like other countries like United Kingdom, student loans are made available in Nigerian private universities rather than allow the capital flight to continue. If private universities get government support, a large chunk of Nigerians studying abroad will prefer to study in Nigeria. Let us also remember that private universities have provided thousands of employments for academic, professional and administrative staff members who could have been looking for jobs. Education is be all, end all.

• Ajibola is former Attorney-general and Minister of Justice

By Tunji Olaopa

These are indeed terrible times, the like of which most of us have never known. We are well into the trauma of the second wave of the pandemic, with the onslaught of a new variant of COVID-19 ravaging our lives and emotions. Many people have died already. And many more lives are on critical lists at various isolation centers across Nigeria. Many more are cowering in their homes, not knowing what to expect from a virus of whom not much is known. Just recently, there have been discussions about the rising Covid-related fatalities among eminent Nigerians, and especially among professors. This is not just a mere discourse for me. Many of those who have died are those I have had the privilege of knowing and relating with at deep intellectual levels. After trying to get over the untimely death of Professor Habu Galadima, the late director-general of NIPSS, for whom I had to engage in the emotionally traumatizing task of writing a tribute, the number of deaths that have followed takes the steam out of eulogies for me. Professor Oye Ibidapo-Obe was the chair of the Governing Council of the Technical University, Ibadan where I am a member; Professor Duro Ajeyalemi was a renowned educator with whom I worked closely at the Federal Ministry of Education; Prof. Femi Odekunle provided technical support when I was desk officer on AU Anti-Corruption in the Presidency; while I personally received Prof. Ebere Onwudiwe at ISGPP and NIPSS in succession to speak on a range of policy concerns at different times in recent past.

Someone once said that when a griot dies, an entire library goes up in flame. The demise of these professors diminishes the intellectual space of the Nigerian society. Many libraries have been unfortunately consumed by death! And what better consolation in a most terrible time of pandemic than the consolation of philosophy? Circa AD 524, the great Roman philosopher, Boethius, wrote what has been considered one of the most significant works on medieval philosophy and Renaissance Christianity—The Consolation of Philosophy. Boethius wrote this work while he was undergoing a most traumatic moment in his life. He was the magister officiorum (Master of Offices) to Theodoric the Great. Court treachery brought him low and into prison, having been charged with treason. Boethius was eventually executed. But while awaiting his death, Boethius dealt with his trauma by engaging in philosophical reflection on theodicy—how evil could possibly exist in a world created by a good God.

Imagine Boethius in prison wondering why he had to be in prison, and imagining his eventually death. And of all possible ways to relieve his grief, he turned to philosophy. And his discussion with the female personification of philosophy was on what eventually matters in life—virtues, and the life of the mind. Boethius was able to shift his grief into a deep reflection about God and life and goodness and happiness. Indeed, philosophy took the sting of death away, and gave him the fortitude to wait for his final end. Lady Philosophy told Boethius, “No man can ever truly be secure until he had been forsaken by Fortune.” In other words, it is through misfortune that we come to terms with who we are and what we came into the world to do. The deepest lesson that Lady Philosophy taught Boethius is simple but hard to come by: happiness is not conditioned by misfortune. One can still be happy even in the midst of the worst experience.

In the midst of unfolding trauma, this is a good lesson to learn from Boethius. This is the moment in time to be grateful for life, while mourning those who have departed. Indeed, this is the moment to be grateful for those little things we take for granted. Life is too fickle to wait for the great events before we have time to be happy or to appreciate God for the little things. At a moment like this, I find myself returning to my love for philosophy, and the historical trajectory that brought me in contact with my initial contact with the best of all philosophers, Plato. I have had many opportunities to narrate the events that led to my first encounter with Plato’s classic, The Republic. I had found a copy sitting right there in my Uncle’s library. When I expressed interest, he willingly loaned me his copy until I found out a few days later, in my usual visit to the bookshop, that many copies were available for purchase. I got a copy and returned his.

