Author: Admin

Strategic Silence of Nigeria in the Russia-Ukraine War

youtube.com/watch

The Trump-Zelenskyy Oval Office debacle has led to many unsolicited advice to a desperate Ukrainian President on how he ought to have handled an erratic American President. I laughed at some, got offended, if not angry, at others. Yet some got me thinking. They got me thinking of a few incidents during my time as municipal legislator at Ostend City Council, Belgium. Let me single out two particular incidents.

One was during the first of my three terms. I had just been sworn in.  While learning the legislative rope, all buried in piles of briefing notes, books, and handouts, I relied for guidance in the interim, on my sense of right and wrong, my ideological persuasion if you like, and my Green Party political lines, especially the issues on which we were elected. One of the items slated for a vote in one of my early sittings was approval of procedure for employment of ‘Student Vacation Jobbers’ at the department for social welfare in whose board I served at the time.

Asking around, I discovered that the vacant positions were never published by the department. The order of allocation of student job positions was for Councillors to bring in their children. If, as Councillor, we had no school-age children of 16 years or older, we could bring in anyone of our choosing. Next in rank were the staff of the department in order of seniority. If there are any places left after filling these anointed priority places, the Council Chairman will then handpick party royals to favour with the positions.

My immediate reaction was that this must be wrong and that it must stop. I quickly put together a brief interpellation in which I pointed out that I do not feel comfortable giving my teenage son priority over other kids just because I, his dad, happened to be Councillor. Equality of chance presupposes that we should open up the space for all kids irrespective of background. Let the best candidates get the jobs.

If we must favour any group, I argued, then let us prioritise kids from families in poverty or that are facing threats of poverty. We know who they are because their parents are our clients on income support. They lack the network to facilitate getting vacation job for their kids, which we all have in abundance. If we are serious about breaking generational poverty, let us consider spreading our tentacles to directions that will effectively break the poverty circle. I then acknowledged that this procedure has been in place for a very long time and that I do not intend to cause avoidable disruption and administrative bottleneck. I therefore will not vote against but will request that in the course of the year, we must revisit the procedure and abandon the old order.

A couple of days later, a journalist contacted me to say that he had picked the story up from somewhere. The Council Chairman had denied my side of the story, stating that during the entire Council sitting in question, I uttered no word. “As a matter of fact, Councillor Collins Nweke was one of the first to vote in support of the motion”, he declared to the journalist. He detested this cowardly attitude of keeping quiet during proceedings only to open the mouth wide with journalist to tell lies. He went comically further to say that if elections were close by, he would have suggested that I was suffering from early symptoms of election fever.

My teenage son who had applied for a place, became a casualty of the entire episode. He got punished because his dad spoke up. As applicant, rather than posting him to a work post as close to his home as possible, as is the standard practice, he was allocated a student job place as far away from home as possible with basically an impossible public transport connection. But the young man understood and made the best out of that first experience as student worker. On the benefit of hindsight, I would have applied the doctrine of diplomatic ambiguity by abstaining rather than voting for or against. Useful lesson learnt.

Second incident was during my second term. The Mayor pushed for a Bill to reform parts of our policy on the local economy. I felt that a part of the unintended consequences of the proposed Bill will be bankruptcy for businesses owned by a large segment of ethnic minority entrepreneurs. In specific terms, a few business cum residential districts were adjudged to be attracting higher number of corner shops offering ethnic products and night shops. And with that, a perception of insecurity was felt by some local residents who felt that ‘their City’ was being overtaken by migrants. They feel like ‘strangers’ in their homes and all of those social stereotypical sentiments. Others who owned homes in the districts were worried that their properties were being devalued as a consequence of the population shift and mix.

Though I had the economy portfolio as well as equality rights within my caucus and the policy was mine to drive, we have a culture of consensus, preferably or majority carries the vote. To cut long story short, I was more or less alone within my caucus in my opposition against the reform. That is not to say that my party colleagues supported the reform full force, though one of us silently wished for it to pass because he had a property there. The general feeling is more of not ignoring the concerns of voters who may not be racist but feel insecure or vulnerable with the changing demography of our cherished city.

