The Kigali AU Summit: Nigeria’s Diplomatic Blunder, By Reuben Abati
Reuben AbatiPresident Muhammadu Buhari’s 12th hour decision to snub the African Union Extra-ordinary summit on the endorsement of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), in Kigali, March 20 – 22 is a diplomatic blunder. The excuse that has been offered is not convincing, the management of the entire episode is untidy. Simple courtesies matter in diplomacy, unpredictability, surprise and ambush may be good tactics on the battlefield but they could be costly in the much finer arena of diplomacy. I want to assume that President Buhari was misadvised. Standards have fallen generally in our foreign policy management process, and they have done so much more rapidly in the last three years, for both seen and unseen reasons, but I did not imagine that we could descend this low as to begin to play pranks with some of the major planks of Nigeria’s foreign policy framework. President Buhari should have been in Kigali on March 21 to sign the AfCFTA document and participate in the deliberations.
The African Continental Free Trade Agreement is probably the most historic, epoch-making development since the establishment of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which later became the African Union (AU) in 2002. It is also probably the biggest trade agreement since the establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and a concrete, provable culmination of the goals of African Renaissance and Afro-optimism. It should be noted that Nigeria was part of this process from the very beginning. In 1981, Nigeria was the host of an economic summit organized by the OAU, the very first of such summits. It took place in Lagos under the Shagari government. The outcome was the Lagos Plan of Action on African economic development. In the 90s, at least three African leaders were in the forefront of what became known as the African Renaissance – South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki, Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo and Libya’s Muammar Ghadaffi – using the platform of the OAU/AU, and the co-operation and support of both the African and Western intelligentsia.
African Renaissance is about rebirth and the transformation of Africa. It is also about integration at various levels: security, peace, stability, development and co-operation as captured in the Kampala Document of 1991. There was indeed so much talk at the time about Africa, being the “last frontier” that needed to be developed. This vision of a transformed Africa resulted in the introduction of policy actions and structures including the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the New Africa Initiative (NAI), the Abuja Treaty (1991) and the idea of an African Economic Community (AEC). Much of this may have been inspired by developments in this direction in the West – the European Union for example, and the Washington Consensus, but it was all within the context of developing Africa’s capacity to compete, integrate, co-operate and advance into the future. The AfCFTA is a product of that process and probably the most important harvest.
African Heads of Government agreed to it in 2012 and started negotiations in 2015. It is a trade liberalization policy to remove barriers that have hitherto hindered intra-African trade. Those barriers made Africa majorly a collection of closed communities, trading with Europe, Asia and the United States, and doing little trading among themselves. Under the AfCFTA, African leaders seek to increase intra-African trade from 14% to 52% by 2022. Its main features include the removal of tariffs on goods (up to 90%), reduction of delays at borders, liberalization of services, job creation and the expansion of opportunities available to the people. At first flush, there is no doubt that the AfCFTA could lead to the eventual realization of the AU Agenda 2063 – “the African we want”- a 12-flagship-projects programme, which includes a Single African Air Transport Market, free movement of people and a common currency.
Nigeria was actively involved in all these negotiations leading to the preparation of an enabling legal framework for continental free trade; such was the level of our commitment that the country in fact lobbied to have the AfCFTA secretariat situated in Abuja. So, at what point did Nigeria transform from being conveners to boycotters of this strategic initiative? It will be recalled that on March 14, the AfCFTA framework was reportedly presented for consideration at the Federal Executive Council and it was endorsed. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment later addressed the State House Press Corps to announce Nigeria’s enthusiasm and commitment to the AfCFTA. By Friday, the country’s delegation to the AU Extra-ordinary Summit on the AfCFTA was already on its way to Kigali, and this included the President’s advance team. The State House even issued a statement announcing the President’s trip to Kigali. Then all of a sudden, on Sunday, March 18, the country was informed that the President’s trip to Kigali had been cancelled “to allow time for broader consultations” – with stakeholders who had objected to Nigeria signing the AfCFTA document.
