The Nation Newspaper

Category: Dapo Fafowora

  • Responsibility, defiance and politics

    Responsibility, defiance and politics

    Two Northern governors this week asked their states citizens not to run away from the bandits raiding schools and farms but to defend themselves with whatever weapons at their  disposal     and  protect themselves . It  sounds like a tall order  or even an  abdication of  responsibility   by the governors .  But  it is neither , and why we say so  is the start of our  discussion today  on leadership  , responsibility  and  defiance in the face of overwhelming  political ,  socio economic  , demographic and diplomatic odds  and challenges . I  will proceed to cite some situations globally and locally  to illustrate  this topic   and  then  show how each  in its unique context illustrates   the  topic of the day .

    Starting as we  have done with Nigeria and  the two  governors  we note that the Nigerian president    has  fired both the Ministers of Power and Agriculture in a swift  move that reflects  defiance of failure in the two  key sectors of food security  and power  generation . Similarly in the  US an  embattled US president  beat  his chest defiantly in the way  he had abandoned Afghanistan and  left  some Afghans and even Americans at the mercy  of the blood thirsty Taliban who  will now consolidate the   Afghanistanisation  of their  nation in terms of Islamic  values at great odds  with American International leftist values and orientation . Such  values  the  Taliban detests as anti Sharia  are what  the Hungarian   president quoted recently  as the reason why  he sees  what   he labeled  ‘ the International  liberal  left’ ,   led by the US  will  interfere in Hungary’s 2022  election   to  remove  him  from office  because  he  opposes gay  rights and  has made laws  in Hungary  banning  the teaching of gay  rights in Hungary’s  schools  to children  and  has encouraged  the teaching of family values . If  you recall  that the Transportation Secretary in the Biden Administration is a gay man married  to a gay man it is not difficult to see why  the Hungarian president  is apprehensive of American intervention  in  the  elections   to  remove him from  power in the 2022 Hungarian elections .What  the Hungarian President has identified as the International Left is indeed a potent global  force led by the US and EU  and   is an  Ideology very well committed to promoting  as  human and  civil liberties ,  gay  rights and women  rights   while  trying to smuggle in gender identity and crippling family values and religion globally  . Focus   on global  resistance to the  New International   Left in all ramifications  , will take a lot of the time of this column for a long time to come .  We  now look at each  of these situations critically .

    Read Also; PMB and lessons from Afghanistan

    We  go back  to our nation Nigeria and  note that the two  governors are pragmatic and brave in admitting responsibility that the state security apparatus  cannot defend its citizens against  the bandits . It  is  not an admission  of failure on their part but  a  rude and  crude admission that they will not preside over the  liquidation of their people . It is a  call to arms on the state citizens  not  to commit  hara kiri with their legs by fleeing but to take their destiny into their hands and fight the bandits . I see it as step in the right direction to stem  the  tide of growing violence that the state  governments now know they cannot  handle  because it is a real  emergency  and life has no duplicate .

    On  the issues of the Ministers sack  ,the president is admitting that the  buck stops on his table and the two Minsters  have not  delivered on their mandate . The  importance of electricity can  never be trivialized in economic growth and development  and the nation is lacking  behind  dangerously on power generation , transmission and distribution.  We   now  have Nigerians and industries living and working more on generators than an  impotent   and unreliable  national   grid  . There is no way unemployment can  be defeated as the government  desires if the industries are not working productively  to generate  needed  goods and services to increase demand and production . On  food  security the sack of the Minster was overdue but the president must find a way of stopping herdsmen destroying farms  in the guise   of   looking for water and food for their cattle . Grazing rights must not deter   or   defy   food security and how this is  managed   and delivered is an important  responsibility of  the President and any Minster of Agriculture  working for him .

    On  the American  president’s admitting responsibility for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan  despite  the fact that some Republican senators have called for his resignation or impeachment  ,   he can  be   forgiven  for saluting himself  because he did  not see the larger  diplomatic picture and consequence .Two  allies relying for their security  on   the US  visited him as he handled the abandonment of American allies in Afghanistan . The leaders of Israel and Ukraine  were at the White House ostensibly  to get assurance that they will  not abandoned in times of crisis with Iran  and Russia   respectively  like the US  abandoned Afghanistan  and its Afghan allies quite  recently . To President Biden any withdrawal is acceptable  as long as US troops  are home . Which is okay as long as the US has learnt its lesson that it has no right planting  democracy in Afghanistan  because  the  culture of Afghanistan is Islamic and that explains why the Afghan army   the  US  boasted of training bolted at the approach  of the Taliban who were surprised at the speed of the Afghan army capitulation and the speed   of the Taliban victory .

    One thing is clear,  and that is that the west and US can  not plant western values in Afghanistan any  more  because  of  the simple fact that the Taliban does not respect woman rights and thinks  the place of the woman is in the house with the family . Funnily  enough that is the view of societies and nations  with  anti gay laws . Such nations include Hungary and Poland in the EU as minorities because most EU members admit and have laws that say  boldly that gay  rights and gender identity are European values . Nigeria and Turkey have anti gay laws  and Turkey recently  pulled  out of  an agreement with EU that  was about recognizing  women protection against   domestic  violence by loading gender identity  with the violence  ,  a situation that Islamic though secular Turkey   found unpalatable .

    It  is remarkable  the  Biden government promoting American  and European  values can  not carry  along its opponents in   its  political  system on such values .The  US  Supreme  Court just confirmed a Texas law that endorsed abortion which the Biden Administration  has all along opposed . Even  the issue  of wearing  masks  or  not has polarized the US into anti  mask and pro masks wearing  Americans and political parties  with The Democrats pro mask and the Republicans anti  mask and  this  is in a pandemic when  the governments should  not politicize health security for all Americans .The  defiance on both  sides can deteriorate into violence anytime and one wonders  how heated up the American political system will  be when elections come under this pandemic  and given the depth of hostility and defiance  in the political  system . Once again From the fury of this pandemic Good Lord Deliver Nigeria.

  • President Buhari at the UN

    President Buhari at the UN

    President Muhammadu Buhari is currently in New York to attend the 72nd Session of the UN General Assembly. Two days ago he delivered an impressive speech at the General Assembly which was warmly received by the world leaders attending the Session, including many African leaders. There are more than 100 world leaders attending the General Assembly. We should offer him our warmest congratulations for his bravery and patriotism in going to New York in spite of his recent grave illness, from which he has, obviously, not fully recovered yet. Attending a session of the UN General Assembly in New York is by no means an easy physical and mental task. Apart from the long flight to New York there are endless meetings to attend at the multilateral and bilateral levels, including meetings with his foreign counterparts, the multilateral UN and other financial agencies, potential foreign investors, particularly American investors, and the large Nigerian community in the United States. Many of these will be anxious to meet him and hear from him first hand reports about the disturbing political and economic situation in our country. From the official programe of his visit, which I have seen, and with which I am familiar, having once served at the UN, it is going to be a grueling progamme of meetings and events that could be telling on his stamina.

    Now, his brief speech at the UN General Assembly, the full text of which I have seen, was delivered on Tuesday, two days ago. It was forthright and broadly consistent with the basic objectives and principles of Nigeria’s foreign policy since independence in 1960. In that speech he reiterated Nigeria’s total commitment to democracy, not only for ourselves .but for the whole of Africa. He assured the world leaders that, despite some setbacks over the years, Nigeria’s “faith and commitment in democracy remains unshaken”.  He said the frontiers of good governance and democracy, including the holding of free elections, and the enthronement of the rule of law was expanding everywhere in Africa. In this regard he specifically referred to Nigeria’s role in promoting democracy in Africa by its direct intervention in resolving political conflicts in Africa, in such African countries as Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leone and, more recently, The Gambia. Nigeria’s decisive role in those countries made a huge difference to their political future and stability, badly needed in Africa. Nigeria can be proud of its leading role in resolving conflicts in Africa, in most cases by sending peace keeping troops to troubled African countries under the aegis of the UN. President Buhari also acknowledged the positive role of the UN and the international community in assisting countries of the Lake Chad region in offering those countries relief and other humanitarian assistance.