The big question is what do we do? Politically, it will be murderous for us to vote in support of the Bill because we can’t defend it with our core support base. Voting against it, which was my first inclination, was feared to be counterproductive with some of our voters that favoured the Bill. My sense was that most of my colleagues, maybe all, would vote yes if we allowed the notion of voting only your heart. In the end we agreed on kicking in the doctrine of diplomatic ambiguity. The compromise was that we will abstain  from voting and will offer no clear explanation for or against. We will do all we can to empower the affected group of the proposed reform with information and administrative support where needed.

These two incidents pulled out of my personal experience in politics are meant to provide a preface to the unsolicited thoughts I equally want to join in proffering on Nigeria’s approach towards the Russia-Ukraine war. I believe that it is the same doctrine of diplomatic ambiguity which I have had reasons to either  apply or support a number of times in my political career that I believe Nigeria is deploying  in dealing with the Russia-Ukraine war.

The doctrine is a strategic foreign policy approach where a country deliberately avoids taking a clear or definitive stance on a contentious international issue. This doctrine allows states to maintain flexibility, avoid alienating key partners, and retain room for diplomatic maneuvering. By refusing to openly align with any side in a conflict or dispute, a country can maximize its options, protect its interests, and reduce the risk of becoming entangled in the rivalries of larger powers.

Like in basically all things, applying the doctrine comes with some consequences. I can therefore safely imagine that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria and his team, must have weighed the pros and cons before stepping in to brief Mr President and recommend Nigeria’s position.

As the largest economy and most populous nation in Africa, Nigeria plays a pivotal role in shaping African responses to global crises. Its foreign policy traditionally balances non-alignment, economic pragmatism, and regional leadership. Historically, Nigeria has positioned itself as part of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), avoiding entanglement in distant geopolitical conflicts and great power struggles. Maintaining ambiguity aligns with this tradition and reinforces sovereignty in decision-making, prioritizing domestic economic development, regional stability in West Africa, and preserving ties with all major powers. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Nigeria has leaned slightly toward the Western stance, condemning Russian aggression in UN votes but avoiding strident rhetoric or severing ties with Moscow. This in practical terms reflects textbook application of the doctrine of ambiguity.

In the choices that Nigeria makes, it must think of the preservation of its strategic relationships. The country maintains strong economic ties with the West, including investment, aid, trade, and military cooperation, particularly through partnerships with the EU, UK, and US. But in the same vein, it has growing military and energy ties with Russia, including cooperation in areas like oil exploration, arms procurement, and nuclear technology. Being diplomatic ambiguous ensures it does not alienate either side.

There are also gains in economic diversification that Nigeria needs to consider. Its reliance on Western capital markets and development finance institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Bank is crucial for the country’s economic recovery and infrastructure investment. The counterbalance here is that Russia’s role in the global oil and gas markets aligns with Nigeria’s interests as an energy exporter. Nigeria benefits when high oil prices, driven by geopolitical uncertainty, bolster government revenues.

The Minister must have also considered the need for flexibility for future alliances in his memo to Mr President. I summise that by not fully committing to either bloc, Nigeria can adapt its position based on how the war evolves and how global power shifts play out, ensuring diplomatic maneuverability.

Timing they say can be everything. With pressing domestic challenges like high youth unemployment and restiveness, security crises up North, spate of kidnappings, and efforts at economic diversification away from oil, of which the Nigerian Export Promotion Council reports over 20% growth in 2024, the Minister may have reasoned that Nigeria benefits from focusing inward rather than spending diplomatic capital on a distant European conflict.

There is also the regional leadership dimension and African consensus to consider. A diplomatic ambiguous position allows Nigeria to play a consensus-building role within the African Union (AU), where member states have differing views on the crisis. The Minister may have felt that Nigeria is better off projecting itself as a unifying force, keeping Africa’s voice independent and cohesive in global forums.

Decisions around positioning a consequential country like Nigeria in an issue of global dimension like the Russia-Ukraine war do not come easy. There are a few risks to consider in applying the Doctrine of Ambiguity. For a start, there is the Western pressure and perception issues to contend with. Nigeria’s relatively soft stance on Russia could be viewed negatively by the EU, UK, and US who expect clearer alignment in defense of international law and territorial sovereignty. Who knows how this could affect Nigeria’s access to Western investment, security partnerships, and climate finance, which are critical for its long-term development agenda? Early indications for instance are that some African countries like Kenya that took a clear pro-West stance have seen increased trade and investment benefits from Western governments looking to reward loyalty. Nigeria faces potential risks of being seen as fence-sitting, forfeiting opportunities to negotiate preferential trade or security deals from either side.

