Author: Admin

Talks of a Nigerian Diaspora Commission began more than 10 years ago. Some of us felt then that a full-fledged Ministry for Diaspora Affairs was more deserving but we do not mind making a start with a Commission. Our friends on the opposite side declared us bunkers and would have nothing of that sort. The Oronsanye Civil Service Report that recommended the scraping of 102 redundant agencies would conveniently arm them with extra arguments. As rebuttal we would remind our opponents that the Civil Service Reforms recommendation was all about plugging waste and operating smart. If that meant, as we were sure it did, developing or sharpening the instrument to empower a constituency that annually reeks an average of USD 30 Billion into Nigeria oil dependent economy; so be it. The highs and lows in the evolution graph of the Diaspora Commission debates over the last decade were shaped by these conflicting thoughts. When an injury heals, its pains go with it. This adage captures the mood of the Diaspora when on 30 June 2017; Acting President finally assented to the Nigerian Diaspora Commission (NIDCOM) Bill.

Diaspora Commission as hard but logical priority choice

In my tenure as Chief Executive of the European arm of Nigeria’s official Diaspora body, Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation (NIDO) from 2004 – 2006 and serving in its Board of Trustees as General Secretary between 2007 and 2009 and Board Chairman from 2011 to 2013, two main activities took centre-stage in my work. These were the agitation for the realization of the Diaspora Commission Bill and making the case for Out-of-Country voting for Nigerians in Diaspora. With the Diaspora Commission now a reality, I am sure you can hear me think: one down, one to go!  As with all policy work, my office quickly identified the strategic partners needed to set the ball rolling on Out-of-Country Voting or Diaspora Voting and Diaspora Bill. A Bill is essentially a legislative matter. It was no brainer therefore that our natural ally for the Diaspora Commission Bill would be the National Assembly, particularly the House of Representatives. The 2005 National Political Reforms Conference offered no better platform to launch our case for Diaspora Voting. Our Delegates to the national parley wasted no time in taking up the case for Diaspora Voting resting on the preparatory work and initial research provided by the Headquarter of NIDO Europe under my leadership as Chief Executive. By 2009 the building blocks or legislative framework for the Diaspora Commission Bill were in place. In tandem we had commenced initial work on a national policy on Diaspora affairs and after meeting several brick walls in its realization, we thought it makes all the sense in the world to choose our fights carefully. From 2 February 2010 when a public hearing was held in the National Assembly, ably coordinated and hosted by the House Committee on Diaspora Affairs to 30 June 2017 when the Presidency assented to the Bill, a lot of water had passed under the bridge.

Bride of the moment.

The Diaspora Commission Bill is, and rightfully so, the bride of the moment. Accordingly I am impatient to share some reflections and perhaps some anecdotes on the Bill. Before I do, let me briefly justify my position. We had tried to take on the Bill, Diaspora Policy and Diaspora Voting in addition to numerous other knotty national development issues. These are perfectly doable items to simultaneously take on though sometimes, it does feel like we have bitten more than we could chew. When we met numerous brick walls, we naturally put up the brave face and tinkered on but we seemed to be failing in all fronts. Re-strategizing, it made sense to prioritize, the outcome of which was the decision to channel more energy, if not most of the energies, to Diaspora Bill. Here was the reasoning: the Diaspora Commission will be an omissible anchor of all matters Diaspora.