Plato’s Republic opened up to me a vast space of reflective possibilities about life and existence, about politics and social order, and about what could or could not be. The insight I got from threading through the dialogic book goes beyond Plato’s attempt at reimagining the Athenian city-state. Indeed, that very attempt signals the possibilities that philosophizing makes possible. And this is even more tantalizing when applied to different sociocultural and political contexts. It did not take my eager mind too long to decide that I wanted to study philosophy and then be a philosopher. Of course, my parents could not fathom how such a crazy idea entered my head, what philosophy is all about, and how it could transform my life or, simply put, put food on the table. There was no way I could convince them that studying philosophy and taking it up as a vocation was beyond earning a livelihood for me. It was more about exploring the possibility of reflective attempt to open up alternatives for human existence. I later realized I do not need to study philosophy to be a philosopher. That realization was a unique compromise between my parents’ disciplinary preference and my aspiration. In retrospect, my reformer’s sensibility must have taken its first strike from my Plato utopian moment.

My voracious reading regime in secondary school indeed had also led me to Martin Luther and Thomas More. Martin Luther’s famous challenge to the Catholic theology of sin and salvation would later be a classic historical lesson in institutional reform. Nailing the 95 theses to the All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg challenged significant foundations of Catholicism. And it was so easy to connect Luther’s agitation about the theological excesses of the Catholic Church with Plato’s worries about Athens’ democratic overloads (compared to Sparta’s lean and efficient autocracy). But it was with Thomas More’s Utopian imagination that my philosophical yearning for a reform template became all the more consolidated.

In 1516, Sir Thomas More—social philosopher, Renaissance humanist and statesman—wrote his classic Utopia. Interestingly, More’s theological tenor was more in support of the Church, and against the theological disputations and protestant affirmation of Martin Luther. And surprisingly, More fails to see the similarity in the reform sensibility that linked him to Luther. While Luther was minded to rehabilitate the Catholic Church and its excesses, Thomas More wrote Utopia as a sharp social rebuke to what he considered to be the modern ills plaguing Antwerp, and other European societies. The orderly social arrangement and dynamics of Utopia is contrasted to what existed in Europe.

Between Plato, Thomas More and Martin Luther, I began to piece together my reform interest and focus. I was enjoying the philosophical disputations encoded in the rumination of these philosophers who had the reflective audacity to challenge what they considered malformed or incoherent. And what is more, they were prompted not only to see what is wrong, but to also construct how the wrong could be corrected through the prism of philosophical engagement that brought the real and the ideal into conversation in order to fabricate the possible. This essentially define my love and eternal fascination with philosophy and philosophers. Philosophy’s love of wisdom taps right into the reformer’s search for the wisdom to rehabilitate what is malformed in order to facilitate a social arrangement by which people—citizens—could orient their lives and live peacefully and productively.

For me, philosophy’s implicit tenor is reformist. I learnt that from Plato. His most famous statement is apposite: “There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.” Reform becomes effective within the collaboration between the power for visioning, that philosophy represents; and the political support for execution that politicians hold. Thus, when kings and politicians wield the capacity to imagine and reimagine their sociopolitical space, and backstop that capacity with the political will to push that vision through the complexity of policymaking, then reform becomes the handmaiden to living the good life that Aristotle insisted is the end of politics.

And so, I am lucky to have found philosophy as the most foundational element of my reform advocacy. Essentially, it takes the technicist sting out of my reform theorizing and recommendations. In other words, reform is not all about technical suggestions and appraisals. It is meant to make the institutional arrangement better and efficient not as an end in itself, but rather as a means to the end of human flourishing.

• Olaopa Retired Federal Permanent Secretary & Directing Staff, National Institute For Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos  tolaopa2003@gmail.com tolaopa@isgpp.com.ng

By Barbie Latza Nadeau

The development of COVID-19 vaccines was supposed to mark the end of the worst year in modern history, but less than a month into the rollout, European leaders are already panicking. Threats of trade wars and fierce infighting over short vaccine supplies are making the cure—or in this case, the vaccine—just as divisive as the finger-pointing that marked the beginning of this nightmare.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered a thinly veiled threat against the U.S. on how Europe should deal with American “vaccine nationalism” in her address to the World Economic Forum being held virtually instead of in Davos this year. Germany has been briefing European regulators against the British-made AstraZenica vaccine, which is already having delivery problems even before it is officially approved by the EU to such an extent that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has threatened the company and warned that the EU might now block exports of any vaccines made in Europe to the U.K. But even European diplomats aren’t entirely sure just what they are arguing about, except that their own countries should come first as the bloc struggles to recover from the pandemic’s impact on their economies, health systems and population.