There is something untidy here. The Federal Executive Council, or the Executive Council of the Federation as it is known to the Constitution, is the highest decision-making body of the Federal Government. At what point did it meet to reverse the decision it had taken on the AfCFTA on Wednesday, March 14? When did the stakeholders make their positions known to government and what was the manner of communication, to command an express, weekend cancellation of a planned Presidential trip that had already been announced and initiated? And at what point were the objections considered? Was there even any input from the relevant Ministries: Foreign Affairs, Budget and National Planning, and Industry, Trade and Investment?
The identity of the complainants was soon revealed; members of the Organised Private Sector (OPS), particularly the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) who claimed that Nigeria would be overwhelmed by business from outside under AfCFTA; Nigerian airline operators, the same owners of those flying coffins whose doors disengage on impact, whose tyres are so worn-out they sometimes can’t land on the tarmac, yes, they too claim Nigeria should not sign up to any open skies agreement, and then of course the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) whose leaders reportedly dismissed the AfCFTA as “a renewed extremely dangerous and radioactive neoliberal policy initiative.” It is common practice for certain stakeholders to object to ideas and policies. The controversy over WTO agreements and the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a famous example. In Africa, also, there were objections to NEPAD and the African Peer Review Mechanism by some African leaders. But one point is that the AU is not only for governments, it is also a platform for African business stakeholders, NGOs, and the civil society in general. Nigeria’s OPS, MAN and NLC did not have to wait till the last minute. They have had more than 3 years to engage the Nigerian government. And could it in fact be that the Nigerian Government never bothered to consult these stakeholders?
Nonetheless, their objections do not provide enough reason for a Nigerian boycott of the AU extra-ordinary summit in Kigali. Instead, they provide a justification for Nigeria’s presence. Nigeria’s absence is an assault on the integrity of its fundamental foreign policy objectives. Africa is the centerpiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy process, beginning with our immediate neighbours in the West African sub-region. For this reason, Nigeria has always been in the forefront of major events, conversations and developments in the continent. Our absence at such a landmark event as the Kigali summit is an abdication of leadership and responsibility. Other African countries may for a season, no longer trust Nigeria: to commit to a process so robustly, only to chicken out at the last minute on account of blackmail by recovering socialists, protectionists and anti-trade lobbyists – that is not the way of Nigerian diplomacy or international best practice.
I assume that the boycott is based on the wrong presumption that the AfCFTA takes immediate effect and it is binding immediately it is launched and signed by Heads of Government. Where are the Africa experts at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Nigeria Institute of International Affairs (NIIA)? Is anyone still consulting them or they just now go to the office to drink tea? What is signed at the Kigali Summit is the Legal Framework for the Trade agreement. The number of countries that would ratify the agreement to kick it into effect as at the time of this writing has not even been determined: 15, 22, 37 or a figure in-between or more. After signing up to it, each country will further ratify the agreement by way of domestication, and there is room for further negotiations, which could still go on for years, over matters that may be considered “sensitive.” Some of these “sensitive” issues have already been identified including the establishment of dispute resolution mechanisms, the prevention of dumping, intellectual property and copyright issues, rules-based considerations with regard to removal of tariffs, anti-trust considerations and the protection of countries with little or no production capabilities, to mitigate the effect of uneven benefits, and to ensure fairness, justice and protection of human rights.
South Africa, for example, has raised concerns about the proposed free movement of persons, but the South African President has not boycotted the Summit, instead he says he has “his pen on the ready.” He has signed the Kigali declaration. President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda is not attending the Summit but he has sent his Minister of Foreign Affairs to represent him and he issued a statement expressing commitment to the Trade agreement. Uganda has since signed. Tanzania says the Tanzania parliament will debate the agreement, but meanwhile, Tanzania has signed. So far, here is the final tally as at close of business on March 21: AfCFTA – 44 countries, Kigali Declaration – 43 countries; Protocol on Free Movement of People – 27 countries. Nigeria’s absence is definitely an embarrassing boycott. Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs may be in Kigali but he and his team have no mandate to engage in any negotiations, our President, the country’s chief diplomat, having said he needs more time for “broader consultations.” This so-called consultation is precisely what the Kigali summit is all about. Nigeria or any of the other 54 countries does not have any veto power over AU decisions. The rest of Africa can choose to go ahead on this matter without Nigeria and if that happens, we would still not be in a position to stop the globalization and liberalization process or sabotage “Africa’s Common Position”.