    In his speech President Buhari expressed his concerns about the expansion of terrorism in the world including Boko Haram in Nigeria.  He referred to what he called the exemplary show of solidarity by the international community in assisting countries in the Sahel and Lake Chad region, including in containing the threats of Al Qaida and Boko Haram in the region. He expressed regrets over the bloody civil war and carnage in Syria which have led to the problem of massive Syrian refugees in Europe and the neighboring countries. In this regard he expressed his appreciation of the efforts of Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Greece for their assistance to hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the major areas of conflict in the Middle East. He added that Nigeria too was providing relief and humanitarian assistance to millions in refugee camps in Nigeria afflicted by terrorism, drought, floods and other natural disasters.

    He conveyed his support and appreciation for what the international community was doing globally to promote gender equality, social inclusion, youth empowerment, education, creativity and innovation. This is appropriate as the theme of this UNGA Session is “Focusing on people: striving for peace and a decent life for all on a sustainable planet”.

    On the issue of widespread public corruption which he decried, he called for the cooperation of the international community in promoting global financial accountability by providing critical assistance and material support to combat corruption and asset recovery in which Nigeria is now closely involved.

    President Buhari decried the new conflicts erupting in Myanmar which he compared to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia in 1995 and Rwanda in 1994 and called on the UN and the international community to condemn “the horrendous suffering … of a state backed programme of a total depopulation of the Rohingyas in Myanmar.” His comments on the Middle East were no less scathing. He referred to the continuing flouting (by Israel) since 1967 of several UN Security Council Resolutions on the Middle East which has led to the continuing suffering of the Palestinian people and the blockade of Gaza. Broadly, these comments are consistent with Nigeria’s well known policy in the Middle East which supports a two states solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict

    He expressed Nigeria’s support for the on- going efforts at reforming the entire UN system in which Nigeria has been involved since its admission to the UN in 1960. He also reiterated that any UN reforms should include the admission of one or two African members to the status of permanent members of the UN Security Council. This is a legitimate demand as the UN cannot truly be regarded as a global organization until its African members are treated equally, at all levels, with other regional groups. It is the only regional group that is excluded from the permanent membership of the UN Security Council with all its rights and privileges.

    Altogether, it was a good outing by the president. Nigeria’s views and policy on all these global issues were very well articulated. In the course of his stay in New York he will be holding more talks at both the bilateral and multilateral levels. This is where the real diplomacy takes place, not at the UN itself. When he meets President Trump, President Buhari will be asking for more arms supplies from the US to fight terrorism in Nigeria.  There is a mutuality of interests in evolved here. But he should also convey to him in very strong terms Nigeria’s concerns about the hostility of his government to black immigrants and the brutal manner in which blacks are being treated. This is totally unacceptable and intolerable in a civilized world.

     

    Am. O. Fafowora

    • Amb. Dapo Fafowora is a former Ambassador and deputy permanent representative of Nigeria to the UN, New York.
  • Our ailing nation and its ailing President

    Our ailing nation and its ailing President

    These are definitely not the best of times for our country and our president, Muhammadu Buhari. Both are ailing badly. First, the nation has, for two years now, been grappling with a painful recession that has left the economy devastated. The recession, arguably the worst  we have ever had, has been made worse by massive public corruption at all levels. Domestic prices are rising sharply. The current inflation rate has been put at just under 17 per cent. Bank lending rates are at very high levels and, instead of a single FX rate, we have multiple rates to ration out our falling FX earnings. This is the legacy President Buhari inherited from his predecessors in office, particularly President Jonathan.

    Although, as claimed by the CBN and other economic experts, the recession may have bottomed out, all well informed financial and economic analysis have indicated that growth in the next few years is not expected to rise by more than 1 per cent. Growth in the second quarter of this year has been put at only 0.55 per cent. In effect, there is not going to be a significant recovery in our economy in the next few years. The situation in the oil sector on which Nigeria depends heavily remains uncertain and fragile. Production and export cuts may be forced on our oil sector by uncertainties in the global  oil market. Diversification of the economy away from its heavy dependence on oil exports has not yet materialized. In fact, some will say that our feeble efforts in the diversification of the domestic economy from its excessive dependence on oil exports have failed woefully.

    Sadly, the fight against mass public corruption in our country is losing momentum. Some, including Mr. Magu, the acting chairman of the EFFC, believe the fight has already been lost. Due to tardy and inefficient prosecutions there has been virtually no jailing of any high profile pubic officials for corruption. Some of the public institutions that should support the anti-corruption struggle are far too weak and too compromised to rise to the challenges involved in fighting corruption in our country. Many of them have proved to be largely ineffective in the fight against public corruption. Some of them are even pushing back against the war on corruption, the primary focus of the Buhari APC federal government.

    At the political level, the state is having to cope desperately with terrorism in Bornu, increased separatist tendencies all over the country, kidnappings, assassinations, and ritual killings. There is a near total breakdown of law and order in our country. The government is left bewildered and increasingly helpless in its efforts at tackling its security challenges. But the law and order agencies are hobbled largely by inadequate financial and logistics resources. They are overstretched. The call for the creation of state police forces to provide some relief for the federal police has, for political reasons, been largely ignored by the federal government. Nigeria is beginning to look increasingly like a failed state. The process of failure of a state can go on, gradually, for years, with the state struggling desperately to survive. That is where we are now. Progress of any kind has been very slow in our country. Vital public institutions, including the public service, the Police, and other security agencies remain very fragile, too weak to support and sustain the country.

    And now, the nation’s woes are being further compounded by an ailing president. Since coming to power two years ago, President Buhari has been hobbled by his poor health. He has had to go to the UK twice, for extended periods, to receive medical attention for an undisclosed illness. He returned home from the UK only a few weeks ago after an extended stay of over 100 days abroad. We must continue to pray for his speedy recovery. It is in the interest of our country that he recovers fully from his illness. In these difficult times, with a myriad of very complex and disturbing challenges, the state needs a physically and mentally fit president to provide the much needed leadership and steadying hands in our country.  His poor health will limit his ability to govern effectively and take the right decisions in the interest of our nation.

    The decisions that we take daily in our lives are often affected by the state of our health. A prolonged and debilitating illness, such as that of President Buhari, can affect the quality of decisions we take. Good health is even more important in the case of heads of state as they have enormous responsibilities and wield a lot of power. Their decisions are easily adversely affected by poor health.  But for his poor health, President Yar’Adua who died in office showed early promise of being a good president. His judgments in office were consistently sound and in the national interest. But when he fell ill there was a power vacuum. He could no longer govern effectively. Some of his cronies virtually seized power and served only their individual and selfish interests

    After the defeat of Nazi Germany and the death of its leader, Adolf Hitler, historians of the Third Reich were able to establish easily that some of Hitler’s bizarre political and  military decisions, such as the sudden and reckless invasion of Russia, Germany’s ally, and the refusal to withdraw his beleaguered troops from Leningrad when they faced certain defeat, were due to his poor health. His quack German doctor, Theodor Morell, had to give him injections on a daily basis to keep him going. This dependence on drugs affected his political and military judgments. His illness, carefully concealed from the public, accounts for some of his outrageous decisions and ambitions as the leader of Nazi Germany. It has been offered as an explanation for the German concentration camps in which 6 million Jews perished. Such brutality can only have been the product of a demented mind, a kind of mental illness and amnesia.

    Another equally bad case of poor judgment as a result of  illness is that of Sir Anthony Eden (later Lord Avon) who succeeded Winston Churchill as British Conservative Prime Minister. Anthony Eden, a brilliant and capable man, had made a name for himself as a principled and courageous politician when he resigned in 1936, or thereabouts, as a junior minister in the Foreign Office, in protest against the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain, the British Conservative Prime Minister. But in 1956, he destroyed his reputation when he suddenly invaded and seized the Suez Canal in collaboration with France and Israel. His action was totally unjustified and reckless. And it was widely condemned  in Britain and abroad. Under international pressure, particularly from his principal ally, the United States, Anthony Eden was forced to withdraw his forces from Egypt in disgrace. Britain’s reputation for fairness was badly damaged. His action presaged the fall of the British empire in Africa. . Soon after, he was forced to resign from office due to bad health. His political career and reputation were destroyed.

    In Africa too, we have the examples of Idi Amin of Uganda, and Mobutu Sese Seko of the Congo whose political judgments were badly affected by their poor health. Some of their outrageous decisions as heads of state have been attributed to the bad health from which they both suffered. In the case of Idi Amin, he was widely believed to have suffered from syphilis which accounted for his brutality. I was serving in our high commission in Kampala at the time and thought most of his decisions bizarre. Even here in our own country, there has been some speculation that the poor state of health of Gen. Sani Abacha, when he was military head of state, affected his political judgments, including his megalomania, very badly. He should have left office to look after his health. But he was no longer fit enough to take a rational  decision, even in his own interest.