“Right now we have no idea what it’s about,” one EU diplomat said during a side meeting at the virtual World Economic Forum. “But blocking exports might be a little too much, since it would start a trade war with the US — six days after saying we should rebuild transatlantic relations.”

From the moment the European Union announced a unified effort to launch its “V-Day” COVID-19 vaccination rollout on Dec. 27, things started to go wrong.

What was supposed to be a race to turn Europe—the first epicenter of the pandemic outside China—into a shining example of how public health systems could ensure a smooth rollout turned into a crawl because of reliance on private drug companies that many European health experts say aren’t willing or able to pull out all the stops at any cost to hurry up vaccine production since they are already offering the jabs at discount prices. So perturbed are the Italians, they have threatened legal action against the companies to make good on their promises, even if it means a loss in revenue.

Now, a month into the rollout, and after the EU paid $3.28 billion to several vaccine developers to ensure rapid development of the vaccines for their citizens, supply chain failure from Pfizer-BioNTech have delayed millions of vials from being delivered on time, meaning many countries that chose to vaccinate as many as they could in the beginning rather than holding back second doses are now concerned about fulfilling the double-dose protocol. The EU had underestimated Moderna’s success and only ordered a fraction of doses they have committed to from other companies which have yet to win approval. Coupled with concern over AstraZeneca‘s impending approval, European health care providers are now struggling to ensure that the millions who have already been vaccinated will get their second dose.

Many Europeans are skeptical as to why the supply chains are kinked, especially as Pfizer just announced it would be delivering vaccines earlier in the U.S. In Italy, especially, there has been concern that drug companies are favoring the U.S. and U.K. and robbing the EU of their promised doses.

Worse yet, if first doses for the next tier of recipients are delayed further, thousands more will die from the virus. Italian Deputy Health Minister Pierpaolo Sileri is leading the charge to launch legal action against the vaccine-makers. “By autumn we could vaccinate up to 45 million Italians, but I don’t believe in these companies,” he said on a Sunday political program. “I want to see the vaccines.”

Pfizer’s delays have meant a reshuffling of rollout plans across Europe and the U.K. In Italy, over 80s, who are supposed to be the next in line after health-care workers and emergency teams, are now delayed by four weeks because the Italian health ministry now has to use first doses meant for the elderly as second doses for the health-care workers to fill the shortfall in Pfizer’s delivery.

To help fill the gap, AstraZeneca’s vaccine, developed with Oxford University, is expected to win approval by European regulators on Friday—despite since-retracted reports out of Germany that the jab won’t work on over-65s. Those reports were denied by the drug maker and belatedly by Germany’s health ministry which accused the media of misreading the data. After several tense days of AstraZeneca denials, several media outlets reported that Germany has long briefed the European regulators against the U.K. vaccine, suggesting that old rivalries are still in play post-Brexit.

Jens Spahn, Germany’s health minister, said Wednesday: “It’s not about E.U. first. It’s about Europe’s fair share. That’s why I think it would make sense to have a restriction on exports. It would mean that vaccines that leave the EU need a permit, so that at least we know what’s produced in Europe, what is leaving Europe, where it’s leaving Europe for, and we have a fair distribution.”

Germany is not just warning the U.K. over vaccine exports. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday that the U.S. is also playing a dangerous game in limiting vaccine exports. “The U.S. has a war act in force on the export of vaccines, and in some cases on important supplies for vaccines,” Merkel said Tuesday referring to the fact that the U.S. seems to be the only country where distribution is ahead of schedule, not behind. “That will trigger our basic instincts in Europe to say: if you’re missing anything you need in your supply chain for drugs or vaccines, you will take a look at home and make sure you get that sorted.”