An excellent, yet imperfect Bill

Do we have a perfect Bill? Certainly not! But perhaps a perfect Bill does not exist. Most important thing today is that we have a Bill, one that took into consideration certain anomalies that the Diaspora pinpointed from the onset. Looking at the Bill as assented to by the Presidency and the initial draft presented by the House Committee on Diaspora Affairs, on which early debates were based, there are huge similarities. Ironical isn’t it? Not really. It tells us a few things. Firstly, the House Committee leadership knew what a sound Diaspora Commission Bill ought to look like and initially delivered one. Secondly it exposes the vulnerability of the same House Committee leadership to undue influence by powerful Diaspora lobby. One clear evidence of this is: the initial draft Establishment Bill as put forth by the House Committee on Diaspora recognized the place of Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation (NIDO) in providing policy coherence in the Diaspora for the work of the proposed Commission. The pre-NIDO era lacked coherence. It was characterized by thousands of community, professional, religious, ethnic and cultural organisations of Nigerians in Diaspora, fighting, like children in a disjointed polygamous family, to dominate the space. As can be expected, the law of the jungle applied. This is because NIDO stands on its way in exerting undue control over Diaspora affairs. The other issue, closely complimentary to this is the disproportionate representation of Nigerian Diaspora on the Governing Board of the Commission. The Diaspora disagreed on quite a lot but an issue that organized Diaspora worldwide saw eye-to-eye on as the enemy to fight to a standstill was the buildup of powerful lobby in the Diaspora and returnee Diaspora, largely undermining the draft Establishment Bill and skillfully manipulating its seemingly naïve authors. Its purpose? To kill NIDO. Thirdly, it revealed that NIDO leadership has the ability and the gusto to take on its own fight and defend the interest of its constituency despite the perceived disarray of its rank and file. Despite the powerful lobby NIDO succeeded in bringing back its status as the lead Diaspora partner in the implementation of the Diaspora Commission and equal representation of the Diaspora on the Governing Board.

A lean or an obese Diaspora Commission?

Going forward, the Diaspora Commission is not a done deal. Indeed the assent of the Presidency to the Bill marks the beginning of the real work. The devil is in the details, as they say. One of such details which should be acknowledged is the correction of a few obvious details that were wrong in the amended draft. Number one is the recognition and representation of NIDO Africa in the Bill and ultimately in the Commission. Secondly and related to that is the correction of the anomaly of having only 3 Diaspora representatives in a Governing Board of 17 members. With NIDO Africa recognised and the Americas broken down in North & South as well as Asia and Oceania, being independently caved out, NIDO representation was doubled to six. Though I believe that the full interests and broad perspectives of the Diaspora will be credibly served by an arrangement where some 8 out of the 17 Board seats are occupied by the Diaspora, 6 seats is a reasonable compromise. That said, a look at the proposed staffing of the Commission will convince management experts that Nigeria needs a Master Class on Lean Management Concept. I am not sure that a Commission needs staff strength of 141 employees. This certainly needs a review prior to commencement of operations as wastefulness both in manpower and financially must be a thing of the past. Talking of financials, a lean structure will also mean that the total projected cost for first year of operation of the Commission estimated at nearly NGN 660 Million could be reduced significantly. The 17 Governing Board members are meant to be paid salaries on part-time basis. Nigeria could try a model of sitting allowance whereby the proposed part-time salary arrangement is replaced with payment on the basis of the actual work that you do in terms of Board sittings. If you do not show up for Board meetings, you do not get paid.

Strategic, purposeful leadership is key to success.

The Chief Executive of the Diaspora Commission has an obligation to deliver and he or she can be rest assured that the Diaspora will not have the business as usual mentality. We are aware that what we may term as good practices in the parts of the world where the Diaspora lives and work, may not necessarily be applicable in the Nigerian context but a core part of it would work if adapted to the Nigerian idiosyncrasies. That the head of a Commission anywhere in the world works out a First Year Strategic Plan gleaned from the Establishment Act, infused with the conclusions of a basic needs analysis has nothing to do with Nigeria, Japan or Britain but has all to do with purposeful leadership and sound management. There are signs that if the Diaspora could succeed in sending the emerging Diaspora oligarchs on retreat in terms of stopping them from hijacking the Diaspora Commission through an Establishment Bill tilted in their favour, I am certain that the required scrutiny will be brought to bear on whoever emerges head of the Commission (Chairman & Director-General) as well as the Board. I guess the clear message is, if you do not plan to deliver on the Diaspora Commission mandate, better reconsider your candidacy for the Governing Board because the Diaspora is willing and supremely capable of taking you to task.

*Collins Nweke is Founder / CEO of Global Village Consult Belgium, brand owners of Nigeria Human Capital. He had served variously as Chief Executive, General Secretary and Board Chairman between 2004 and 2013 of the Board of Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation Europe. Collins is a Municipal Legislator at Ostend City Council Belgium where he is serving a second term as elected Councillor. He writes from Brussels.

