EDITORIAL: IJAW YOUTH COUNCIL, WHO IS PROTECTING THE YOUTHS? YOU CANNOT DEMAND RESPECT FOR LEADERS WHILE IGNORING THE SUFFERING OF THE PEOPLE! OTUARO, PAP AND THE DANGEROUS POLITICS OF SELECTIVE SOLIDARITY

By Tarakirivoice Editorial Board

There is something fundamentally wrong with a youth organisation that appears more troubled by the language frustrated young people use on social media than by the circumstances that have driven those young people to the point of frustration. The recent statement issued by the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) Worldwide, warning against what it describes as disrespect, insults and social media attacks on prominent Ijaw leaders, deserves more than applause, condemnation or emotional reactions. It deserves serious intellectual interrogation because, beyond the issue of civility and respect, it raises a much bigger question about the direction, priorities and moral responsibilities of the organisation that claims to represent the collective interests of Ijaw youths.

Nobody should celebrate abusive language, cyberbullying, threats or deliberate character assassination. Public figures, traditional rulers, former leaders, political officeholders and respected Ijaw personalities deserve basic human dignity. However, there is a fundamental distinction between insulting a leader and holding a leader accountable. Unfortunately, the IYC’s statement appears to place considerable emphasis on protecting the reputations of influential personalities without demonstrating equal urgency in addressing the grievances that ordinary young people have continued to express. Respect is important, but accountability is indispensable. A society that demands respect from its younger generation must also demonstrate that those occupying positions of authority understand their responsibilities towards the people.

NO YOUNG PERSON BECOMES ANGRY WITHOUT A REASON: THE IYC MUST INVESTIGATE THE ROOTS OF PUBLIC FRUSTRATION

No young person wakes up every morning, opens Facebook, picks up a phone and deliberately decides to attack everybody without a reason. While isolated cases of irresponsible behaviour certainly exist, it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss every angry young person as a useless social media troublemaker, a keypad warrior or somebody incapable of contributing anything meaningful to society. Behind some of the harshest public expressions are years of frustration, perceived injustice, unanswered complaints, economic hardship, political disappointment and the feeling of abandonment by institutions that are supposed to protect the people. The IYC must understand that social media has become one of the few available platforms through which ordinary citizens can challenge powerful individuals, question public policies and demand explanations from people occupying positions of authority.

Some young people may express themselves improperly, and some may cross the boundaries of responsible communication. However, the appropriate response should be to correct the misconduct while investigating the circumstances surrounding the grievances. The council should be asking what happened before the young person became angry, what complaint was ignored, what injustice was left unattended, what promises were broken and what intervention was made before the frustration eventually became public outrage. An organisation that focuses exclusively on the language of angry youths without examining the conditions producing that anger risks treating the symptoms while deliberately ignoring the disease. The IYC must understand that not every criticism is an insult, not every disagreement is disrespect, and not every person who challenges an influential Ijaw personality is an enemy of the Ijaw nation.

OTUARO AND THE PRESIDENTIAL AMNESTY PROGRAMME: WHERE IS THE IYC WHEN EX-AGITATORS ARE SUFFERING?

Perhaps the most important test of the IYC’s commitment to the welfare of Ijaw youths is the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP), an intervention established to address the consequences of militancy, promote reintegration, provide opportunities and contribute to sustainable peace in the Niger Delta. For years, former agitators and other beneficiaries have depended on the programme for stipends, educational opportunities, vocational training, empowerment and other reintegration benefits. Yet, despite the importance of this intervention, beneficiaries continue to raise serious concerns about their welfare, unpaid entitlements, BVN-related payment complications, educational allowances, reintegration challenges and other administrative difficulties. Under the leadership of Chief Dennis Brutus Otuaro, the Administrator of the Presidential Amnesty Programme, these complaints have continued to attract public attention. The question is no longer whether the Administrator deserves respect; the more important question is whether the beneficiaries are receiving the attention, transparency and institutional support they deserve.

The reported increase in the programme’s budget from approximately ₦65 billion to ₦115 billion makes these questions even more important. If the programme’s budget has increased significantly, why are beneficiaries still raising concerns about their financial welfare? What measurable improvements have the additional resources produced in the lives of the people the programme was established to rehabilitate? How many outstanding complaints have been resolved, how many beneficiaries have received their legitimate entitlements, and what mechanisms are available to prevent administrative failures? These are legitimate questions of public accountability, not acts of disrespect. The PAP is not the personal property of its Administrator; it is a public intervention programme funded by Nigerian taxpayers and established to serve a specific population. Consequently, its administration must remain open to scrutiny, and the people it was designed to serve must not be treated as inconveniences whenever they demand explanations.