There is the moral and ethical concerns to contend with. Nigeria aspires to moral leadership in Africa, rooted in its history of anti-apartheid activism and peacekeeping leadership. Avoiding a clear stance risks eroding Nigeria’s moral authority on global governance issues.

Not trading carefully can lead to internal political divisions giving Nigeria’s internal political divisions. The country has a complex domestic political environment, with historical ties to both the West and Russia through Cold War-era military cooperation. Internal pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine, and pro-West factions within the government, academia, Diaspora, and media could exploit ambiguity, framing it as indecision, lack of vision, or maybe even ‘stomach infrastructure’ where some Nigerians in the Russian Diaspora are being accused without evidence of acting as paid agents of the Russian Federation to spread propaganda.

One of the most vexing risks that Nigeria faces in taking the route of diplomatic ambiguity is reduced influence in global governance. Its ambition to secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council or take leadership on major global issues such as development financing or advocacy for Africa on climate adaptation  could be undermined if it is seen as unwilling to take clear, principled positions on defining issues like Ukraine.

In the final analysis, there is a balancing act for Nigeria to undertake. Its application of the doctrine of ambiguity in the Russia-Ukraine crisis is pragmatic. It allows the country to preserve vital economic and security relationships while staying true to its non-aligned heritage. However, as a continental leader, Nigeria faces higher expectations to articulate an African perspective on global crises, particularly in light of its aspirations for global leadership. Nigeria could fine-tune its diplomatic ambiguity into a constructive diplomatic neutrality, where it condemns violations of international law such as territorial aggression while also advocating for African interests, including ensuring food security, energy price stability, and non-punitive responses toward African economies impacted by sanctions spillover. This may be a good strategy for Africa’s dominant economy to position itself as a mediator capable of facilitating dialogue between Russia, Ukraine, and global powers, leveraging its status as a respected African power.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Collins Nweke is a former Green Councillor at Ostend City Council, Belgium where he served three consecutive terms until December 2024. He is a Fellow of both the Chartered Institute of Public Management of Nigeria and Institute of Management  Consultants. He is also a Distinguished Fellow of the International Association of Research Scholars and Administrators, where he serves in its Governing Council. He writes from Brussels, Belgium.

X: @collinsnweke E: admin@collinsnweke.eu W: www.collinsnweke.eu

The Generation that must Defeat Totalitarianism

Trump has inadvertently done the impossible. He made the EU stronger and brought the UK closer to the EU than even when we were in it. A European military is now a certainty. It will include the UK and other European countries not in the EU.

Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, and Russia strengthened. Washington has become the court of Nero, a fiery emperor, submissive courtiers, and a ketamine-fueled jester in charge of purging the civil service.

This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. Trump’s message is that there is no point in being his ally since he will not defend you. He will impose more customs duties on you than on his enemies. He will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.

The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is all about. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down before Putin. But Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is probably accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.

Never in history has a President of the United States capitulated to the enemy. Never has anyone supported an aggressor against an ally. Never has anyone trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could have prevented him from doing so, dismissed the military general staff in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media.

This is not an illiberal drift. It is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only one month, three weeks, and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution.

I have faith in the strength of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator, and now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor.

Eight days ago, at the very moment that Trump was rubbing Macron’s back in the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops.

Two days later, in the Oval Office, the military service shirker was giving war hero Zelensky lessons in morality and strategy before dismissing him like a groom, ordering him to submit or resign. Tonight, he took another step into infamy by stopping the delivery of weapons that had been promised. What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: face it.

And first of all, let’s not be mistaken. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic States, Georgia, and Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to Yalta, where half the continent was ceded to Stalin.

The countries of the South are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they should continue to respect Europe or whether they are now free to trample on it. What Putin wants is the end of the order put in place by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with its first principle being the prohibition of acquiring territory by force. This idea is at the very source of the UN, where today Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the attacked, because the Trumpian vision coincides with that of Putin: a return to spheres of influence, the great powers dictating the fate of small countries.

Mine is Greenland, Panama, and Canada. You are Ukraine, the Baltics and Eastern Europe. He is Taiwan and the China Sea. At the parties of the oligarchs of the Gulf of Mar-a-Lago, this is called “diplomatic realism.” So we are alone. But the talk that Putin can not be resisted is false. Contrary to the Kremlin’s propaganda, Russia is in bad shape. In three years, the so-called second largest army in the world has managed to grab only crumbs from a country three times less populated.