The irony that is lost on Abuja is that in fact Nigeria needs the AfCFTA more than any other African country. Nigeria has the largest market and population. The country and its people stand to benefit more especially at the level of services and SMEs. There are more Nigerians than any other group of Africans trading across the continent- in Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Angola, South Africa, Gabon, Cameroon, Sao Tome, Equitorial Guinea – our people are everywhere. Out of about the 300 shops or so in Sao Tome’s main market, about 200 of those shops are owned by Nigerians. The spare parts business in Angola is in the hands of Nigerians. Nigerian technocrats and businessmen dominate the services sector in The Gambia. There are over one million Nigerians doing business in Cote d’Ivoire. There are Nigerian banks and insurance companies across Africa, even as far as Kigali. The Dangote group has factories in 14 African countries.
In all of these places, the Nigerian trader or businessman is not particularly well-liked. He is subjected to high tariffs, his shops are raided, and as is the case in South Africa, Nigerians are attacked for making more money and for attracting local girls. A Continental Free Trade Agreement could put an end to this. It will also make it possible for airlines like Ethiopian airline or Rwandair or Kenyan Airways to operate domestic flights inside Nigeria, and perhaps make it possible for Africans to travel directly within the continent instead of a Nigerian having to travel first to Europe before accessing countries like Sao Tome and Equitorial Guinea which are less than 30 minutes away from the Nigerian coastline. Many Nigerians would rather choose efficiency over the opposite. The gain would be the creation of more jobs and opportunities. The competition that will result will compel Nigerian businesses to raise the level of their game. The AfCFTA will not kill Nigerian businesses as the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria ignorantly claims. A more inclusive Africa is the pathway to a transformed Africa. Nigeria gives aid to many African countries, for which it gets little in return; under an AfCFTA dispensation, Nigeria can give those aid-dependent countries, trade not aid.
Nigeria must be greatly missed at the Kigali AU Summit. From the pictures that I have seen, former President Olusegun Obasanjo is the most prominent Nigerian on ground at that historic event but even he is not in a position to do any damage control; he is there in his own right as a global statesman and as one of the founding fathers of the AfCFTA initiative. Beyond all the country and issues-related arguments above, let me add this: President Muhammadu Buhari has a personal reason to be in Kigali. At the AU summit in Addis Ababa in January, he was honoured by the AU Commission as a champion of the anti-corruption campaign in Africa. It is worth stating that the AU battle cry for 2018 is actually this: “Winning the Fight Against Corruption: A Sustainable Path to Africa’s Transformation”. Africa is discussing an integrity framework for the continent’s transformation in Kigali, and the AU’s honoured and recognized integrity champion is back home in Abuja, having “broader consultations”! Enough said. [myad]
Burden Of Being A Deputy Governor In Nigerian Politics, By Muhammad Ajah
Deputizing in Nigerian politics can be quite interesting. The deputy governor is the second citizen of a state, just like the vice president is the second citizen of the nation. But unlike the vice president of Nigeria who has been performing wonderfully even while the president is not away, the story is not the same at the state levels. Though the constitution of the nation and that of the state have the duties of the deputies clearly spelt out, strict adherence to them is hardly observed.
Besides, the deputies are not celebrated. They are very silent and only act at the wish of their bosses, most often not according to what is prescribed for them by the constitution. There is no doubt that some of the deputy governors are more intellectually balanced and more proactive. That is why there is hardly any state where the two first citizens sincerely hug themselves and share heartfelt feelings and smiles.
A critical survey of the last general elections in the country did not only reveal the level of disparity between the political class and the electorate but also exposed the tacit infidelity and distrust between state governors and their deputies. A case study here is Ebonyi state and the remarkable scenario that played out prior and during the electioneering campaigns and the governorship election proper between the immediate past governor Chief Martin Elechi and his then deputy now governor, Engr. Dave Umahi.
In 2007, I wrote a similar article on the topic and scrutinized the squabbles that raged in most of the states of the federation between then state governors and their deputies which in most cases led to the impeachment of deputies. In short the era between 2005 and 2010 witnessed the sacking of deputy governors through the instrumentality of the state assemblies. State assemblies by then, still counting, have proven to be a department of the executive arm. In the exception of a few, the state legislatures are made handicapped, thus dependent.