WHEN BENEFICIARIES ARE CALLED FRAUDSTERS, WHERE IS THE IYC’S VOICE?

One particularly disturbing aspect of the ongoing PAP controversy is the reported characterisation of complaining beneficiaries as fraudsters. If beneficiaries raise concerns about their entitlements, payment complications or administrative experiences, the first responsibility of any serious institution should be to establish the facts rather than rush to discredit those making the complaints. Are the complaints genuine? Are there administrative failures? Are there unresolved payment issues? Are there individuals exploiting the system? If fraud is suspected, who are the actual perpetrators, and what evidence supports the allegation? These questions require investigation, not blanket condemnation. The IYC should be asking why beneficiaries are dissatisfied, whether their complaints have been investigated and whether the programme’s management has provided satisfactory explanations. If the Administrator believes particular beneficiaries are making false allegations, he should provide evidence and allow the appropriate institutions to investigate. Equally, if beneficiaries have legitimate complaints, those complaints deserve attention and resolution.

This is where the IYC must demonstrate the difference between being an organisation that merely speaks on behalf of Ijaw youths and one that actually stands with them when their interests are threatened. What has the council done to facilitate engagement between PAP management and aggrieved beneficiaries? Has it demanded an independent examination of unresolved complaints? Has it asked the Administrator to provide transparent explanations concerning the welfare of beneficiaries? Has it offered institutional support to those who believe they have been unfairly treated? The IYC cannot demand that young people respect leadership while appearing unwilling to demonstrate that leadership must also respect the welfare, dignity and legitimate expectations of young people. Calling beneficiaries names cannot replace accountability, just as defending a public officeholder cannot substitute for defending the people whose interests the office was established to serve.

THE IYC MUST EXPLAIN ITS INTERVENTIONS, NOT JUST ISSUE WARNINGS

The Ijaw Youth Council describes itself as an ethnocentric pressure group committed to protecting the interests of the Ijaw nation. That description carries enormous responsibility, because a pressure group is not established merely to issue statements, organise ceremonies, celebrate influential personalities or defend the reputations of prominent individuals. Its primary responsibility is to challenge injustice, demand accountability, defend vulnerable citizens and confront institutions whenever the interests of the people are threatened. Therefore, the IYC leadership under Comrade Dr. Doubra Collins Okotete must be prepared to answer some uncomfortable but necessary questions. When did the council formally engage the Presidential Amnesty Programme over the reported suffering of beneficiaries? What concrete intervention has it made concerning BVN-affected beneficiaries? Has it demanded transparency concerning the reported increase in the programme’s budget from ₦65 billion to ₦115 billion? Has it engaged the Presidency over the welfare of former agitators? Has it investigated complaints concerning alleged financial arrangements involving individuals who claim to have paid money to resolve their PAP-related problems?

These questions are not intended to undermine the IYC or diminish the sacrifices of its leadership. They are necessary questions arising from the responsibilities the council has voluntarily assumed. The public deserves to know what measurable interventions have been made, what outcomes have been achieved and what plans exist to address the persistent concerns of beneficiaries. If the council has intervened privately, it should communicate the outcome to the people it represents. If it has not intervened, it should explain why. An organisation cannot continuously demand public recognition as the defender of Ijaw youths while leaving its constituents uncertain about its position on issues directly affecting their welfare. Leadership is not measured by the strength of statements issued against critics; it is measured by the courage to confront difficult problems, including those involving influential individuals within one’s own ethnic nationality.

RESPECT MUST BE MUTUAL: LEADERS CANNOT DEMAND HONOUR WHILE THE PEOPLE BEG FOR ATTENTION

One of the most troubling implications of the IYC statement is the impression that the historical contributions of prominent Ijaw personalities should place them beyond public criticism. That argument is dangerous and fundamentally inconsistent with democratic accountability. The historical contributions of individuals to the Ijaw struggle deserve recognition. The sacrifices of those who fought for resource control, environmental justice, political recognition and the emancipation of the Niger Delta must never be erased. However, historical contributions do not confer permanent immunity from scrutiny. A person who fought for the freedom of the Ijaw people yesterday must still be accountable for decisions made in public office today. A former agitator who became a prominent businessman must not be above legitimate questions concerning public responsibilities. A traditional ruler must be respected, but respect does not mean that legitimate community concerns should be suppressed. A government appointee must be accorded dignity, but his performance must remain open to examination.