Being Abstract of a paper by Collins NWEKE presented at the Diaspora Project Summit, under the Framework of African Union Day 2017, Dortmund Germany, 26/27 May 2017 entitled

REDEFINING THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL INTERESTS IN GLOBAL MIGRATION MANAGEMENT – THE DIASPORA FACTOR & FACILITATOR ROLE

(A PowerPoint version of the presentation is available through this link: Project Summit Dortmund – EU Migration Fund for Africa)

The saying that time changes and so too must people and systems, runs true with the classic place that the concept of national interest occupies today. That classic definition of national interest departs from the notion that it does not accept the distinction between a morality-based and an interest-based foreign policy. According to its proponents, moral values are simply intangible interests.

In European migration management and at best, the reactive migration policy in place at present, leaders and experts may point out the costs of indulging these values. But if an informed public disagrees, experts cannot deny the legitimacy of public opinion. Numerous polls have shown both in Europe and the United States that the citizens are neither isolationist nor eager to see their leaders serve as the world’s police[i]. Finding a middle course is however proving difficult and complex particularly in light of the election of President Donald Trump. Evidence are beginning to emerge that not only debunks the complexity around finding this needed middle-ground, but also supports the reasoning that national interest of a nation state can be seen from a broader prism of shared priorities regarding relations with the rest of the world. Though broader than strategic interests, national interest is always an integral part thereof. National interest does include values such as human rights and democracy, if the public feels that those values are important to its identity that it is willing to pay a price to promote them. The European Union obviously believes that their interests include certain values, such as protection of lives of young desperate migrants in the Mediterranean Sea, human rights, female circumcision, living in human dignity,… The promotion of these values abroad is to the EU and the vast majority of its citizens of vital rather than secondary importance[ii].

It is important to separate the ideas of survival and progression, because whilst secondary national interests are not necessarily concerned with the practical survival of the state but of its development, they have an openness to be confused and blurred by politics and politicians into a perception of actually being vital national interests. In other words, they are open to political manipulation precisely because they are determined by circumstance rather than necessity. Add domestic politics and the desire (interest) for election and re-election into the mix and the difference between the two become easily, intentionally, and perhaps naturally, blurred.

In the management of international migration especially from the Sub-Sahara Region of Africa, signs are that the EU may be rethinking its concept of national interest.  An agreement which came on the back of the  Valletta Summit, a high-level meeting between EU and African leaders that took place in Malta in November 2015 is a good pointer. The summit resulted in the establishment of an Emergency Trust Fund for Africa aimed at tackling the root causes of irregular migration, to which the EU pledged 1.8 billion euros ($1.9 billion). The EU has proposed partnerships with four other African countries — Ethiopia, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal — in a bid to cut the flow of migrants arriving in Italy. The EU has stated it will “apply the necessary leverage” in order to secure them. This has been interpreted to be an apparent threat to cut foreign aid to African countries unless they cooperate in reducing irregular migration.

The situation today offers opportunity for African Diaspora led by NIDO Europe to:

1. Initiate relevant strategic high-level debates in order that the definition of national interest is officially broader than its current narrow perspective.
2. Work with African home governments to carry out needs analysis aimed at identifying sustainable areas where EU Migration funds should be channeled towards and encourage activation of matching funds.
3. Identify international project partners to assess and partly manage the funds for the mutual benefit of Europe, their host and Africa, the homeland.

This intervention will conceptualize and redefine national interest, recommend strategies to activate international project partnership and lay out proactive steps towards assessing the available and related capitals in a crowd-funding environment for impact in Nigeria and Africa along the line of accelerating national development from the Diaspora vantage point.

Collins NWEKE

Global Affairs Analyst & Councillor Ostend City Council Belgium

——————————————————————————————–

[i] George Buchan, The Bruges Group, 2012

[ii] Carl Wallin, Swedish National Defense College, 2014

Three interesting scenarios within the past 48 hours reinvigorates my faith in humankind, and indeed in project Nigeria, and do not mirror it with partisan prism because it will fail you. Only a broad-based binoculars will reveal the positives therein.

The first is the return of another batch of the innocents of Chibok, the second is the medical trip to London by Mr President and the attendant transmission of full Presidential Powers to the Vice President, and the third is the emergence of 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron as the President of France.

I do not buy into the scepticism and the cynicism of conspiracy theorists regarding the Chibok story. I believe as evidenced by the committee set up by former President Goodluck Jonathan that certain innocents of Chibok were ferried away by the villainous and impish Haramists some three years ago. Thank God another batch is back from captivity.

