Tag: ECOWAS

By Paul Ejime

ECOWAS has held countless high-level meetings, including regular and extraordinary summits by regional leaders on peace and security issues since the renewed military incursions in politics in the politically restive West African region in 2020. The Abuja summit of Sunday July 2 is no exception.

On Saturday, July 6, ahead of the ECOWAS summit, the junta chiefs of three military-ruled countries threatened to withdraw from the 15-nation regional bloc met at summit level for the first time in the Niger capital, Niamey to formally establish their Alliance of Sahel States, with the French acronym AES.

This could be dubbed a “pre-emptive strike” by the three countries – Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger – suspended and earlier sanctioned along with Guinea, over military takeovers of elected civilian governments.

Having lifted the sanctions and pulled back the threat to use military force to restore constitutional order in Niger, ECOWAS says it is now using diplomacy and negotiating with the junta leaders to return to the fold with reasonable political transition programmes against the long timetables they announced.

There is an urgent need for a critical review and recalibration of ECOWAS responses and conflict management strategies to effectively address the worsening fears of disintegration of the regional bloc, once acclaimed as Africa’s trailblazer Regional Economic Community.

Read Also: We’ve done well, Nigerians will soon jubilate – APC Govs

West Africa and the Sahel region are no strangers to military coups and like previous ones, the military putsch led by Col Assimi Goita and his colleagues in Mali in May 2020 and subsequent ones in Guinea, Burkina Faso and Niger are only symptoms of systemic governance malaise linked to bad governance.

Insecurity, terrorism and separatist or Islamic extremism have root causes and so do socio-economic hardships suffered by the majority of the population.

These are all linked to corruption, nepotism, inequalities and unconstitutional behaviours of political leaders, who engage in or support election rigging, violation of human rights and non-respect of the rule of law, intolerance of alternative views and the stifling of public opinion. Until these causative factors are treated, the ailments will persist or worsen.

Other reasons behind unending instability and political turmoil in the region are the inconsistency, lack of political will for a tough and principled stance; the violation of rules without consequences, or the observance in breach, of instruments and protocols designed to promote regional integration.

For instance, when the Togolese leader Gnassingbe Eyadema died in 2005 the military imposed his son Faure Gnassingbe on the country to succeed his late father.

Following public outcry, an election was organised, but not many could vouch for the credibility or transparency of that vote. Faure has since consolidated himself in power, winning re-election under questionable circumstances, sometimes, without the participation of the intimidated and petrified opposition. 

After more than half a century of the Eyadema dynastic leadership, the Faure government has unconstitutionally changed Togo’s national constitution, moving the country from a presidential to a parliamentary system of government without popular participation or consultation in violation of the ECOWAS protocol.

Critics see the constitutional change as a ploy for tenure elongation and ignoring protests from the opposition groups and civil society, the Faure administration organised a parliamentary election that produced mainly MPs from his ruling party.

Having failed to call out President Faure, over violation of the regional Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, ECOWAS may have denied itself the moral or legal justification to condemn a similar violation in future.

ECOWAS has effectively used the same protocol, which is equivocal on “zero tolerance” for unconstitutional change of government and other instruments, to resolve conflicts in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Niger, Cote d’Ivoire and the Gambia in the past.

But before the development in Togo, then-President Macky Sall, attempted a similar unconstitutional tenure elongation misadventure from 2021-2024, but was stopped in his tracks by a vigilant population and civil society activism.

Also in Guinea Bissau, the government of President Umaro Embalo dissolved the country’s parliament without any rebuke by ECOWAS.

Given these scenarios what is the guarantee that ECOWAS will effectively deal with the looming danger signs of alleged tenure elongation in such member states as Benin and Cote d’Ivoire and the fragile peace in the Gambia and Sierra Leone?

This brings us to the recent proposal by the ECOWAS’ Chiefs of Defence Staff and regional Ministers of Defence and Finance, “to activate a Regional Standby Force to combat terrorism and Unconstitutional Change of Government.”

Based on the directive of regional Heads of State, about US$2.6 billion is to be raised to finance the planned Standby Force with an estimated 5,000 at full strength.

The idea of a Standby Force is not new and cannot be faulted since ECOWAS already has one; why it is not functioning is another matter. Also, whatever legal measures are required to deal with insecurity, including terrorism as a regional threat is welcome.

However, going by experience and the overbearing attitudes of political leaders toward arbitrariness and authoritarianism, deploying military force or kinetics to fight unconstitutional change of government must be thoroughly interrogated, especially in countries professing to be practising democracy.

Presently, two countries, The Gambia and Guinea Bissau are hosting the ECOWAS military Mission or Stabilisation Force and Sierra Leone, where authorities are battling post-election instability, has also requested a similar force.