AstraZeneca then suddenly said that due to a manufacturing issue, they will fall short of the 300 million doses the EU has already paid for, of which 100 million doses were supposed to be ready to be distributed this weekend. “While there is no scheduled delay to the start of shipments of our vaccine should we receive approval in Europe, initial volumes will be lower than originally anticipated due to reduced yields at a manufacturing site within our European supply chain,” AstraZeneca said in a statement Monday. “We will be supplying tens of millions of doses in February and March to the European Union, as we continue to ramp up production volumes.” But with thousands already dying every day across the bloc, that delay will almost certainly cost lives.

Von der Leyen, the European Commission president, accused the British company of a “lack of clarity and insufficient explanations” and said they would also consider legal measures to make sure they get the vaccines they ordered. “Europe invested billions to help develop the world’s first COVID-19 vaccines, to create a truly global common good,” she said during the World Economic Forum’s virtual Davos confab. “And now the companies must deliver. They must honor their obligations.”

The dustup between Europe and the U.K.’s AstraZeneca has now led to threats by Europe that it will impose strict export controls on all vaccines produced in Europe which, in a post-Brexit world, includes exports to the U.K. which has warned against “vaccine nationalism,” while bragging about its own early success. Since many of AstraZeneca’s doses are produced in European factories, that could mean that the U.K. drugmaker won’t get its own product. Those export controls would also impact Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, most of which are produced in Belgium.

The European Union, which has fallen far behind the U.K. in the percentage of residents vaccinated, has signed six contracts with drugmakers for more than 2 billion doses for its 450 million residents. But since only Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are approved for use so far, the problem will only get worse. Hungary has grown so desperate for the doses they have just unilaterally approved Russia’s Sputnik vaccine and plan to start distributing it to fill the gap created by the supply shortfall.

• This article was first published on www.thedailybeast.com

By Emmanuel Oladesu

Expectations are high in this period of national emergency. A bewildered nation-state earnestly yearns for security. Nigerians are eager to put behind them the horrors of insurgency, banditry and kidnapping. Will the new Service Chiefs make a difference?

To many people, the replacement of the  former helmsmen was long overdue. The Army had been overstretched in the course of the protracted battle against the enemy. It appeared that the troops had also suffered from fatigue. In a minute, Nigerian soldiers succeeded in driving the insurgents away due to their extraordinary fighting spirit. In another second, the success was reversed, and the reversal rationalised. Therefore, the anti-insurgency war has been characterised by progress and retrogression  for almost a decade.

Borno State Governor Babagana Zulum and his people know where the shoe pinches. The governor has been presiding over a state in perpetual pain. The state has lost its peace and made poorer by Boko Haram. On two occasions, the governor had escaped assassination by the children of the devil.

In fact, the entire Northeast deserves pity. Villages had been sacked. School children kidnapped. Socio-economic and religious activities paralysed. Top politicians and government officials are afraid to go home due to the fear of the dreadful sect. The greatest worry is for people to be insecure at home, school, market and place of worship.

Across Nigeria, no state is insulated now from banditry, kidnapping, rape and arson. In the South, kidnappers are on the prowl. In the Southwest in particular, the kidnappers are alleged to be hiding under the shelter of normal herdsmen to perpetrate their nefarious activities. Major highways have become death traps. Some victims were even killed after paying ransom.

The insurgency was inherited by the current administration. There was a ray of hope when President Muhammadu Buhari succeeded Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. The liberation of the invaded territories and restoration of security were part of his core campaign promises. But, the hope that the insurgency would abate quickly under the leadership of the General and Commander-In-Chief vanished as the sect gained more grounds.

It is an expensive war. It is costly in terms of money and human resources. Lamentanly, there is no end in sight. Gallant soldiers have fallen on the battlefield. Their surviving families are agonising. But for their bravery, patriotism and exploits, it could have been worse. Sambisa forest, according to reports, is permanently hot for soldiers fighting to rid it of terrorists. Billions of naira have been spent on the war. There is no tangible and  sustainable result to show for the monumental investment on security.