    It is not being suggested here that President Buhari is in that situation right now, in which his poor health may have begun to affect his judgment. But it is also possible that is the case right now. There is little or no doubt that the pace of his government has slowed down considerably. A bit of lethargy has set in and the government is perceived as being increasingly slow in taking some vital decisions. A lot of decisions regarding important public appointments are being left in abeyance. This has led to speculations about the emergence in the presidency of a so-called cabal, the ‘jackals and hyenas,’ that is now taking vital decisions on behalf of the President. This would, for example, seem to explain the contradictions between the Foreign Office and the presidency over Morocco’s application to join ECOWAS. Instead of working together, they seem to be pulling in different directions to the detriment of our country. Many would, in fact, like him to go now and look after his personal health. But that is a decision that only he can make. It cannot be forced on him as he has a mandate to govern until 2019 when the next presidential elections are due.

    There is no doubt that, during President Buhari’s long absence from our country, Vice President  Yemi Osinbajo showed his mettle and capability in the able manner he ran the country, for which he has been publicly commended by President Buhari. But there were still critically important decisions that he could not take on his own. Some of these were pressing and urgent, but required the discretion of the president himself. Even if, in the absence of the president, he had full authority to act, the vice president would still have needed to be cautious and circumspect in taking some important decisions on behalf of the president. Professor Osinbajo is a competent and able man, and a great patriot. But he is no politician and most of the decisions the president has to take are political in nature, with political consequences.

    Now that the president has returned to his duties, he should  delegate more responsibilities to the Vice president and his more senior advisers. It is obvious, even from his photographs that he has not yet recovered fully from his illness. At 74, it is unlikely that he will recover fully. We can only hope that he will be able to serve out his remaining term in office. But he should focus his attention on more important state matters, such as the fight against public corruption in our country, the poor economy, the continuing reform of state institutions to make them more viable and stronger, and state security. On account of his age and poor health, it is unlikely that President Buhari will seek a second term in office. In effect, he has only two more years left to shape the legacy he is going to leave the country with. That should be his main concern now.

  • Morocco seeks membership of ECOWAS

    The Kingdom of Morocco, in North Africa, has applied to join the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas). Its application was submitted to the Organisation at the 51st Ordinary Session of its heads of states in Monrovia, Liberia on June 4, 2017. It is under consideration by the15 member states of the Organisation, including Nigeria. No decision has been taken yet on the application, but there were media reports that the meeting had expressed ‘general support’ for Morocco’s application to join the Organisation. Now, this is no indication of approval or commitment on the part of members of the Organization to admit Morocco to Ecowas. The heads of state directed the Ecowas Commission to examine and advise them on Morocco’s application ‘in the light of the provisions of the Ecowas Revised Treaty of 1993″. The report of the Commission will be presented for consideration to the 52nd Ordinary Session of the summit meeting of the Organisation in December, 2017, in Lome, Togo. This will allow member states adequate time for multilateral consultations on Morocco’s application.

    Nigeria has officially maintained a dignified and studied silence on Morocco’s application. But there can be no doubt about its strong opposition to Morocco’s bid to join Ecowas of which, with Togo, it is a founding and leading member. The Foreign Ministry is believed to have advised the government against supporting Morocco’s application. Based on this advice, it is believed that Nigeria has made its reservations on Morocco’s bid for membership known to other member states. Given Nigeria’s political and economic influence in the regional organization it is unlikely that its views on Morocco’s application will be ignored, or treated lightly. Most of the member states of the organisation share Nigeria’s apprehensions about admitting Morocco to membership of the Organisation. It should not be too difficult to reach a consensus on rejecting Morocco’s bid for admission into Ecowas.

    Equally, two former Foreign Ministers, Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, and Amb. Ignatius Olisemeka, have in separate public statements, expressed their reservations and opposition to Morocco’s bid to enter Ecowas. The Association of Retired Career Ambassadors of Nigeria (ARCAN), with a membership of over 200 retired career ambassadors, has also expressed its strong opposition to Morocco’s bid to join Ecowas. A few weeks ago, the Lagos and Abuja branches of the Association had a meeting with the Foreign Minister, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama, at which they presented him with a joint memorandum outlining their objections to Morocco’s bid to seek membership of the organisation. The Minister assured the ARCAN deputation that its paper will be considered at the highest levels of the government, and will receive its due attention. There is broad support in the government for ARCAN’s reservations about Morocco’s bid to join Ecowas.

    Now, what are the grounds for objecting to Morocco’s admission into Ecowas? First, as its name implies, the Organization was established in 1975 to promote economic cooperation among states in the West African sub-region of Africa. Morocco is a North African state, not a West African state, as stipulated by the basic treaty establishing the Organisation which was concluded in Lome, Togo, in 1975. General Gowon and President Eyadema of Togo were the prime movers and initiators of the Organisation. When it was established, neither Morocco, nor any other African state outside the West Africa region, were invited to join the Organisation. The Abuja Treaty of 1993 also resolved that Ecowas was one of the five regional groups that should constitute the building blocks for the African Economic Community (AEC). Similar regional economic organisations have been established in the Northern, Western, Central, Eastern, and Southern regions of Africa. All these regional economic communities are in existence and functioning reasonably well.

    Morocco belongs to the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), of North Africa, with its headquarters in Rabat, Morocco, as well as the Arab League. In fact, the Abuja Treaty of 1993 is not in support of African states joining two or more regional economic communities. In effect, it is the objective of the African Union (AU) to eliminate and discourage multiple membership by its member states, as this could complicate the move towards both regional and continental integration.

    Now, it is clear that Morocco is not in the West African geographical zone as defined by both the 1975 Lome Ecowas Treaty and the 1993 Abuja Revised Treaty. It does not, therefore, meet the basic criteria for admission into EOWAS. It is, by virtue of its geographical location in North Africa, simply not eligible for membership of the regional organisation. It is not even contiguous to any West African state as defined by the AU.

    The second reason for rejecting Morocco’s application for membership is that, for Morocco to be admitted, the basic legal instruments establishing ECOWAS will have to be changed. This will be a tedious legal process that could damage the unity and cohesion of the organisation as its members will be divided over any unwarranted change in its legal instruments. This will undermine the unity of purpose in the organization. It will be a totally unnecessary diversion of the organisation from its basic objective of promoting economic cooperation among its members. Virtually all members of Ecowas already have bilateral economic relations with Morocco. This will not necessarily be enhanced by admitting Morocco into the regional organisation. The Arab Maghreb Union of which Morocco is, more appropriately, a member should offer it an adequate platform for economic cooperation with its neighbours. So should the Arab League. Its admission will dilute the membership of Ecowas and weaken the organisation to which Nigeria has been fully committed since 1975 when it was established. The central issue involved in the admission of Morocco into Ecowas is not about Nigeria’s influence in Ecowas, but the integrity of the organization

    Thirdly. Morocco’s bid for admission into Ecowas is based on unjustified political and economic considerations that are incompatible with the objectives of the organization. Morocco wants to join Ecowas to use it as a political and diplomatic platform to promote its illegal annexation of Western Sahara and to subvert the legitimate aspirations of the people of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) to their independence, despite the dubious claims of Morocco to sovereignty over the state. In 1984, when General Buhari was military head of state, he strongly supported the admission of the SADR to the OAU. This was to underscore Nigeria’s full commitment to the total decolonization of Africa. The decision to admit the SADR regrettably led Morocco to withdraw from the OAU immediately. In January, 2017, 33 years after it withdrew Morocco was readmitted as a member of the AU. Even in the Arab Maghreb Union and the Arab League, of which Morocco is a member, its membership of both organizations has been disruptive as it seeks to use both organisations to promote its political and economic ambitions in the Western Sahara. Morocco has for decades been in isolation and in open disagreement with virtually all its neighbours on the issue of independence for estern Sahara. Its current effort to join Ecowas should be seen as a part of its grand design to annex SADR for the exploitation of its huge natural resources, particularly phosphates. But the UN has declared as illegal the continued exploitation by Morocco of phosphates and other natural resources in the state. Any trade agreement with Morocco on the sale of phosphates from the SADR will be in violation of the UN ban. Its admission to membership of Ecowas will create a political and diplomatic conflict that will not be in the collective interest of the organization. It could lead to its break up.