Under its regional protocols, the objective of the ECOWAS Military Mission in any member state is primarily for stabilisation of peace and protection from rebellion, especially externally instigated. The deployment of such a mission should be need-based and in exceptional cases, particularly to fight terrorism and organised threats to the state. 

But there is the danger that if the idea of a Standby Force is to check so-called unconstitutional power, it could be misused by political leaders to prop or maintain their governments if and when they feel threatened. This will not only constitute a serious threat to democracy, where the force is used as a buffer against genuine public protests but could also worsen the security situation in the region.

Furthermore, the unconstitutional change of government is not only through military coups. There is, therefore, a contradiction in frowning against military rule, while using military force or kinetic means to impose or enforce good governance even when civilian leaders are known to be carrying out unconstitutional change of government.

The constitutional function of the military is national defence and protection of the national sovereignty of states, and the lives and property of citizens. It is not to maintain governments in power.

The lasting solution to the insecurity challenges including terrorism in West Africa and the Sahel region is good governance. Political leaders must change their attitudes, stop corruption, vote rigging, constitutional and electoral coups, human rights violations, and respect the rule of law and lead by example.

Finally, beyond the public show of force and popularity by the AES junta chiefs, the security and economic situations of the three landlocked countries have not improved, and neither has the cost of living of the population. The three countries need ECOWAS and ECOWAS needs them.

Indeed, ECOWAS leaders and the junta chiefs owe the more than 400 million citizens in the region a moral and constitutional obligation for sustained peace and a conducive and equal opportunity environment to pursue their legitimate businesses for individual and collective prosperity.

Their political ambitions or differences must be subjugated to the overall interests of the majority.

Without prejudice to the right of sovereign states to freedom of association to further their national interests, common sense and conventional wisdom dictate that the 15 ECOWAS member states including the AES are individually and collectively better off working together in unity instead of in silos.

The recent experience in Kenya is a strong warning to all.

•Ejime is an author, global affairs analyst.

• By Olu Jacobs

There is a viral video of the Ghanaian President, Nana Akufo-Addo, arriving the Ouagadougou airport and given a cold shoulder by Burkinabe ministers in the presence of their leader, Ibrahim Traore.

The video supposedly illustrates the crisis within the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, since the Sahel coups and the series of sanctions slammed on the coupists – leading to the famous declaration by Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso in January 2024 that they would be leaving to form their own fringe group instead.

The real story behind the video, however, had less to do with ECOWAS and more to do with the comment the Ghanaian president made over the alleged flirtation of Burkina Faso with Russian mercenaries and the implication for the war on terror in the region.

Still, the last one year has tested the unity of the regional group more than any other period in its nearly fifty years of chequered growth.

By the time President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was handed the reins in July 2023 at the 63rd ordinary session of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government in Bissau, Guinea-Bissau, barely two months after he won a fiercely contested election in Nigeria, the ECOWAS community was facing dire crisis. Three member states, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea had seen five coups in three years. Mali was moreover beset by a jihadist insurgency across some of its 4500 miles of porous borders and the violence had spread to Guinea and Burkina Faso so that, “the Sahel region now ranks as the world’s epicenter of terrorism,” according to the Global Terrorism Index.

Drought had also led to famine in these landlocked states and the millions of displaced persons presented an impossible refugee crisis.

In his very first speech as ECOWAS Chairman, replacing the host country’s Umaro Sissoco Embalo, President Tinubu acknowledged that democracy had not been as successful as it should be in the region but said it remained, “the best form of government,” despite “being tough to manage.”

Flush from his own victory in Nigeria’s redoubtable presidential polls, he gushed that the region would set an example for the rest of Africa, and for the world. “We will not allow coup after coup in West Africa, ” he warned.

Almost as if on cue, two weeks later, a coup led by General Abdourahmane Tchiani, toppled the government of Mohamed Bazoum in Niger and thus began a firestorm of events that may come to define the first tenure of President Bola Tinubu as chair of the regional body.

In its initial response, ECOWAS under its new chairman, who had promised to give no quarter to coupists, was decisive, giving the junta all of seven days to step down and return Bazoum to power. Tinubu’s anger was palpable, as was his concern that another coup in the Sahel could cause a domino effect. “They cannot use the gun given to them to protect the sovereignty of the country and turn it against the people of the country,” he vowed.

So, ECOWAS imposed severe sanctions on Niger and the Authority of Heads of State threatened to use force to eject the soldiers, as enshrined in the Community’s 2001 Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance.

Tinubu received justifiable praise for his stern stance. The African Union, European Union, United States government and the international community gave him unalloyed support. As the German ambassador to Nigeria Annett Gunter said recently, “President Tinubu had made it clear that ECOWAS will not tolerate such actions and I think that is the right approach. Democracy is a fundamental principle of ECOWAS and it is essential to uphold it.”