As victory became elusive, people murmured. Complaints by security experts and other armchair critics filled the air. Federal lawmakers maintained that the Service Chiefs had outlived their usefulness. The National Assembly later passed resolutions on the need to inject fresh blood. Initially, the president who has the power to hire and fire decided to retain them, despite the cries of despondency. The eventual change of guard few days ago may have been in response to the persistent public complaints.

Following the retirement of the former Service Chiefs, three issues came up. They bothered on constitutionality, ethnicity and antecedence. Are the appointments to be ratified by the parliament? Is Igbo/Southeast marginalised in the appointments? Should the new Army chief have been appointed at all?

Post-appointment ratification is not new. But, should ethnicity displace merit and competence in security appointment? Is zoning or rotation of Service Chiefs the answer? Does it not pale into a misconception when ‘bloody’ civilians say they could not understand why a commander who, in their subjective view, was redeployed for alleged underperformance from ‘Operation Lafia Doye,’ should be catapulted to the headship of the Army?

These controversies may gradually fizzle out as the new Servive Chiefs swing into action. The president is empowered to appoint Service Chiefs by the constitution. The National Assembly is expected to confirm the appointment soonest. The rule of law and due process should not be set aside.

But, the sudden dichotomy between “Southeast” and “Igbo” is up to the Ndigbo and its apex socio-cultural body, Ohanaeze, to resolve. Ethnic champions cannot fault the appointment of the Naval Chief, an Igbo from Southsouth, just because he is not from Southeast. It is doubtful if Afenifere, Yoruba Council of Elders(YCE) or anyYoruba group can grumble if a Yoruba from Kwara or Kogi is appointed as a Service Chief, simply because he is a Yoruba northerner.

The exception was former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who blocked the emergence of the Aro of Mopa, the late Senator Sunday Awoniyi, as national chairman of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), claiming that Yoruba cannot be president and national chairman at the same time. Only creation of states and proper grouping of ethnic formations under identified boundaries can resolve the identity crisis.

Generally, retired officers who have hailed the new appointments described the new Service Chiefs as Generals of good character; diligent,  highly competent and disciplined.

However, only the heads of army, navy and airforc, and the chief of defense staff, have changed. The armed forces have not changed in composition, size, tactics, strategies, and combat readiness.

Besides, the heads of various para-military agencies, Customs and Immigration,  who have complimentary security roles to play t t t t t have not changed. Nigeria is fighting insurgency. Yet, it has left its borders open to unscrupulous foreigners who come in without restraint to wreck havoc.

Working in tandem with the military, these para-military agencies can greatly assist in the critical areas of intelligence gathering that can assist in checking illegal immigrants at the porous borders.

Nigerians expect an improvement in the anti-terror war, which be properly coordinated. If much success is not recorded in few months, there will be regrets, frustration and dejection on the part of the people. Yet, the country runs the risk of setting unrealistic agenda, goals and targets, if certain things are not in place. Government has to desist from its boring propaganda and falsehood that have characterised information dissemination about the battle. It does not make sense; indeed, it is devoid of logic to make allusions to imaginary war successes when the reverse is the case.

The military have to set new operational goals and change tactics. There is need for synergy and cooperation among the army, navy, airforce and other paramilitary agencies involved in the war. The concentration of efforts is better than the passing the bucks.

Also, Nigeria must continue to strengthen cordial relations with neighbouring countries and continually elicit their support, particularly in joint policing of porous borders, to checkmate the influx of terrorists.

The political leadership should consider improved funding for the joint task force. The morale of soldiers should be boosted at all times. They should not be neglected while on the battle front.

Some retired Generals and experts have suggested emergency mass recruitment of soldiers. The military schools should only recruit young men and women who are ready for the challenge of defending the territorial integrity of Nigeria, and not privileged youths from affluent backgrounds who perceive the Nigerian Defense Academy(NDA) and other military institutions as another route to comfort and way of escaping unemployment in the future.

It is also not a bad idea to revisit the military reserve policy. The short service training can target new blood interested in military career and retired officers and men who are still strong and fit for military operations.

Security, it must be borne in mind, is a joint responsibility involving the political leadership, military and citizens. The war can only be fought and won when there is the will, capacity, cooperation and determination of all those involved to liberate the country and usher in a new era of peace and security.