Except for the past three years, since the nation returned to democratic processes, a lot of fortunes and misfortunes arising from the relationship between state governors and their deputies have been recorded. Checks in the past democratic dispensation showed that governors did not allow their deputies to perform maximally. From the north to the south, east to west, the case was same. Instead, some governors fell out with their deputies while some of those deputies who survived were barely reduced to a mere cog in the state political machine.
The situation was even worse at the federal level between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his vice Atiku Abubakar. Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was later unsteady, but at the beginning his vice Goodluck Jonathan had ugly stories to tell. The same Goodluck did not allow his vice Namadi Sambo to perform maximally. It is only this era that Nigerians are witnessing a vice performing all constitutional duties prescribed for him. This is real democracy at work.
At the state levels again, unless for the deputy governors whose bosses were impeached by their state assemblies, it was hard for some of them to take over the leadership of their states in the last gubernatorial polls. The deputies had tales to tell their people and Nigerians on the ugly situations they found themselves after being sworn in. In the history of Nigeria, methinks some governors had more than two deputies within a short span of time. Within eight years in Abia state, for instance, former Governor Orji Uzor Kalu had three deputies. From Eyinna Aberibe on political misunderstandings to Chima Nwafor on the grounds of disloyalty to Acho Nwakamma, the struggle for a sole administration continued. It was even alleged that Nwafor gave up the ghost in the struggle to justify his innocence against allegations levelled against him.
The point that remains valid here is that there can be no meaningful development and peace in a society where the first and second citizens fight for whatever reason. While the effect may not be much on the governor because of the arm twisting method of governance prevailing the nation’s politics, the deputies definitely are always at the receiving end as they lose focus to bring development to their people and even kinsmen. It was the consensus of many political analysts as well as some party loyalists that deputy governors were often ‘too loyal and soft’ and as such that earned them the political weakness to stand for or replace their bosses when the need arose. Others, however, believed that governors do not allow their deputies to take over for the fear that much would be revealed in time of disagreements in future.
Whether or not it was right, the fact remained that it portrayed the internal misunderstandings that always exit in government houses across the country between
the governors and their deputies. Furthermore, it revealed the hunger for power by some deputies who, waiting patiently for long, exploit the slightest chance to prove their relevance in government. It cannot be asserted that governors do hand over to their deputies in the many official and unofficial trips they outside the country.
Since 1999, there is hardly any state of the federation which did not experience political crisis among the top government functionaries, however, little and especially between the first two citizens of the states. Even if it could be attributed to the gradual growth in the democratic process, it could also be linked to the Nigerian or African context where selfishness, the hunger for unconstitutionality, power obsession and nepotism still prevail the polity.
The deputies mostly keep silent even if their governors do wrong out of fear of being sacked through arm twisting their state assemblies. Deputy governors in Nigeria are nothing but patient servants. I do not think they have much relevance in the nation’s politics because governors do not allow them to act sufficiently and independently. But looking from another angle, it should be so because human beings are very complex creatures who are sometimes unpredictable. Power intoxicates and authority is authority. Again, respect for constituted authority is demanding. You are either on one side or the other. So, a deputy naturally is at the mercy of the governor.
Let us look at the 2015 democratic transition and see how the state governors selected their deputies in terms of gender and religions and other criteria. The PDP controls 11 states: Abia, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Rivers and Taraba. APC controls 24 states: Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Borno, Edo, Imo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Sokoto, Yobe and Zamfara. Anambra remains APGA.
Only five states were gender sensitive by electing female deputy governors: Enugu, Lagos Ogun, Osun and Rivers. And on religious considerations, governors of states like Adamawa, Edo (not too sure), Gombe, Kaduna, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Nasarawa, Ogun, Ondo (not too sure), Osun, Oyo and Taraba took their deputies from the second religious groups of their states. How the deputies are performing would be surveyed next.
Ajah is an advocate of humanity, peace and good governance in Abuja. E-mail mobahawwah@yahoo.co.uk. [myad]