    Traditionally, Nigeria has and should continue to have good bilateral relations with Morocco, including the promotion of economic relations. The two countries have strong cultural links that should be maintained. But for the reasons given, Nigeria should make it clear to both Morocco and member states of Ecowas that it is not in support of Morocco’s admission to membership of the organization.

    Amb. Oladapo Fafowora is currently President of the Association of Retired Career Ambassadors of Nigeria (ARCAN), Lagos branch.

  • More foreign borrowing by Nigeria

    More foreign borrowing by Nigeria

    (Moves from low risk to medium risk borrower)

    I have over the years written extensively to express my concerns about our country’s propensity for increased domestic and foreign borrowing. Last year, in an article in this paper, I urged caution on the federal government on foreign borrowing when President Buhari concluded a loan agreement of US$6 billion with China for the construction of the Lagos-Calabar railways project. I am not opposed to that loan as I consider it vital to the development of our woeful transport and other infrastructure. It should have been done long before now. Nigeria’s financing gap has widened considerably because of the delay and past neglect in executing vital development projects. Loans should be taken when needed badly for the upgrade of projects vital for our economic development. But the Chinese loan means we now have a total loan agreement of about US$18 with China alone, now our largest foreign lender.  In fact, apart from multilateral lenders, China is one of the few remaining countries still willing to lend Nigeria money. Our foreign borrowing is not a subject that I approach lightly as the burden of a huge foreign debt has grave implications for our future prosperity as a nation. I find it disturbing and disappointing that I have to return to this subject again. And this is because Nigeria is looking to borrowing from abroad again nearly N2.5 tr. or more this fiscal year. The loan is needed to balance  the  2017 FG budget and for infrastructure development.

    Our national experience with huge foreign debts has not been a happy one. Now, twice in the last three decades, Nigeria has found itself in the critical situation of not being able to service or repay its domestic and foreign debt, with the potential of being declared, like Greece, technically insolvent and bankrupt. In 1984, when Buhari seized power from the inept and financially profligate civilian government of President Shagari, Nigeria’s foreign debt was close to US$40 billion. This placed our country in a financial blind from which neither the military regime of Buhari, nor that of his successor, Babangida, was able to extricate the country. Tough economic and financial stabilisation measures, including a sharp devaluation of the naira, had to be introduced to cut imports. The effect of these draconian economic measures on the country was devastating. Mass poverty deepened further as public expenditure and investment fell sharply. The GDP growth rate fell sharply and growth prospects declined. The industrial sector was on the verge of total collapse. Many manufacturing industries were forced to close down, leading to a severe loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. Even today, we have not yet recovered fully from the industrial dislocation and loss of jobs caused by that financial crisis.

    It was not until in 2007, during the civilian regime of President Obasanjo, that Nigeria was able to exit from its London and Paris Clubs of creditors by paying about US18 billion of its debt, with the rest of it being written off, or ‘forgiven’ by our European creditors, For an oil producing and exporting country this was hugely embarrassing and damaging to our image in international financial circles. But there was little or nothing to show for the huge foreign loans we had taken. Rather than help create jobs we ended up losing more jobs because the borrowed funds were not allocated efficiently in the economy. Most of the loans were simply frittered away, with some of it ending up in private pockets. We were never really able to establish how the loans taken were spent, and for which projects they were used. But it was the surge in oil exports and revenue at the time that made it possible for President Obasanjo to take the courageous step of liquidating our foreign debt. Some analysts even criticised him at the time for exiting the creditors’ club arguing, that despite its huge foreign debt,  Nigeria was still under borrowed, and that there was really no need for him to have paid  off the debt owed the London and Paris Clubs.

    In retrospect, had he not done so Nigeria’s foreign debt profile would be worse now and virtually unsustainable. We would be literally bankrupt now as a nation. In fact, Obasanjo’s decision to liquidate our foreign debt was the only significant achievement of his government. And when he left office shortly after Nigeria had nearly US$50 billion in foreign reserves. But this fiscal discipline was regrettably not maintained by his two successors, Presidents Yar’Adua and Jonathan, both of whom failed abysmally to pay the necessary attention to our external sector and resumed the foreign borrowing spree. Despite a record surge in oil exports and revenue, President Buhari’s new civilian government, like the previous one, inherited some US$18 billion in foreign debts from the Jonathan PDP government. He came into office when oil exports and revenue began to fall sharply. The foreign debt had increased and planning of any kind became difficult if not impossible. The economy went into a swift recession from which it has not yet recovered fully. Government revenues fell sharply. To cut imports, an exchange rate adjustment of the naira became inevitable with the economy still largely import dependent. That is broadly the situation in which the country now finds itself, with the federal government struggling desperately to end the recession and move the nation towards a modest economic growth. Our economic situation today is broadly similar to that of the mid-1980s when our country faced economic and financial paralysis because of its huge and unsustainable foreign debt.

    So far, despite its best efforts, the Buhari APC federal government cannot be said to have recorded any impressive success in tackling these major economic challenges. Data on sectoral GDP growth of the economy released last week end by the National Bureau of Statistics do not give us any room for optimism about the short term prospects of the domestic economy at all. In the final quarter of 2015 the total GDP growth rate was 2.11 per cent. By the end of 2016, it had declined to a negative growth rate of 1.30 per cent. Sectorally, only the agricultural sector seems to have recovered slightly, moving up from 3.46 per cent in the final quarter of 2015 to a mere GDP growth rate of 4.03 per cent. For the other major sectors of the domestic economy the data does not show any significant growth at all. Mining recorded a negative growth rate of 12.04 per cent at the end of 2016, manufacturing GDP actually fell from 0.38 in the last quarter of 2015 to -2.54 per cent in the last quarter of 2016. Services did not fare any better either. It fell to a negative growth rate of 1.52 per cent at the end of 2016. Only a few days ago the MPC of the CBN warned that economic growth in Nigeria could stall up to the first quarter of next year, and beyond.

    Now, the government’s strategy for growth is to spend its way out of the recession, with a huge budget such as that of the current fiscal year, even if this means resorting increasingly to more domestic and foreign borrowing. The options of the government are limited if the country is to return to the path of economic growth. But borrowing heavily, at home and abroad, is no guarantee that the economy will resume growth in the short-medium term. In its 2016 report last week, the Debt Management Office (DMO) issued a warning that the nation had moved from a low risk debt distress country to a medium risk debt distress one. This, coming from an agency that had always routinely endorsed Nigeria’s foreign borrowing, calls for caution in foreign borrowing. As at March, 2017, Nigeria’s external debt stock was put at US$13.8 billion or N4.23 trillion. Its domestic debt stock stood at US$39.08 billion, or N11.97 trillion. The total amount of domestic and foreign debt outstanding as at March, 2017, was put at US$62.87 billion, or N19.16 trillion. The foreign component of the debt estimated at US$13.8 billion appears understated if the huge Chinese loans are included. This is a huge debt that could in future prove to be a huge and unsustainable financial burden to our country. As the Debts Management Office (DMO) warned the nation in its recent report. ‘the rate of growth did not impact proportionately on the revenue accruing to the government’, and this made the financial portfolio of the federal government highly sensitive to external shocks’. This is a clear warning to the federal government. The Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, alluded to this danger last week when she complained publicly that Nigeria’s huge domestic and foreign debt was becoming unsustainable, and that the government should show greater caution in borrowing. It is not difficult to understand her frustration and financial dilemma as the federal Finance Minister. But without borrowing, recovery from the economic and financial slump will be quite difficult. At the same time resort to excessive borrowing will impose on our country a crushing foreign debt that can easily become unsustainable in the short to medium term.

    What the situation calls for is increased diversification of our export base and a  gradual but steady reduction in our foreign borrowing, except for the most critical infrastructure projects, such as power generation, the railways and roads. And these project tied loans should be stringently monitored and controlled to ensure that, unlike previous foreign loans, they are scrupulously used for the purpose for which the loans were obtained.  This is our responsibility, and not that of the lender who, no matter what happens, will get his money back at the agreed interest rates. Secondly, we should avoid further short term loans. Instead, we should seek loans with longer term maturities that will be easier to service and repay. We should not continue to mortgage our future growth and prosperity on foreign loans that will impose a crushing burden on us. The next generation deserves something better from us, not a nation crippled by huge foreign debts.