On Mr President’s medical trip, at last a seemingly intractable era of lies, falsehood and needless propaganda goes to sleep. Now we know where and what’s happening, and we know that we have an Acting President with full Presidential Powers. Praise be the Almighty.

On the victory of Emmanuel Macron in France, I’m exhilarated that eccentrics are blazing the global trail. Over my head I see a ballot based peoples revolution in this clime come 2019. Not a long way off, Yes it is not.

I’m confident because the darkest point of the night is closest to dawn. And my faith is unwavering because the universe is just, and it tilts the pendulum of divine munificence the way of men and women of FAITH.

Do not worry about how this will happen, for it will. The prevalent existential pressure and the dire socio-economic strait faced by the ORDINARY PEOPLE tells the proximity of cosmic intervention, we must therefore be ready, willing and able. I AM IN, ARE YOU?

To be CONT’D.

By Chris Mustapha Nwaokobia Jnr
#COUNTRYFIRST

Since January 1, 2016, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) of the United Nations officially came into force. These are 17 targets which are divided into five major themes: People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership. The Organisation of Flemish Cities and Municipalities (known by its Dutch acronym VVSG) has launched a pilot project where it seeks to recruit 20 volunteer Cities & Municipalities by 30 March 2017 to jointly examine how sustainability can be integrated coherently into the city and urban policy 2020-2024.

As the successor of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) SDG has a fundamental difference being that they no longer rely on the traditional North-South divide. According to the VVSG* Sustainable Developments are universal and apply to all countries in the world, North and South, East and West. This means that there are many challenges and yet many opportunities to jointly strive towards helping to tell this universal story. Therefore, it is logical that they are targeting mainly local governments as well as companies, universities, scientific institutions and associations. Ordinary citizens the world over are encouraged to play their parts.

For Ostend, and its Department for Social Welfare, also known as the Social House, as the arm of government closest to the people, SDG offers an interesting framework to create a link between the City Council and local practices on the one hand and local and global connection on the other. And Ostend is no starters in this domain. Oostende Mondiaal, the Municipal Council for International Development, for example, has long been active in the City-on-Sea with a strong 11-11-11 Standing Committee as well as the City-Link between Ostend City Council and Banjul City Council in The Gambia. The Gent City Council challenged several central cities and would collaborate with Ostend as SDG Voice within the framework of SDG 3: Good Health & Well-Being. The City of Ghent is engaging Ostend for the project “Everybody Cycles” or “Iedereen Fietst”. In concrete both cities want as many people as possible to cultivate the habit of cycling both for its health and economic benefits.

Ostend needs the coaching and guidance provided by the VVSG mainly because in the long-term, it enables it to leverage on the strategic solutions to climate change, to ensure an accessible service for all and to galvanize citizens towards local consumption otherwise referred to as the ‘Short Food Chain’. These are all just examples of how sustainable development can be translated into the Ostend municipal level. There are strong indications that Ostend, being a mid-size metropolis, of huge cultural diversity, with over 130 different cultures, will see this as a unique opportunity “to contribute to the welfare of the citizens and to the sustainable development of the municipal area” as contained in Article 2 of the Municipal Decree.

Your guess is as good as mine as to whether Ostend will be one of 20 participants in the pilot project offered by the VVSG. The ball is now squarely on the court of the supervising Councillor for International Development, Tom Germonpré (sp.a) to deliver this project for Ostend. The deadline for signing up is 30 March 2017. Time is of essence!

The Dutch version first published in www.collinsnweke.be is available here

Collins Nweke | Green Party Councillor Ostend City Council Belgium

21 March 2017

*Based on briefing by VVSG International

President John Dramani Mahama in a State of the Nation address to mark Ghana’s 59th independence anniversary on March 6, 2016 made two important pronouncements with foreign relations implications. The first was his government’s plan to improve the knowledge and usage of French language in Anglophone Ghana, which is surrounded by French speaking nations. The advantages of this strategic initiative if effectively implemented are many.

The second policy statement of international import, but which almost escaped media attention is that, starting next July, citizens of the other 53 Member States of the African Union (AU) can “obtain visas on arrival (in Ghana) with the option of staying for up to 30 days.” President Mahama expects this measure to stimulate air travel, trade, investment and tourism in Ghana which, like many other African countries, is going through a difficult economic patch.

