Which Ejo ?
Pastor ,Which Ejo?
Don’t let us be too emotional about this
The guy is gone
I don’t think anybody will be happy about this ?
Yes!!
Sad .
However , we should mourn the dead and care also for the living
I don’t see what burying him in the house will amount to for the living
For the children ,wife and relations .
So, burying him there will achieve what exactly? To whose glory?
Will burying him there make him wake up one day? Will it guarantee his family a comfortable life forever? Will it provide employment for his jobless wife? Will it rebuild his father’s house? Will it guarantee quality education for his children? Will it put food on their table, secure their future or provide lasting financial support for those he left behind?
What exactly is the economic, social or practical benefit of insisting that the man must be buried there?
Rubbish!
However, I must also say that the widow did not handle her case intelligently. Her arguments were weak, pedestrian and poorly articulated. She appeared naive, while those advising her did her a terrible disservice.
Her opposition to burying her husband there might have been reasonable, but the reasons she advanced were neither persuasive nor strategically presented. She could have been more diplomatic, logical and sensible.
Now, look at that house!
It is a gigantic edifice whose design raises serious questions about its economic utility. It appears unnecessarily massive, expensive to maintain and potentially wasteful, especially for a family that may now be struggling financially.
Indeed, the sheer size of the building naturally provokes another question: What was the source of the resources used to construct such a humongous edifice?
But that is a discussion for another day.
The immediate issue is the welfare of the widow and her children.
One thing must be understood: the wife and children have substantial inheritance interests in the deceased’s estate. Their rights cannot simply be brushed aside by extended family members or other interested parties. Of course, the precise legal position depends on the applicable inheritance laws, any valid will, the nature of ownership and other relevant circumstances.
Therefore, decisions concerning the property must respect their lawful interests and cannot be dictated merely by sentiment, tradition or the emotional demands of outsiders.
The widow should have built her argument around a simple, compelling proposition:
What is the value of preserving a monumental building as a burial shrine while the living beneficiaries of the deceased’s labour face an uncertain future?
Why not consider converting the property into financial security for the family, where legally permissible?
Provide a decent, manageable home for the widow and her children. Establish a sustainable business that can generate regular income for them. Invest a substantial portion of the remaining resources in a properly managed educational trust or foundation to guarantee the children’s schooling and future development.
That would be a more meaningful legacy!
A dead man does not need a mansion to rest in peace. His widow and children need security, dignity, education and economic stability to live in peace.
Unfortunately, what should have been a rational discussion about family welfare, inheritance rights and prudent estate management has degenerated into an unnecessary controversy, largely because of poor communication, emotional arguments and questionable advice.
The lady may have a legitimate case, but she has not presented it convincingly. Her advisers should have helped her articulate the economic, moral and legal implications rather than allowing her to become entangled in arguments that weaken her position.
The true monument to a deceased husband and father is not necessarily the grandeur of his burial place, but the quality of life enjoyed by the wife and children he leaves behind.
Let us stop glorifying the dead at the expense of the living!
A magnificent grave cannot pay school fees. A monumental burial site cannot feed hungry children. And an imposing mansion cannot substitute for a sustainable family livelihood.
That is the point!