  • Presidency, Senate faceoff

    Presidency, Senate faceoff

    Crises are never far away from our country. And in many cases, they are needless and self inflicted by our political leaders. This regrettable trend makes the country inherently unstable politically. In the last few weeks, a serious constitutional imbroglio has emerged between the Presidency and the Senate over the federal budget, and the refusal of the Senate to confirm the appointment, two years ago, of Mr. Magu as the Chairman of the EFCC. In the case of the crisis over 2017 budget, the Presidency has complained that the appropriation bill submitted to the NASS for consideration and approval had been significantly altered in several respects. Specifically, the acting President, Professor Oshinbajo, publicly expressed his concerns that some of the critical items on capital expenditure on infrastructure had been deleted, or reduced, and replaced by items that are not really of any national significance, such as local boreholes and health clinics. In the case of the renewed rejection by the Senate of Mr. Magu’s long standing nomination as the Chairman of the EFCC, the acting President has said that the federal government will not change its mind about Mr. Magu’s nomination and that, despite his rejection by the Senate, Mr. Magu will continue in office in an acting capacity. The NASS is divided over this issue with the House of Representatives wisely dissociating itself from the Senate.

    Now, this open disagreement between the Presidency and the Senate raises some fundamental constitutional questions which need to be resolved, if necessary, by the Supreme Court. Can the Presidency reject a decision by the Senate regarding both the budget and appointments? Ordinarily, one should say ‘no’. The NASS has both legislative and watch dog functions that are necessary both for good governance and as a check on the Executive. That is the essence of the Whitehouse presidential system of government, with its ‘checks and balances’. The NASS must enjoy and maintain the right to check any political excesses on the part of the Executive. One should expect a robust interaction and engagement between the executive and legislative branches of the government. That is the true essence of responsible government. But the power enjoyed bt the legislature places on it an enormous responsibility which it should exercise wisely collectively, and with a lot of circumspection and discretion. It should not be used to obstruct the executive needlessly. This implies that its decisions on matters of national importance should not be taken capriciously, or in a brazenly partisan and selfish manner. Whatever decisions it takes must be seen to be in the national interest, and not in the interest of only a few members of the Senate.

    In the current faceoff between the Presidency and the Senate over the federal budget and the confirmation of Mr. Magu’s appointment as the Chairman of the EFCC, it cannot be said with any conviction that the Senate has acted in the national or public interest. In both cases the public perception has been that the Senate acted only in the interest of a few, and that its decisions were politically motivated. In the case of changes made to the federal budget appropriations bill, the Senate has argued that it acted within its constitutional powers by altering the budget. Technically, this may be right. But the manner in which its power over budget appropriation was used in this case leaves a lot to be desired. It has not only replaced critical items of capital expenditure with mundane items, but has also increased the total budget by nearly a third. This increase in budget appropriations by the Senate is both unrealistic and impractical, in view of the nation’s current difficult financial situation. The federal government is responsible for revenue collection. Its budget proposals are based on its revenue estimates, in which the Senate or NASS are not involved. It is in a far better position to know or determine what budget is financially feasible The 2017 federal budget is a deficit budget. About a third of the budget, nearly N3tr, will have to be borrowed both locally and abroad. In view of the poor state of global finances, this will prove to be a difficult challenge. It may not in fact meet its budget target. In the circumstances, how then can the Senate justify its decision to increase the budget when all indications are that even the revenue target for 2017 may not be met? In view of the considerable delay in the passage of the 2017 budget, what should be of even greater concern to the NASS is how much of the budget can be implemented in the limited time left in the 2017 fiscal year. To be blunt, it is unlikely that the federal government can implement more than 40 per cent of the overall budget this year. This means that the much expected stabilization and recovery from the current recession will prove to be even more difficult to achieve.

    In the case of the deletion or reduction by the Senate of vital items of capital expenditure, replacing them with items of only local significance, this is completely wrong and unacceptable. In its budget proposals the federal government is expected to take a holistic or national view of its capital expenditure, with a view to improving the woeful infrastructure in our country that has for decades retarded our economic development. With a good infrastructure, Nigeria’s growth prospects will be far better. To replace this national approach and perspective with items such as bore holes and clinics that are better handled by the state governments and local governments cannot be said to reflect what is in the national interest. Of course, Senators can be expected to show some interest in what goes to their various constituencies in the budget. But this should not override due consideration of what is in the national interest. After all, when vital roads and bridges are built right across the country, everyone benefits from them. And all these critical infrastructure capital expenditure items were cleared by the Executive with the Senate at the Committee stage when the budget proposals were being considered in the Senate.

    The federal government will be right in ignoring items ‘smuggled’ into the budget by the Senate. It has primary responsibility for the execution and implementation of the budget in the best interest of our nation. There is no compelling constitutional reason for accepting the changes introduced to the budget by the Senate. The Presidency is right in insisting that it cannot accept the changes by the Senate in the 2017 budget. The Senate will grumble, but it will be unwise of it to seek to impeach the government or the President on a crucial matter such as this on which it has little or no public support. It will fail and throw the nation into an unnecessary constitutional crisis. Both the Presidency and the Senate must seek an amicable settlement of this regrettable imbroglio in the interest of the nation.

    With regard to the Senate’s refusal to approve Mr. Magu’s appointment as the Chairman of the EFCC, the Senate is even on a weaker wicket. The reason or reasons it has advanced for doing so are even more spurious than those of the budget. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Magu, and the EFCC, are believed by the Nigerian public as doing a good job. The Presidency considers Mr. Magu the best man for the job. Under his leadership, the battle against public corruption has gathered momentum. Many public figures, including state governors, federal ministers, and other public officials, are either under investigation, or being charged with fraud. In fact, the general public complaint is that many more public officials should be in the EFCC drag net, and that the prosecution of those being charged for corruption is not diligent enough. Because of this lack of diligence by the EFCC some of those being charged, including some high Court judges, have escaped conviction through legal loop holes.

    Why then is the Senate demanding the removal of Mr. Magu? The obvious reason is that there are so many members of the Senate, including its President, Senator Saraki, who fear that they are targets of EFCC investigation. They want to obstruct the ongoing investigation of these Senators. But they cannot be above the law. They cannot claim any immunity for financial crimes against our nation. The fight against public corruption is fully supported by the public. It will fail if the Senate is seen as fighting against the tide. It will further discredit the Senate in the eyes of the public.

    It has even been suggested that the Senate’s refusal to confirm the appointment of Mr. Magu as the Chairman of the EFCC is part of a wider plot by the Senate and a Camarilla (cabal) in the Presidency to bring down the government. If this is true, then it is irresponsible of the Senate and all those involved in the plan. It will lead nowhere as the public will be totally opposed to such a despicable ploy. The Senate is not held in high esteem by the public because of its massive failure to act responsibly, and in the national interest. The Senate will not, in present circumstances, defeat the Presidency in a constitutional battle. It should sheathe its sword for the greater battles ahead as the defender of the rights of the people. By its seeking to obstruct the work of the EFCC, it will be seen as setting itself up against the public interest and the massive discontent with public corruption in our country.

    Our nation is presently facing a lot of challenges, including its survival. These ought to engage the serious attention of those in authority, particularly the NASS. For the Senators to engage themselves in a despicable ploy to impeach the government over issues that can be so easily reconciled could be the last straw that could imperil our very existence as a nation. It could lead to a public revolt against the National Assembly. Many are now calling for it to be occupied by the public. Let wiser counsels prevail.

  • The case for states Police Force

    The case for states Police Force

    The following article by me on the issue of the creation of states police force was first published in this paper in August, 2012. Now that retired General Ibrahim Babangida has made an astonishing ‘Pauline’ conversion in support of the long standing agitation for such a police force, it is being published again, without any amendments, to reinforce the argument for the creation of states police force.

    There is a growing demand in the country for the creation of states police force. It is one of the major controversial issues in the current debate on the review of the 1999 Constitution. The state governors are divided over the issue. While most of the Northern PDP governors are opposed to the idea of a state police, their Southern counterparts, particularly the ACN governors in the South West, are in favour of the proposal. The dispute is not about corruption in the Police, or its professional ineptitude. Rather, it is about the powerful role of the Police in future elections in the country. Both the ruling and opposition parties are already thinking of the critical 2015 elections and beyond, when the role of the Nigeria Police will become even more crucial and decisive.  An impartial and non-partisan police is crucial to free and fair elections. The political party that rules the country will control the Police. But the opposition parties do not believe that the Nigeria Police, under the control of the federal government, can be trusted to conduct free and fair elections in the country.