Interest rates at 25%, the collapse of foreign exchange and gold reserves, the demographic collapse show that it is on the brink of the abyss. The American helping hand to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made in a war.

The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans are coming out of denial. They understood in one day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands and that they have three imperatives.

Accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American abandonment, so that it holds, and of course to impose its presence and that of Europe in any negotiation.

This will be expensive. It will be necessary to end the taboo of the use of frozen Russian assets. It will be necessary to circumvent Moscow’s accomplices within Europe itself by a coalition of only the willing countries, with, of course, the United Kingdom.

Second, demand that any agreement be accompanied by the return of kidnapped children, prisoners, and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia, and Minsk, we know what agreements with Putin are worth. These guarantees require sufficient military force to prevent a new invasion.

Finally, and this is the most urgent, because it is what will take the most time, we must build the neglected European defence, to the benefit of the American umbrella since 1945 and scuttled since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that the leaders of today’s democratic Europe will be judged in the history books. Friedrich Merz has just declared that Europe needs its own military alliance. This is to recognize that France has been right for decades in arguing for strategic autonomy.

It remains to be built. It will be necessary to invest massively, to strengthen the European Defence Fund outside the Maastricht debt criteria, to harmonize weapons and munitions systems, to accelerate the entry into the Union of Ukraine, which is today the leading European army, to rethink the place and conditions of nuclear deterrence based on French and British capabilities, to relaunch the anti-missile shield and satellite programs.

The plan announced yesterday by Ursula von der Leyen is a very good starting point. And much more will be needed. Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power again. In a word, the Draghi report will have to be implemented. For good. But the real rearmament of Europe is its moral rearmament. We must convince public opinion in the face of war weariness and fear, and especially in the face of Putin’s cronies, the extreme right and the extreme left. They argued again yesterday in the National Assembly, Mr Prime Minister, before you, against European unity, against European defense.

They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of de Gaulle Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain at the beck and call of Putin. Peace for the collaborators who have refused any aid to the Ukrainians for three years. Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in the last few days, the public humiliation of Zelensky and all the crazy decisions taken in the last month have finally made the Americans react.

Polls are falling. Republican lawmakers are being greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News is becoming critical. The Trumpists are no longer in their majesty. They control the executive, the Parliament, the Supreme Court, and social networks. But in American history, the freedom fighters have always prevailed. They are beginning to raise their heads.

The fate of Ukraine is being decided in the trenches. It also depends on those in the United States who want to defend democracy. Our ability to unite Europeans is crucial. We need to find the means for their common defense. Europe must again become the power it once was in history. It hesitates to become that power again. Our parents defeated fascism and communism at great cost. The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianism of the 21st century.

Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.

This is the full text of Claude Malhuret, French Prime Minister, speaking to the French Senate Tuesday 4 March 2025. 

Navigating the Sahel Crisis: A Strategic Framework for Stability in ECOWAS

When Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso abruptly withdrew from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) forming the Alliance of Sahel States (also known by its French acronym AES) some did not take them seriously. The olive branch extended by some critical stakeholders keen to see a de-escalation in the crisis began to lower in January 2024 when the trio formally withdrew from the bloc. Anger, resentment, and other emotions may be inevitable. However every prudent leader must realise that a comprehensive and inclusive approach is essential to prevent the AES formation from leading to further regional instability. By fostering dialogue, enhancing security cooperation, and promoting sustainable development, ECOWAS, the AU, and the international community must play a role  in building a more united and prosperous West Africa.

Before delving into the specific roles of the core regional, continental, and global stakeholders, it is essential to provide an overview of how we arrived at this point. As of February 2025, the government of Niger Republic has implemented several significant changes to its border regulations, particularly affecting its relationship with Nigeria. There have been border closures and reopenings following the military coup in July 2023. The introduction of new travel documents followed swiftly. In line with AES initiatives, Niger introduced a joint biometric passport for its citizens, to facilitate movement within the alliance. However, this new passport has faced recognition challenges from non-AES countries, like Senegal. This led to trade restrictions, when in October 2024, Niger imposed a comprehensive ban on food exports to countries outside the AES, including Nigeria. This measure was officially positioned as a means  to boost agricultural self-reliance within the alliance but it has (unintentionally?) disrupted traditional trade flows between Niger and Nigeria. 