To his credit, under Ghana’s independence, President Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, and until his overthrow in the coup of February 24, 1966, Ghana granted visa exemptions to “persons of African descent” born in the neighbouring West African countries, and members of the Casablanca Group – Guinea, Tunisia, Mali, United Arab Republic, Morocco and Algeria – which along with the Liberia Group, formed the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1963, with the Pan-Africanist Ghanaian leader playing a leading role. In his 1961 book, I Speak of Freedom, Nkrumah had also expressed the hope that: …the African race, united under one federal government, will emerge not as just another world bloc to flaunt its wealth and strength, but as a Great Power whose greatness is indestructible because it is built not on fear, envy and suspicion, nor won at the expense of others, but founded on hope, trust, friendship and directed to the good of all mankind.”

But so much has happened with the concept of a United States of Africa, which took its origin from the 1924 poem “Hail, United States of Africa” by Marcus Garvey, American civil rights activist and great Pan-Africanist. The late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had romanced with the same idea in his relentless push for the formation of the AU, which succeeded the OAU in 2002, and many still talk with passion about the African Renaissance.

As expected the AU Commission Chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has lauded Ghana’s visa-on-arrival plan, expressing the hope that “many other African countries will follow suit, in the interest of achieving an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa.”

Modern Africa owes a debt of eternal gratitude to Pan-Africanists and independent leaders such as Nkrumah, for their sacrificial struggles, so any initiative that seeks to rekindle the dreams of those founding fathers must be welcomed by all true Africans and friends of Africa. But it is a strong indictment on the continent’s post-independent leadership that almost 60 years after many of the countries gained political freedom, Africans are more divided than ever. Africa is not zero-poor, but with the mismanagement of its rich human and natural resources, bad governance, corruption and the vicious circle of social strife, poverty and unemployment, there are today more skilled Africans in Europe, and the Americas than are in their home countries. And almost on a daily basis thousands of disillusioned, hopeless and desperate African youths risk their lives on perilous journeys to Europe.

Africa and Africans are fast losing their unique identity if they have not already done so, with Pan-Africanism now at best a slogan to the inattentive ears of present generation of Africans. Not a few African leaders have proclaimed or still proclaim Africa as the centrepiece of their national foreign policy. But the reality today is that while they continue to pay lip service to African unity, most of these leaders, under the guise of solving domestic problems, many of which are self-inflicted any way, steal their countries dry to build personal castles at home and abroad.

Ghana’s visa-on-arrival plan for AU citizens may also be viewed against the deafening complaints by African citizens about the difficulties and humiliations they suffer to obtain visas for Europe and the U.S. But the truth is that the process for obtaining visas to African countries is no less laborious and frustrating. For many Africans, travelling in the continent whether by road or by air is a nightmarish experience. In some cases air fares cost more than elsewhere while immigration and check points punctuate the transnational roads, some of which are in terrible conditions, with the attendant extortion of travellers by the border security personnel. The travel delays and the lack of deliberate pan-African national policies have ensured that intra-African trade hovers between 10% and 12% compared to 40% in North America and 60% in Western Europe.
The 15-nation Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) founded in 1975 deserves commendation for its 1979 flagship Protocol on Free Movement of persons, goods and services, rights to Establishment and Residence, which guarantees community citizens, a free-visa entry and stay in countries other than their own for 90 days at first instance. In spite of its imperfections, the implementation of this protocol is a major stride towards regional integration and makes ECOWAS the only Regional Economic Community (REC) with a free-visa regime.
Time was when Africans took refuge and were even provided the national passports of their host African countries during the independence struggles. Hundreds even received free education in their host countries during the Anti-Apartheid era. But with globalisation and world economic crisis African migrants who once constituted the bulwark of economic development on the continent, have become targets of violent xenophobic attacks by fellow Africans who accuse them of stealing their jobs.

If Europe is accused of erecting walls/fences to stop immigrants, African countries are no less guilty for the erection of invisible walls against fellow Africans even in their times of need.

With their ill-gotten wealth and multiple foreign visas, many African leaders and members of their families flaunt their ostentatious life styles abroad, while the majority of Africans are stranded and condemned to abject poverty at home. The same leaders bemoan capital flight and brain drain from Africa but do very little or nothing to incentivise or create the enabling environment to retain local capital or manpower. Instead, they encourage the mass exodus of Africa’s best brains; discourage foreign investment and incite social crisis that cause death, destruction and render citizens, refugees in their own countries. With their dual/multiple nationalities, these unpatriotic leaders easily disappear with their families to enjoy their ill-gotten wealth abroad.