    The idea of a state police was first raised at the Lancaster House Independence talks in 1959 in London, when the Action Group, the ruling party in the former Western Region, demanded the creation of a regional police in the independence constitution. The party had become dissatisfied with the partisan role of the Nigeria Police in Nigeria’s politics and elections. Specifically, it had serious doubts that the Nigeria Police, under the control of a hostile federal government, could be relied upon to be politically impartial in enforcing law and order in Nigeria, and in ensuring free and fair elections in the country. But the federal government, led by the NPC and the NCNC coalition, that had control of the federal police, opposed the demand for regional police. With the active support of the British colonial government, the idea of a regional police was rejected at the conference. The Nigeria Police had inherited the traditions of the colonial police which was often used to smash political agitations in the colony. The Action Group found itself a lone voice crying in the political wilderness. The AG feared that the federal police would, in future, be used by the ruling party at the centre as a political instrument for intimidating the opposition parties and for rigging elections in the country. Its fears were real and proved justified later, shortly after independence in 1960.

    Before independence, most enlightened and educated Nigerians were not in support of a regional police force, which they equated with the notorious and hated old Native Authority police all over Nigeria, but particularly in the North, where it was used as an instrument of oppression against the people and the main opposition parties. It was assumed by the educated Nigerian elite that a sole federal police would be in a better position to enforce the right of free association and guarantee free and fair elections in Nigeria. But these enlightened views and assumptions soon proved unrealistic in the context of Nigerian politics in which, soon after independence, the Nigeria Police became increasingly involved in partisan politics and tended to support the ruling Party. For the NPC and the NCNC, the main coalition partners in the federal government, control of the Nigeria Police was vital if they were to maintain their dominant electoral position in the country. Under their joint control the single Nigeria Police Force could easily be used to advance their electoral interests.

    The fears of the Action Group opposition about the dangers to the regions of a sole federal police were soon justified by the 1959 federal elections in which the federal (Nigerian) Police were used massively, particularly in Northern Nigeria, to prevent the Action Group leaders from holding their political campaigns. The opposition parties were often refused police permits to hold political rallies in the Northern Region. Many opposition candidates were illegally arrested by the police, in breach of the electoral laws, and released only after the elections. Then again in 1962, during the internal crisis of the Action Group, the federal NPC/NCNC coalition government used the Nigeria Police which it controlled to intimidate the Action Group, the ruling party in the Western region, and break up demonstrations of public support for the party in the region. Specifically, the use of the police by the federal government to break up proceedings in the Western Region House of Assembly was plainly illegal and unconstitutional. Claiming falsely that there was a breakdown of law and order in the region, the federal coalition government declared a state of emergency in the region. The AG regional government was eventually turned out of office and the party destroyed. Soon after, most of the AG leaders, including Chief Awolowo, were incarcerated unfairly and subsequently tried and jailed on trumped up charges of treason. The Nigeria Police was used to carry out these unconstitutional and illegal acts by the federal coalition government to destroy the AG regional government.

    This regrettable development increased existing fears regarding the impartiality of the police in Nigerian politics and the use to which it could be put during elections to suppress the opposition. After the long military interlude, the partisan role of the Police in the 1979 federal elections and subsequent elections reinforced the growing feeling, particularly in the South, that the Nigeria Police was being used to rig elections in Nigeria in support of the ruling party. The classic case was that of the former Inspector General of Police, Mr. Adewusi, who, in the 1983 federal elections, announced publicly without any authority, and even before the results of the elections had been announced by the electoral commission, that President Shagari of the NPN had won the elections. He could barely conceal his brazen and ardent support for the ruling party, the NPN, in the elections. He threatened to arrest and detain any opposition leader who challenged the results of the elections which, by all accounts, were massively rigged. His role, as the head of the Police, was clearly partisan and a clear negation of the Constitution. The Nigeria Police had become increasingly corrupt and professionally inept in discharging its statutory functions. It was no longer an independent and neutral national security institution, but an extension of the federal government, controlled by the Northern political elite. Most of the Inspectors General of the Nigeria Police have come from the North. Public confidence in the integrity and professional competence of the Nigeria Police had fallen sharply. Now it was held in contempt by the public.

    There can be little or no doubt that in 2003 and 2007, the Nigeria Police was used by the PDP federal government to rig the elections. The Obasanjo PDP federal government certainly used the police as an instrument for the rigging of the 2003 elections, the ‘do or die’ elections, particularly in the South West where the PDP, except in Lagos, unbelievably swept the polls. This is the background to the present demand for the creation of states police, in addition to the existing federal police, now considered to be highly politicized and inherently incapable of being neutral in handling elections in the country. The truth of the matter is that the Nigerian Police has been made a political instrument of the federal authorities for subverting free and fair elections in the states and the nation. It is no longer trusted by the opposition parties.

    In different circumstances, there is a lot that can be said in favour of a sole federal police in the country. But this is only if the professionalism and political neutrality of the police can be guaranteed. This is by no means the case now. The Nigeria Police are answerable to only the federal authorities. In normal circumstances, the internal security of the nation should remain the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. But even in this case, the state governors are designated as the Chief Security Officers of their states. Obviously, there is an anomaly here as the state governors are not responsible for the police even in their states where the Police Commissioners are answerable only to the Inspector General of Police and, through him, to the Minister of Internal affairs, or the Minister for Police Affairs, a federal agent. In other words, the state governors are assigned responsibility without power. The case of the former governor of Anambra, Dr. Ngige, illustrates the dilemma faced by a state governor who has no control over the police in his state. The fear that the state governors will abuse the state police in the same manner as the federal government has been abusing the federal police is real. But that should not be advanced as a reason for opposing the demand for the creation of states police in Nigeria, a federal state.

    In the context of Nigerian politics, the case for a state police has become increasingly clear and urgent. With a population of over 150 million, Nigeria is too large to have a single police force. The point has been made repeatedly that Nigeria is currently under policed. This accounts for the sharp increase in Nigeria’s crime rate. There is no country with a comparable size and population that has a single Police Force; not the USA, India, Australia, Switzerland, nor Canada, all of which have federal constitutions. Even Britain, now a quasi-federal state, does not have a single Police Force. Each region, even Metropolis, has its own separate police. At the moment the Nigeria Police is under funded, under equipped and lacking the resources needed to ensure effective internal security in the nation. It is overstretched. It simply cannot cope with the increasing crime rate in the country, not to even talk about effectively tackling the menace of terrorism in the country.

    In addition, the Nigeria Police lacks the required local intelligence to tackle terrorism. Only a state police can fill this gap. A neighbourhood police is the most effective way to gather such intelligence. If the states are allowed to have their own police forces, it will relieve the federal police of its enormous security burdens, and allow the federal government to fund and equip it better. Broadly, the Nigeria Police should have functions similar to those of the FBI in the United States. The time has come for those states that would like to have their own police force to be allowed under the proposed new Constitution to do so. This will reduce the pressure on the federal police force and the high crime rate in the country.

  • ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and new markets

    ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and new markets

    The United Kingdom will shortly leave the European Union. Speaking recently in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Theresa May assured the British public that ‘Brexit means Brexit’, and that her government would soon trigger off the legal and constitutional process for the exit of the UK from the EU to which it was admitted in 1970. When it does, it will need new markets outside the EU, its biggest trading partner. The search for these new markets has already begun The EU referendum that David Cameron, her predecessor in office, had called inexplicably to confirm Britain’s continued membership in the EU was a big gamble. He lost narrowly to the Brexiteers, that is those who wanted Britain out of the EU.  The decision taken now to leave the EU cannot be reversed. Nor can the UK expect to be readmitted into the EU in future. After due process and painful negotiations with the EU, which may last up to two years, the UK will finally withdraw from the EU. The Prime Minister has called general elections on June 10, which her party, the Conservatives, is likely to win with an increased majority in the Commons. The Labour Party is in disarray and badly divided after losing two elections in a row. So, with a renewed mandate the Prime Minister will approach the EU negotiations with increased confidence that she has the whole country behind her.