The Ijaw struggle was never supposed to produce a privileged class of untouchable individuals whose reputations matter more than the welfare of ordinary people. The essence of the struggle was to secure justice, recognition, opportunities and a better future for the people. It would therefore be a contradiction of the very ideals that inspired generations of Ijaw activists if those who inherited the responsibility of defending the people suddenly began interpreting public accountability as an attack on their personalities. Respect is not silence, loyalty is not blindness, and ethnic solidarity is not an agreement to overlook wrongdoing. If leaders want to be celebrated for their contributions, they must also be willing to accept questions about their present responsibilities. That is how genuine respect is earned and sustained across generations.

THE DANGEROUS LANGUAGE OF ‘FISHING OUT’ AND DEALING WITH YOUTHS

The IYC’s warning that it is prepared to fish out and deal decisively with youths who engage in what it considers cyberbullying also deserves careful examination. What exactly does this mean? Is the council proposing lawful mediation, public engagement and appropriate legal processes, or is it suggesting that it possesses some authority to intimidate or punish citizens for expressing opinions? The IYC must be reminded that it is not a law enforcement agency, a court of law or a constitutional institution empowered to punish Nigerians for exercising their fundamental rights. The Nigerian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, subject to lawful limitations. Where an individual commits defamation, harassment, threats or another legally recognised offence, the appropriate legal process should be followed. Nobody should be above the law, but neither should any organisation use its influence to create an atmosphere in which young people become afraid to question powerful individuals.

There is an important contradiction the council must resolve. It claims that it does not take sides with politicians, public officeholders or influential individuals, and that it would defend disadvantaged youths against maltreatment and oppression. If that commitment is genuine, it must be demonstrated consistently, especially when the alleged injustice involves someone who occupies an influential position within the Ijaw political establishment. The true test of an independent pressure group is not whether it can confront outsiders, but whether it possesses the courage to demand accountability from its own powerful people. The same IYC that warns youths against insulting leaders must also be prepared to defend those youths against intimidation, oppression and injustice. Otherwise, its commitment to freedom of expression and the protection of disadvantaged young people risks appearing selective.

THE GREATEST DANGER: AN IJAW NATION DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF

Perhaps the most dangerous consequence of this kind of institutional approach is the division it could create among Ijaw youths. There is already a growing perception among sections of the younger generation that influential individuals are more interested in protecting their political, economic and personal interests than addressing the collective problems confronting the Ijaw nation. When young people complain about unemployment, insecurity, poverty, exclusion and perceived injustice, they expect organisations like the IYC to stand with them. When former agitators complain about the administration of a programme established partly because of their sacrifices, they expect their ethnic youth organisation to investigate and demand answers. When ordinary citizens question public expenditure, they expect a pressure group to amplify those questions. If, instead, the first visible response is a warning against disrespecting powerful personalities, the organisation risks creating an unfortunate impression that protecting influential individuals has become more urgent than protecting ordinary youths.

The consequences of such a perception could be far-reaching. Young people who believe that their representatives are more interested in protecting political connections than defending their welfare may gradually lose confidence in the institutions established to represent them. This could produce a dangerous generational divide in which some youths identify with influential political and economic interests while others become increasingly hostile to the same establishment. The Ijaw nation cannot afford a situation where youths begin to see one another as enemies simply because some defend powerful personalities while others demand accountability. We cannot build a united Ijaw nation by teaching young people that they must defend every influential individual regardless of circumstances. We cannot demand solidarity from the younger generation while ignoring their legitimate grievances. We cannot preach unity while creating an environment in which criticism is interpreted as betrayal. The IYC must understand that unity built on enforced silence is not genuine unity; it is merely the temporary suppression of unresolved disagreements.

THE IYC MUST NOT CONFUSE THE IJAW NATION WITH THE INTERESTS OF A FEW INDIVIDUALS

There is a difference between protecting the Ijaw nation and protecting the interests of influential Ijaw personalities. The two are not always identical, and sometimes protecting the Ijaw nation requires questioning an Ijaw political officeholder. Sometimes defending the interests of ordinary Ijaw people requires challenging an Ijaw businessperson. Sometimes standing for justice requires demanding answers from an Ijaw government appointee. Sometimes the greatest act of loyalty to one’s ethnic nationality is to tell its leaders uncomfortable truths. The IYC must appreciate this distinction because the Ijaw nation is much bigger than the political influence, financial strength or public reputation of any individual. The ordinary fisherman, unemployed graduate, struggling former agitator, student, trader, community volunteer and disadvantaged young person are equally important components of the Ijaw nation.