As things stand, Africans must undertake a serious reality check to determine their Africanness and how they have derailed the lofty dreams of African founding fathers, for the purpose of damage control/limitation. Symbolic as Ghana’s visa-on-arrival initiative may seem, it is a reminder to Africans in general about where they are coming from. The AU and various Pan-Africanist groups/institutions and policy think-tanks must wake up from their slumber. It is bad enough that through slavery, colonial and neo-colonial exploitations and plundering, Africa’s sweat, blood and wealth were used to lay the foundations for the industrialisation and transformation of many countries in Europe and the Americas. For Africans themselves to now become champions of Africa’s disunity/disintegration, and the continued siphoning of the continent’s resources, is an unpardonable crime against humanity.

According to Marcus Garvey: “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.” It is not enough for Africans to know their history and culture; or to continue to blame others for their woes, they must use that knowledge strategically to work for the good of present and future generations.

• First published in The Nigerian Guardian of 8 April 2016 under the title Ghana’s new visa plan and pan-Africanism by Paul  Ejime, a media/communications consultant

Abstract of a Keynote Presentation I made at the NIDO Europe Orientation and Leadership Retreat, Hamburg, Germany. 17 -18 February 2017 entitled THE ROLE OF THE DIASPORA IN NIGERIAN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NATION BUILDING: A Historical Perspective & Review.*

Recent discourse on the participation of the Nigerian Diaspora in national development has played up two main phenomena: Brain Drain and Brain Gain. While brain drain refers to mass migration of Nigerians of working age out of Nigeria, brain gain touches on the return of these nationals, often with resources, both capital and human, required for national development and nation building.

To exploit the goodies of brain gain, a good understanding of brain drain is omissible. Why and during which period was the brain of Nigerians drained in such significant and noticeable numbers? What factors gave rise to the drain? What exactly has been drained and to what extent has the drain constituted a cog in the wheel of national development? Available literatures examining brain drain puts the number of Nigerians permanently based abroad at between 6 and 9 Million. The vast majority are gainfully employed and contributing meaningfully to the socio-economic development of their host countries. Tens of thousands of the active professional Nigerians based outside Nigeria are world-class inventors, medical professionals, and experts in science, technology, the economy, politics and other fields. These include first generation Nigerian migrants whose initial orientation was Nigeria prior to their sojourns abroad as well as their offspring born abroad and currently hitting up to the third generations.

The presentation on The role of the Diaspora in Nigerian National Development and Nation Building posits that human capital resources of Nigeria have continued to play decisive roles in other economies of the world, while national economy of Nigeria stagnated between 1960 and 1999. This constituted a strangling setback on national development and informed Government’s resolve under President Olusegun Obasanjo, with the return to democracy in 1999, to have its Diaspora organized and reverse the brain drain to brain gain.

The pertinence of an organized Diaspora was reviewed against an unorganized Diaspora and an attempt made at establishing the collateral loss to the nation by the situation. The presentation further examines the role of visionary, proactive governance as opposed to leadership by exigencies in the identification of the potential impact Nigerian Diaspora will have on national rebirth. It is the assertion of the presentation that talks of Brain Gain are no happenstance but by the execution of a set of deliberately planned and strategically deployed actions by both Government and the Diaspora.

Examining existing mobilization methods and engagement tools in facilitating brain gain, it is the contention of the presentation that reversing the incidence of poverty, Nigeria’s greatest nemesis; gaining back the brains of the Nigerian Diaspora is a critical success factor. While copiously acknowledging that the job of gaining back the lost human capital of Nigeria resulted from visionary leadership of Government and is currently work in progress, both sides – Government and Diaspora – have their distinct roles naturally caved out and must take these roles seriously if the brain gain project is to be the success that it ought to be.

Drawing from examples globally where Diaspora mobilization have resulted in socio-economic transformation, the presentation advocates a number of measures, untried in Nigeria as it were, to mine the abundant human capital reservoir of the country towards accelerated national development.

*To request full paper / presentation, send an email to admin@collinsnweke.eu