    Now, although the UK is leaving the EU, she is not leaving Europe entirely. Geographically, politically, economically and culturally, she is European and remains a major European power. Even after leaving the EU she will continue to exert some influence in European affairs. Ultimately, her fortunes are inextricably linked with political and economic developments in Europe. London will remain a major European financial centre. When she has considered her interests threatened in Europe she has intervened actively to protect those interests. Twice, in World 1 and 11, she went to war to restore a sense of political balance in Europe. Her traditional European policy has always been based on her perceived need to prevent the political and economic domination of the European continent by a single European power. Whenever it is necessary she has fought the two dominant European powers, France and Germany, to stop either of them from emerging as the dominant power in Europe. So, even though she is leaving the EU she will continue to protect her residual political and strategic interests in Europe. She will remain in other European political and defence institutions, such as NATO.

    When Britain joined the EU (then EEC) in 1970, after two previous failed attempts, vetoed by France, the reason for seeking admission into the Union was more economic than political. The EU countries, particularly France and Germany, the most economically advanced, were doing much better than Britain which, until then, remained sceptical about the future economic prospects of the Union. But with the assistance of the US sponsored Marshall Plan, Europe had recovered faster than was thought possible from the ravages of the World War 11 that left it in economic ruins. The UK now felt that she would be better off joining the EEC which, until then, she had spurned. The EU offered the UK a larger guaranteed market for its manufactured exports. So, the main reason for British entry into the EEC was to avail itself the opportunity of being a member of a larger economic community and market.

    There is no question that economically Britain was better off in the EU to which market British exports gained easier access. The British economy grew faster than it did outside the EU. But the economies of France and Germany grew even faster for historical reasons. Both countries have populations bigger than that of the UK, and they did not have to contend with the huge cost of Britain’s expensive, comprehensive and extensive social welfare benefits introduced by the British Labour Government after World War 11, from which new immigrants into the UK continue to benefit. It is becoming financially unsustainable. The UK wants to cut immigration by leaving the EU. The UK government has complained about many things in the EU. These include alleged loss  of sovereignty, the over centralisation and huge power of the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, the huge British financial contributions to the cost of running this vast EU bureaucracy, Franco-German economic and political domination of the EU, and the mass migration to Britain of workers from the poorer East European members of the EU. It was this last consideration that was the decisive factor leading the British public to vote narrowly in favour of leaving the EU in last year’s EU referendum. The British public felt that these East European migrant workers were taking jobs from British workers. It conveniently ignored the fact that immigrants also create jobs in the UK. Some of the wealthiest business men in the UK today are Indians and immigrants from other European countries. Culturally too, there is a widespread public feeling that Britain is losing its national identity and culture because of mass immigration from the poorer European countries.

    When Britain withdraws from the EU it will need to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU so that British exports will continue to have some access to the big EU market. The ‘divorce’ is going to be acrimonious and the negotiations between the EU and Britain tough and difficult. British exports will lose their free access to the EU market and can only enjoy minimum tariff concessions. But these are mature economies that need one another. They will find a way of reaching some accommodation over tariff arrangements that will not unduly impede British exports into the EU. Historically, Britain has always been a strong advocate of free trade among nations from which Imperial Britain benefitted a lot. It traditionally distrusts and dislikes trade blocs.

    But now that it is leaving the EU, Britain has to look for new export markets outside the EU. Where are the new markets? Possibly, it will revert to the US, China, Japan and India. Already, it has begun the search for these new markets in those countries.  It is also trying to explore new trade deals with Commonwealth countries, including Nigeria. When Britain entered the EU in 1970 it had to abandon the 1931 system of Imperial trade preferences which guaranteed Commonwealth countries, such as Nigeria, free access to the UK market.

    Many of these new and small Commonwealth countries were  made highly vulnerable by the loss of the UK market. They felt abandoned, betrayed and irritated by being suddenly cut off from the Commonwealth trade preferences. In effect, they had been left in the lurch and had hurriedly to make their own separate and special arrangements with the EEC. This is the origin of the ACP-EEC trade agreements negotiated by our Ambassador Olu Sanu on behalf of the African-Caribbean-Pacific countries with the EEC. But in effect, as Amb. Sanu observed in his recent memoirs, the ACP agreement with the EEC was not even necessary. Many of the ACP countries have found alternative markets to the EU which has not lived up to their expectations in terms of financial grants, loans and investments. For example, in the case of Nigeria, most of our oil export now goes to China and India. Both countries have long overtaken Britain as our biggest trading partners. Both surpass Britain in the range and value of their foreign direct investments in Nigeria. In the case of the older Commonwealth countries, they have forged new trade links with their neighbours. Canada is now the largest trading partner of the US. Australia and New Zealand now trade more with China than with Britain. It will be difficult now for all these Commonwealth countries to redirect their trade towards Britain.

    British diplomatic and commercial representatives in Nigeria are going round right now with renewed vigour to explore opportunities for increased trade and British exports to Nigeria. They are legitimately lobbying the business community in Nigeria with dubious promises of increased UK direct investment in Nigeria. But this has been in decline for decades despite the fact that British businesses in Nigeria, such as Shell, Cadbury, Unilever and several others in the food and beverages sector, are doing highly profitable business in Nigeria already. They will continue to do so. Despite its current economic challenges, Nigeria remains a major attraction for foreign direct investments and a country of vast economic opportunities that is ready to do good business with any foreign country on a mutually beneficial basis. But the UK must understand that, this time, they will have to contend and compete with our new major trading partners, such as China and India, who are very smart in promoting their exports. The UK cannot, and should not, expect any preferential treatment, or favours, from Nigeria. What Nigeria seeks from its trading partners is not aid, but foreign direct investments that will create jobs here and mitigate the adverse terms of trade to which most developing economies have become victims. It is what is responsible for the ongoing and crippling economic recession in the poor countries.

  • NIA and $43m

    NIA and $43m

    Last week, the EFCC made another stunning discovery of over $43 million funds, some of it in other foreign currencies, hidden in a luxury apartment on Osborne Road, Ikoyi, a plush haven for the rich in one of the most affluent areas of Lagos. The discovery of the hidden funds was highlighted by the media and caught the attention of the public as never before. Media reports of huge looted public funds recovered by the EFCC have become commonplace and almost a daily affair in our country. But what made the latest discovery of these hidden slush funds more disturbing is that, unlike other similar cases of looted funds discovered, the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) actually claimed ownership of the hidden funds as soon as it was discovered by the EFCC. It also claimed ownership of the luxury apartment in which the huge slush funds were hidden. The annual rent on the apartment was given as N20million.  In fact, it was reported by the media that the Director-General of the NIA, Amb. Ayo Oke, made a spirited and desperate effort to save the funds from seizure by directly remonstraining with President Muhammadu Buhari to stop the EFCC operations. Wisely, the President declined to intervene in the murky matter and gave the EFCC a free hand to conclude its operations and investigation of the source and ownership of the hidden funds. Had President Buhari halted the EFCC operations, he would have been widely suspected by the public of an official cover up, or of being selective in his anti-graft war, the only thing going for this government.

    Now, the NIA has claimed that the funds in question were duly authorised and allocated to it by former President Goodluck Jonathan for covert domestic intelligence operations, which were to cover the whole country. Obviously, the alleged covert intelligence operations either did not take place, or were incomplete before President Jonathan left office in 2015. The NIA did not specify the nature of this planned covert domestic intelligence operations and why, two years after President Jonathan left office, the funds had not yet been returned to the treasury as it should have, but carefully concealed instead in the expensive Osborne Road luxury apartment, where it was eventually discovered by the EFCC. It is disturbing that the source of the huge funds remains unknown. The CBN, which should know, as most of the funds are in foreign currencies, says it has no idea of the source of the funds. This means it did not directly sell or authorise the sale of the funds to the NIA. The only other possible source of the foreign funds is the bureaux de change, and this suggests very strongly some form of round tripping by the NIA in converting the funds from naira to foreign currencies.

    Since he has been named directly in some of these slush funds, former President Jonathan has a duty and honour to come out into the open and assist the nation over this matter. He should come clean and, if the claim of the NIA is true, admit that he authorised such huge funds for covert intelligence operations in our country. The public now expects the EFCC to invite and question him over the matter. He cannot continue legally or morally to claim immunity on matters such as these which are clearly criminal and damaging to the international image of our country, now at its lowest ebb. It is understandable that the Buhari government is being very careful about humiliating a former president. But it is time for the government to stop treating ex-President Jonathan with kid gloves on matters pertaining to massive public corruption under his watch, and his alleged involvement in many of these slush funds. It is also in former President Jonathan’s interest that his involvement, or not, in these sordid financial affairs be investigated and determined so as to end the growing speculation regarding his role in the slush funds being discovered all over the country.