Without doubts, these developments reflect Niger’s shift towards strengthening ties with its immediate neighbours within the AES framework, while asserting its sovereignty and redefining its relationships and border policies with countries like Nigeria. The core question remains whether or not Niger has focused only on the gains of its moves and has overlooked the potential losses

Gains and Losses from Niger-Nigeria Border War

The border closures created short-term economic and social hardships, particularly for vulnerable populations and businesses. However, they also presented opportunities for improving national security, promoting local economic development, and asserting political independence. Long-term gains will depend on the success of Niger’s domestic policies and its cooperation within the Alliance of Sahel States. We must remember that the first attempt at a Sahel alliance fell apart. Could it be that it will succeed this time around because they are dancing to the tunes of more determined foreign drummers focused on redrawing the World Order? That remains to be seen. But as far as our mortal eyes can carry us, we can’t lose sight of some obvious gains.

The Gains

The gain that springs most obviously to the eyes is security enhancement. The border closures aimed to curb the movement of armed groups, smuggling, and other illicit activities, contributing to national security, particularly in Niger, which faces threats from extremist groups.  The border closures led to a temporary reduction in cross-border crimes such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, and arms trafficking. A boost to domestic production is another important gain in the stride to agricultural self-sufficiency. By reducing dependency on imports, Niger sought to encourage local agricultural production, supporting its intentional national food security goals and local industry sufficiency. The restrictions provided opportunities for local industries to meet domestic demand, fostering industrial growth.

There is also political leverage that we may not discontenance. For Niger, the border closures were part of a broader strategy to assert its sovereignty and negotiate better terms in regional alliances, particularly after its exit from ECOWAS and the formation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

The Losses

Analysts for Niger of the costs-benefits of their border strategy have a number of losses to contend with. For a start, economic disruption by way of trade decline is a critical factor. The border closures severely impacted cross-border trade. Both formal and informal trade, including agricultural products, livestock, and manufactured goods, experienced significant reductions. The attendant revenue loss has had significant impact on the fragile economy.  Governments of both Niger and Nigeria lost customs duties and taxes collected from cross-border trade, impacting national and local economies. The humanitarian impact manifesting in food insecurity was pretty visible. Niger, which relies on food imports from Nigeria, faced increased food insecurity. Rising food prices worsened conditions for vulnerable populations. Many small-scale traders, transporters, and border communities that depend on cross-border trade for their livelihoods faced economic hardship.

The social and cultural disruptions is another critical loss. It is said that in the border area between Niger and Nigeria, some homes have their living rooms in one country and their bedrooms in the other country. In other words, limited movement and restrictions on free movement of people disrupted daily life. Families and communities with cross-border ties are  separated, affecting social cohesion, employment, and education opportunities, especially for those who frequently crossed borders, not to mention the strained diplomatic relations between Niger and Nigeria.

The Strategic Approach

To address the potential crisis resulting from the formation of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) by Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, a coordinated and pragmatic approach is essential. ECOWAS, the African Union (AU), and the broader international community should prioritize diplomatic engagement, security cooperation, and socioeconomic development to foster regional stability.

ECOWAS as key actor

The ECOWAS has the prime responsibility of demonstrating good faith by efforts at rebuilding trust for regional unity. The bloc is formally on records to have started off well. In its 29 January 2025 Declaration formally acknowledging the withdrawal of the trio of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso from ECOWAS, it placed a four-point instruction before member states as follows:

1.     recognize National passports and identity cards bearing ECOWAS logo held by the citizens of Burkina Faso, the Republic of Mali and the Republic of Niger, until further notice.

2.     continue to treat goods and services coming from the three countries in accordance with the ECOWAS Trade Liberalization Scheme (ETLS) and investment policy.

3.     allow citizens of the three affected countries to continue to enjoy the right of visa free movement, residence and establishment in accordance with the ECOWAS protocols until further notice.

4.     provide full support and cooperation to ECOWAS officials from the three countries in the course of their assignments for the Community.

Determined to avoid confusion and disruption in the lives and businesses of the ECOWAS population during what it described as a transition period, the instruction to member states added that the arrangements will be in place until the full determination of the modalities of our future engagement with the three countries by the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Governments. The Commission has set up a structure to facilitate discussions on these modalities with each of the three countries.