Soon after, however, things got complicated. The sanctions, as sanctions are wont to do, were hurting the people of Niger more than their targeted leaders.

Food security worsened, inflation skyrocketed, and border closure with Nigeria particularly along Maradi and some half a dozen states in northern Nigeria shut down the roughly $500 million annual trade in transport, electricity, tobacco, cement, livestock-derived products, fruits and refined petroleum between both nations.

Beyond the sanctions, ECOWAS’ plan to activate the deployment of its “Standby force with all its elements” didn’t sit well with many who said a war in the region with its attendant refugee problems would do more harm than good.

Crucially, the historical affinity between the people of northern Nigeria and Niger Republic also ensured that any thought of killing “our brothers across the border” would get no traction with a sizeable portion of the country. In the end, the plan was shelved and in February 2024 the sanctions were lifted, “with immediate effect,” said the president of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Commission, Omar Alieu Touray who said the decision was based “on purely humanitarian grounds” to ease the suffering of Nigeriens.

Read Also: First Lady tasks women to lead food security campaign

At the summit, President Tinubu said ECOWAS “must re-examine our current approach to the quest for constitutional order in four of our Member States” and urged Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso to “reconsider their decision” to withdraw from the body and “not perceive our organization as the enemy.”

The decision all but saved ECOWAS from further fragmentation. By dialing back, Tinubu proved to be a leader sensitive to the mood of the people. Still, critics worried that the decision to halt military intervention made ECOWAS look weak, but whenever it becomes necessary to kill people in order to prove your power over them, you have already lost. 

At the sideline of the election in Senegal, the ECOWAS commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security, Amb. Abdel-Fatau Musah, told this reporter that ECOWAS never planned to actually invade Niger anyway. “We haven’t really done that in a long while,” he said. “It was always going to be a last resort.”

In many ways, the political option has been given teeth since Tinubu came to office. Reportedly, under the mandate of the Nigerian chairman, a number of crises have been averted with his deft interventions. In December 23, 2023, he sent a high-powered mission led by Ghana’s President Nana Akufo-Addo, and Macky Sall of Senegal to negotiate the relocation of former Sierra Leone President, Ernest Bai Koroma who was charged for treason in connection with a failed coup, to Nigeria. The matter had threatened to engulf the country in another conflagration until Tinubu’s carrot and stick approach led to an agreement that saw the former president been flown to live in Nigeria on January 4 2024.

Then there is the powerful role ECOWAS played under the leadership of its chairman, Bola Tinubu, in the success of the Senegalese election of 24 March 2024. Following the riots and mayhem that attended the initial postponement of the polls, ECOWAS swiftly took a series of actions to avert disaster. The chairman had made strong statements assuring the people of Senegal that ECOWAS stands with them in their quest for a successful transition. He then deployed a fact-finding mission to interrogate the electoral process and meet with stakeholders; sent in long term observer groups; and assembled a 130-member mission under Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari which arrived Dakar, Senegal to witness the polls and dialogue with the then president, Macky Sall, civil society groups and leading candidates in the election.

Tinubu who praised the conduct of the polls said the success of the Senegal election was proof that democracy remains the popular choice of the region and military rule is an abhorrent aberration.

Also, under Tinubu’s leadership, ECOWAS has speeded up the process of reducing the cost of elections in the region, capping campaign finances, and establishing a logistic depot to produce ballot boxes and other generic election materials to aide nations holding elections. It has also deployed a mission to Ghana, which goes to the polls at the end of the year, to discover anything that may hinder that nation from having a hitch free election.

It is interesting that Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, who in his inaugural speech as Nigeria’s president promised to retool Nigeria’s foreign policy to more actively lead the regional and continental quest for collective prosperity, has managed to use his chairmanship of the regional body to achieve his foreign policy mandate. His famous 4D doctrine, “which is anchored on Democracy, Developments, Demography and Diaspora” seemed to have aligned with his core mandate at ECOWAS as captured by his maiden speech as chairman: “I make a pledge here that in furtherance of our region’s economic recovery and growth we will commit to democracy and promote democracy and the rule of law…we will work collectively to pursue inclusive economic integration of the sub-region.”

As ECOWAS continues to engage with the juntas in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea, it must also look at the way some democracies in the region tinker with their nations constitution to give themselves a third term or confer undue advantages on the ruling party. By employing its peer review mechanism to sanction the excesses of their colleagues, the Authority of Heads of States will further demonstrate the impact of ECOWAS and bring the Community closer to the grassroots, assuring the citizens that the body cares for their wellbeing.

As Tinubu has noted in the past, it is by “providing good governance that tackles the challenges of poverty, inequality and other concerns of the people that we would succeed in addressing some of the root causes of military intervention in some of the civilian processes in our region.”