    The claim of the NIA that it got the huge slush funds from ex-President Jonathan cannot be entirely ruled out. It is quite plausible. Fearing his defeat in the 2015 presidential election, former President Jonathan is believed to have handed out huge sums of money to all and sundry, people of shady character, who he thought might swing the election in his favour by outright rigging of it. Most of the looted funds and covert domestic intelligence operations in the 2015 presidential election, including the brazen bribery of INEC officials all over the country, have been traced by the EFCC to these men of questionable character. It all proved futile in the end as Jonathan lost the election. But there are probably a lot more of such slush funds hidden, in all sorts of places in the country, which were not fully utilised in the election, and not yet recovered. The Osborne Road fund is probably one of such funds that, if not found, could easily have ended up in private pockets.

    But there is another dangerous dimension to the disgraceful financial saga worth further official investigation. The Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), through the Directorate of State Security (DSS) is normally responsible for covert domestic intelligence operations. This is why, as claimed by Col. Dasuki (retd), the former National Security Adviser to ex-President Jonathan, now under investigation and prosecution, his office secured $US3.5b from Jonathan for covert domestic intelligence operations in the country in the 2015 presidential election. The purpose of the slush funds was obviously to criminally subvert the election and the democratic process in our country..

    The remit of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) is different. It is in foreign intelligence, not domestic intelligence, or covert domestic operations. It should not normally be involved in covert domestic intelligence operations. It is the Nigerian equivalent of the British MI 16, while the DSS is the equivalent of the MI5. In the US, the FBI is responsible for domestic security intelligence operations, while the CIA handles foreign intelligence operations. Of course, there is some collaboration between the two agencies, but the public in Britain and the US would be aghast and horrified if it were to find out that the MI6 or the CIA were being used for covert domestic intelligence operations. In fact, the NIA is the successor of the defunct Research Department of the Foreign Ministry, and the National Security Organisation (NSO), both of which handled our foreign intelligence operations. With the exception of the late Umaru Shinkafi, the heads of both the NSO and its successor, the NIA, have been drawn from the Foreign Ministry. This is why, if true, the alleged plan to involve the NIA in covert domestic intelligence operations is disturbing. The job of the NIA is to spy on foreigners, not on Nigerians. Now, it is being made to spy on our people as well. This is unacceptable as, in effect, we would have two separate intelligence agencies, and several others, involved in domestic intelligence operations and spying on Nigerians. With this overloading of intelligence agencies in our country, Nigeria is looking increasingly like a police state. This is why the Nigerian public has become so disdainful of our security agencies.

    Many Nigerian ambassadors and senior diplomats were often  directly involved and engaged in some highly sensitive foreign intelligence activities that required the financial support and collaboration of the NSO. But the funding of such operations were paltry and fully accountable.  That was in the 70s and 80s. I am sure the NSO did not then have ‘safe houses’ in which it hid slush funds. Obviously, since then a lot has changed in our foreign and domestic intelligence agencies which now so casually, and without any accountability, handle billions of funds in foreign currencies.

    This trend of hidden slush funds by the intelligence agencies represents a direct threat to the security of our nation. We cannot afford a situation in which the security services may become collectively richer than the entire nation. This can easily lead to the subversion of our fledgling democratic process. As is well known, the security agencies have often been complicit in the overthrow of both military and elected civilian governments in our country. They were certainly involved in the overthrow of President Shehu Shagari in 1984 with dire consequences for our country. And their role in the political crisis that led to the death of MKO Abiola is despicable. The situation calls for a complete overhaul and reorganisation of our entire security services to make them slimmer, less costly and more professionally competent.

  • Recession, exchange rate adjustment and growth

    Recession, exchange rate adjustment and growth

    For more than two years now, Nigeria has been in a recession, one of the worst in its recent economic and financial history. Last year, the economy contracted by 1-3 per cent, the exchange rate of the naira against the US$ fell sharply as a result of falling oil revenues, and the inflation rate rose to nearly 18 per cent. All these economic and financial indicators caused much concern in our country. The direct consequences of the sudden downturn in the domestic economy included massive job losses, large federal budget deficits, a resort to both internal and external borrowing to cover the huge deficits, and a loss of investors’ confidence in our economy.

    Obviously, something radical and drastic needed to be done to stabilise the domestic economy and bring it back into equilibrium. In all this, domestic factors are clearly important. Some of these include our high population growth rate (averaging 3 per cent), mass poverty, high rate of unemployment, high infant mortality rates, low literacy rates, terrorist activities, a fragile political system and institutional weaknesses. All these make it more difficult to effect the necessary structural adjustment to tackle the recession in our economy and adjust to external factors. In view of Nigeria’s high import dependency, we needed to cut back on imports by introducing a barrage of fiscal and monetary measures. Of these, the most crucial is the exchange rate adjustment of the naira, the national currency.

    This is the economic and financial situation the CBN has been battling with in the last two years. Its strategy was one of managed exchange rate adjustment, instead of a free floating exchange rate adjustment. But the practical and predictable effect of its strategy was the wide divergence of exchange rates of the official market and the so-called black market, with the latter forcing the official rate down. This divergence in exchange rates has led to policy distortions. Instead of a uniform exchange rate, we have had at least five different exchange rates. These multiple exchange rates, including a different one for religious pilgrimage, indicate a form of subsidy, a negation of the policy and strategy of the removal of all forms of subsidies from the domestic economy. Now, these distortions in exchange rates lead to a loss of investors’ confidence in the economy. It makes planning of any kind virtually impossible and constrains growth in the economy.

    More recently, the increase in oil exports and revenue has allowed the CBN to increase its supply of forex into the economy. It has begun to drop its resistance to the nominal devaluation of the naira, a policy that was doomed to failure in the light of the sharp fall in oil revenues and forex. The naira remained overvalued. One indicator of overvaluation of any currency is the difference between official nominal exchange rates and parallel market rates. Where, as in Nigeria, the parallel market rate is a third higher than the official rate, there is a case of overvaluation involved. As was expected, the divergence in exchange rates between the official inter-bank market and the bureaux de change has narrowed considerably because of the increased supply by the CBN into the economy. It is reported that the CBN’s strategy and target is to get the exchange rate down to N250 to the US dollar. This is commendable and, if sustained, will be a shot in the arm for the economy.

    However, despite the obvious signs of a contraction in the recession, and the narrowing of the divergence in the exchange rates of the official and parallel markets, it is not yet UHURU. The IMF is not always right in its advice and prescriptions to poor countries that are facing a recession. Its blanket advice to cut public spending tends to intensify a recession rather than ease it. It does not take account of the variability in the economic conditions of the countries to which it is offering advice. To get out of a recession, governments need to spend more through internal and external borrowings to stimulate economic activities and create more jobs. However, our fiscal and monetary authorities cannot completely ignore advice from the IMF and the World Bank on how to end the recession and resume growth. In addition to our forex strategy, the economy needs complementary fiscal and monetary measures to bring it out of recession and resume modest growth.

    In its recent review of the economic situation in Nigeria, while commending the CBN for its forex management, the IMF advised the Nigerian authorities to ‘remove the remaining restrictions and multiple currency practices, thus unifying the foreign exchange market’, and this strategy ‘should be supported by tighter monetary policy and fiscal consolidation to anchor inflation expectations”. This is advice that should not be ignored. Inflation is now close to 18 per cent as a result of the sharp increase in money supply. Inflation undermines economic growth and tends to reinforce the divergence in exchange rates between the official and parallel markets. In addition, the injection of forex into the economy should be measured and not done too hurriedly as it has the potential of ‘overshooting’ the stability needed in the exchange rates.

    There is already a slum in the demand for forex, a clear indication that some of the demand was speculative. There is also some evidence of round tripping in the sale and disbursement of forex by the banks. It was reported recently that two directors of the CBN were implicated in the fraudulent round tripping of forex to the BDCs. Too much supply of forex to the banks will reinforce this criminal tendency in the sale of foreign exchange. Besides, there is a lot of stolen money being hurriedly converted into forex to conceal it from prying eyes, particularly the EFCC.

    In addition, it is difficult to predict how long the increase in oil exports and revenue will last. A crisis in oil exports and revenue is always around the corner. The CBN will, in the circumstances, be well advised to keep the sale of forex to its barest minimum so as to avoid getting again into a situation of wider divergence in exchange rates.