It could be gleaned from the ECOWAS statement that it pays or intends to pay premium to Inclusive Dialogue when it indicated the establishment of requisite structure to facilitate discussions on modalities with each of the three Sahel economies. Without delay and despite the new border regulations announced recently by Niger, ECOWAS should initiate high-level diplomatic dialogues with the AES states, ensuring that their security and governance concerns are addressed within the framework of regional integration. The dialogue should aim to rebuild trust and explore pathways for their re-entry into ECOWAS.

Talking of framework, ECOWAS can be served better by a flexible governance framework. It should consider revising its governance protocols to accommodate the specific political and security challenges faced by Sahel states, promoting inclusivity and understanding. There must be Security Collaboration with the establishment of joint security initiatives with AES to combat terrorism, insurgency, and cross-border crime, reinforcing collective security while respecting the sovereignty of member states.

Some may find this misplaced but from an economic standpoint, providing incentives to AES states is a strategic investment that can restore regional economic integration, stabilise food supply chains, reduce the costs of conflict, and strengthen ECOWAS’s long-term influence. By promoting inclusive economic growth and enhancing trade and infrastructure, ECOWAS can foster a more prosperous and interconnected West Africa, benefiting all member states in the long run.

Of all the arguments in support of a strategic approach to managing the Sahel States crisis, the most compelling perhaps is the need to maintain strategic geopolitical and economic influence. Providing economic incentives reinforces ECOWAS’s role as the primary regional organization, strengthening its influence and maintaining regional cohesion. There is probably no smarter way of countering external influence. This is because supporting the Sahel States economically can reduce their reliance on external actors, such as non-African powers, ensuring that regional development aligns with ECOWAS’s long-term interests. Other factors circle around restoration of regional economic integration, strengthening supply chain and food security, and promoting long-term economic growth and stability.

It is not unimportant to consider the Cost-Benefit Perspective where we look at the short-term costs versus long-term gains. While providing incentives may involve short-term financial costs, the long-term benefits, such as increased trade, economic growth, and political stability, far outweigh these initial critical investments. Numerous studies have proven that infrastructure investments and trade facilitation measures generate a multiplier effect by stimulating private sector growth, increasing government revenues, and improving living standards.

African Union (AU) as key Pan-African Mediator

A role naturally cut out for the African Union is that of Neutral Mediation, facilitating dialogue between ECOWAS, AES, and other stakeholders to prevent further fragmentation of the region. A Continental Security Strategy is an imperative of our time. This should aim to strengthen the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). It should also address the root causes of insecurity in the Sahel, ensuring a coordinated response to terrorism and political instability. The newly elected President of the African Union Commission, Ambassador Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, whose mantra is “Silencing the Guns” has an obligation to ensuring that all nations of Africa, especially his native Djibouti return to constitutional order. Another critical role for the AU is the mobilisation of humanitarian assistance to mitigate the impact of border closures and economic disruptions on vulnerable populations, promoting regional stability and goodwill.

The broader International Community as Enablers of Sustainable Development and Governance

An essential component of sustainable peace and development is Diplomatic Engagement.  The United Nations, European Union, and other international partners should support AU and ECOWAS-led mediation efforts, emphasizing dialogue and peaceful conflict resolution. The region must be provided with targeted security assistance to help both ECOWAS and AES states combat terrorism, while ensuring that such support aligns with international human rights standards. They should increase investments in sustainable development, including education, healthcare, and infrastructure, to address the root causes of conflict and foster long-term stability. Related to this is capacity building. The AU should support governance reforms, anti-corruption measures, and inclusive political processes to strengthen state institutions and improve governance in both ECOWAS and AES countries.

No strategic approach to negotiated settlement of the crises with the Alliance of Sahel States can be said to be cast in stones but a well- considered implementation roadmap can certainly be put in place. A three-phase roadmap of short, medium, and long term is recommended.

The short term is a six-month duration in which diplomatic dialogue between ECOWAS, AES, and the AU is initiated. The focus will be on confidence-building measures and reducing tensions. In a subsequent eighteen-month medium term phase, joint security initiatives should be recommended to implement economic incentives to encourage regional cooperation. This then ushers in a five-year long term phase of consolidation, promotion of sustainable development, and good governance, ensuring that the root causes of conflict and insecurity are addressed.