An organisation that cannot question its own influential people when necessary will eventually struggle to convince the public that it can challenge outsiders who oppress the Ijaw nation. The Ijaw struggle cannot be reduced to protecting the image of a few personalities. It must be about the dignity, security, prosperity and future of the entire Ijaw population. No individual, regardless of past contributions or present influence, should become more important than the collective welfare of the people. The IYC should therefore be careful not to create an environment where young people believe that access to influential personalities determines whose complaints deserve attention and whose voices must be silenced.

A BETTER IYC IS POSSIBLE: FROM ISSUING WARNINGS TO DEMANDING ANSWERS

Rather than concentrating its energy on threatening social media users, the IYC should consider establishing a credible accountability and welfare committee to investigate complaints affecting Ijaw youths, particularly beneficiaries of the Presidential Amnesty Programme. Such a committee could formally engage the PAP Administrator over outstanding beneficiary complaints, demand transparency concerning the reported increase in the programme’s budget, facilitate an independent examination of allegations of financial misconduct, protect beneficiaries who report genuine administrative difficulties, and establish a platform for constructive engagement between PAP management and affected beneficiaries. It could also promote responsible social media engagement while defending the constitutional rights of young people to question public officials. Most importantly, the council should periodically publish reports showing its actual interventions and measurable achievements so that the people can assess its commitment to the responsibilities it has assumed.

These are the kinds of actions that can restore public confidence in the IYC. The council must become an institution that powerful people respect because of its courage and ordinary people trust because of its commitment to justice. It must demonstrate that its loyalty is to the Ijaw nation and not to any political camp, individual officeholder or group of influential personalities. A youth organisation that consistently demands accountability from everyone, regardless of status or political affiliation, will naturally command more respect than one whose strongest public statements appear directed at critics of influential individuals. The IYC has an opportunity to rise above the controversy and demonstrate that it understands the difference between protecting the dignity of leaders and protecting the interests of the people.

OUR FINAL MESSAGE TO THE IYC LEADERSHIP

Comrade Dr. Doubra Collins Okotete and members of the 10th National Executive Council, the Ijaw nation needs a youth organisation that is courageous enough to defend the people even when doing so makes powerful individuals uncomfortable. Nobody is suggesting that Ijaw youths should abuse elders, destroy reputations or engage in irresponsible online conduct. But neither should the IYC suggest that the price of being recognised as a responsible Ijaw youth is the abandonment of critical thinking, public scrutiny and the courage to question authority. A young person who asks why the Amnesty budget has increased while beneficiaries continue to complain about their welfare is not necessarily disrespectful. A beneficiary who demands an explanation for an unresolved payment is not automatically a troublemaker. A citizen who questions the performance of an Ijaw public officeholder is not automatically an enemy of the Ijaw nation. And a youth who refuses to applaud a leader simply because that leader belongs to his ethnic nationality has not committed an offence against Ijaw identity.

The council must also understand that frustration does not always originate from hatred. Sometimes, it originates from disappointment in people from whom much was expected. The youths who are expressing anger today are not necessarily enemies of the Ijaw nation; many may simply be demanding that the promises of the Ijaw struggle become visible in their daily lives. They want opportunities, justice, accountability, economic security and a leadership that listens. They want an Ijaw nation where influential personalities are celebrated for genuine achievements, but where ordinary people are not abandoned when they need protection. If Chief Dennis Otuaro is performing excellently, let the facts speak. Let the records be transparent, let beneficiaries receive their legitimate entitlements and let unresolved complaints be addressed. If allegations are false, establish their falsity through evidence. If allegations are genuine, demand corrective action. That is how leadership earns respect, not through warnings, intimidation or the expectation that young people must remain silent while their legitimate concerns go unanswered.

The IYC must decide what history it wants to write. Will it be remembered as a council that defended the dignity and welfare of ordinary Ijaw youths, challenged injustice and demanded accountability from every level of leadership? Or will it be remembered as an organisation that became more concerned about protecting the reputations of influential personalities than confronting the problems facing the younger generation? This is a defining moment for the council. The Ijaw nation does not need a youth organisation that teaches its young people how to respect power; it needs one that teaches those in power how to respect the people. The true strength of the Ijaw nation is not measured by the number of powerful individuals it can defend, but by how effectively it protects the ordinary people whose sacrifices, struggles and collective identity gave those individuals the opportunity to become powerful in the first place.

IYC, BEFORE YOU ASK THE YOUTHS TO RESPECT THE LEADERS, SHOW THEM THAT THE LEADERSHIP ALSO RESPECTS THE YOUTHS.

WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOUR.
TARAKIRIVOICE EDITORIAL BOARD