In conclusion, the pressing issue remains the military coups and the return to constitutional order. In hindsight, the immediate use of threats and sanctions by ECOWAS has proven ineffective in addressing the series of military takeovers. However, recent actions indicate that ECOWAS has learned valuable lessons and is now striving to balance its commitment to democratic governance with the need for peace and stability in the Sahel. By prioritizing dialogue, supporting socioeconomic development, and addressing the root causes of political instability, ECOWAS can facilitate a peaceful return to constitutional order in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. This approach not only aims to maintain regional unity and long-term stability but also demonstrates strength and resilience, not weakness.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Collins Nweke is a former Green Councillor at Ostend City Council, Belgium where he served three consecutive terms until December 2024. He is a Fellow of both the Chartered Institute of Public Management of Nigeria and Institute of Management  Consultants. He is also a Distinguished Fellow of the International Association of Research Scholars and Administrators, where he serves in its Governing Council. He writes from Brussels, Belgium.

Petroleum Policy Reforms for Nigeria

Policy and regulatory reforms for local refiners and importers for fair competition in Nigeria’s petroleum market.

The government must implement a balanced regulatory framework. This is necessary to guarantee fair competition between local refiners and importers in Nigeria’s petroleum market. The framework should promote investment in local refining while ensuring market efficiency. I see 4 Key policy or regulatory reforms:

1.     Market-based pricing mechanism

2.     Infrastructure and logistics support

3.     Fair Taxation and Incentives

4.     Strengthening Regulatory Oversight

Market-Based Pricing Mechanism should be a priority reform. We have seen it work in India. For instance, the country deregulated petrol prices in 2010 and diesel prices in 2014. This enabled private refiners like Reliance Industries to compete fairly with state-owned companies, improving supply chain efficiency. Under this arrangement, Dangote Refineries can seamlessly compete with NNPCL.

I’m indifferent about Subsidy Reform. If subsidies must exist, they should be targeted and transparent. They should guarantee that subsidies do not disproportionately help importers or disadvantage local refiners. More important for me is Deregulation of Petroleum Prices. Government should allow market forces to set fuel prices. This ensures that local refiners and importers compete on a level playing field.

Another priority reform area is Infrastructure and Logistics Support. There should be equal access to storage and distribution networks. I align with the Petroleum Products Retail Outlets Owners Association of Nigeria (PETROAN) on this. They advocate for a holistic market. Nigeria-based refiners, importers, depot owners, and retail outlets should have a level playing field to operate. Local refiners should have unhindered access to pipelines, storage depots, and distribution channels controlled by state-owned NNPCL or private companies.

Critical in this is Port and Customs efficiency. There should be streamlining of import/export regulations to reduce cost disparities between imported and locally refined products. United States offers perhaps a good model to strive towards. In the U.S., Pipeline Open Access Rules are enforced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). These rules ensure that refiners and importers have fair access to transport infrastructure. They prevent monopolistic practices.

In the area of Fair Taxation and Incentives, Nigeria can look to Brazil for a lesson or two.  Brazil offers tax incentives for domestic refining. The country ensures importers are not unduly burdened. This allows fair competition between local producers and foreign suppliers. The current Head of Nigerian Mission ad interim in Brazil is Ambassador Basil Okolo. He and I had similar conversations years ago. This occurred while he served here in Brussels. I hope that by experiencing the Brazilian example close-up, he would properly guide the government. Working closely with Nigerian Diaspora leaders in Brazil, like Mr. Chika ORI, will also help in this direction.

From a Prince to a President: be remembered as a peacemaker

A letter to Donald J. Trump from Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, a Saudi prince and former government official who served as the head of Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency from 1979 to 2001. He is a grandson of Saudi’s founder King Abdulaziz and son of King Faisal. He is the chairman of the King Faisal Foundation’s Center for Research and Islamic Studies.

The letter:

Dear President Trump

The Palestinian people are not illegal immigrants to be deported to other lands. The lands are their lands and the houses that Israel destroyed are their homes, and they will rebuild them as they have done after previous Israeli onslaughts on them.

Most of the people of Gaza are refugees, driven out of their homes in what is now Israel and the West Bank by the previous Israeli genocidal assault on them in the 1948 and 1967 wars. If they are to be moved from Gaza, they should be allowed to return to their homes and to their orange and olive groves in Haifa, Jaffa and other towns and villages from which they fled or were forcibly driven out by the Israelis.

Mr President, many of the tens of thousands of immigrants who came to Palestine from Europe and other places after the Second World War stole Palestinian homes and land, terrorised the inhabitants and engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Alas, America and the UK, the victors of the war, stood by and even facilitated the murderous evictions of the Palestinians from their homes and lands.

America and the UK did not want to receive the victims of Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust, so they were content with sending them to Palestine. In the book Eight Days at Yalta, the author Diana Preston refers to a conversation between then US president Franklin Roosevelt and his Russian counterpart Joseph Stalin. Preston writes: “Conversation turned to the subject of Jewish homelands. Roosevelt said he was a Zionist… When Stalin asked Roosevelt what present he planned to make [Saudi king] Ibn Saud, he replied his only concession might be to give him six million Jews…”

Fortunately, when Mr Roosevelt did meet Ibn Saud, the king disabused him of that offer and suggested that the Jews should be offered the best lands in Germany as compensation for the Holocaust. Alas, Harry Truman, Roosevelt’s successor, wholeheartedly supported Jewish immigration to Palestine and eventually became instrumental in the creation of Israel.

The violence and bloodshed we witness today are the result of that action and the previous British complicity with Zionist ambitions from 1917 until then.

Mr President, your declared intent to bring peace to Palestine is much lauded in our part of the world. I respectfully suggest that the way to do that is to give the Palestinians their inalienable right to self-determination and a state with its capital in East Jerusalem, as envisaged in UN General Assembly Resolutions 181 and 194 and Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and the Arab Peace Initiative.

All the Arab and Islamic countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority, accept the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative to end hostilities and establish relations with Israel. One hundred and forty-nine countries recognise the Palestinian state. Please make your country the 150th. No peace in the Middle East will be realised without addressing this noble issue justly and fairly.

Be remembered as the peacemaker.

Prince Turki Al Faisal

Economic Diplomacy: Key to Nandi-Ndaitwah’s Success in Namibia

Meet Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, first female President-Elect of Namibia. She will assume office on 21 March 2025 following her victory in the 27 November 2024 Presidential Elections. Being Namibia’s first female president is a landmark event with significant implications for the nation’s political and economic landscape. Her campaign’s emphasis on job creation and economic development through economic diplomacy addresses Namibia’s pressing challenges, notably high unemployment and economic inequality.

Campaigning under the political platform of South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) on the back of economic diplomacy, Nandi-Ndaitwah joins a league of notable but sparse presidential campaigns across the world, from developed to developing economies, that centered on economic diplomacy, emphasising international partnerships, trade, and economic reforms to drive development. This is uncommon yet deserving of interrogation. Can her narrow margin of victory of 57% be ascribed to her choice of campaign focus on economic diplomacy despite worse predictions? This remains to be seen. It is however instructive to note that SWAPO political decline set in with the 2019 elections when the party received 56% of the vote, down from a whopping 87% in 2014. SWAPO, which gained its base fighting against Apartheid in 1990, is seemingly losing support among youth voters, who are dissatisfied with low employment rates. 

A window to Netumbonomics

Madam President-Elect focused her campaign typically on job creation and economic development. A look at the economic components of her campaign manifesto will provide the lens through which her economic  ideology or Nebumbonomics could be examined. She pledged to invest N$85 billion to create 550,000 jobs over the next half-decade, targeting sectors such as agriculture, construction, and oil and gas. This initiative aims to reduce the youth unemployment rate, which is estimated to be over 50%. 

As means to achieving her job creation goal, her strategy involves leveraging Namibia’s natural resources to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) while ensuring that such investments align with national interests. By promoting value addition in sectors like mining and agriculture, she seeks to enhance local production and export capacity, thereby stimulating economic growth and job creation. 

Beyond job creation, there are other indications that Nandi-Ndaitwah’s presidential victory may be attributed to her emphasis on economic diplomacy, which resonated with the electorate. There are four additional reasons to consider as constituting the backbone of Netumbonomics, that powered her victory.

Firstly, her commitment to economic diplomacy aimed at attracting foreign investment to stimulate economic growth. By fostering international partnerships, she is seeking to enhance sectors like mining, tourism, and agriculture, thereby diversifying the economy and creating employment opportunities.

Secondly, she made a point out of addressing economic inequality. Namibia is classified as an upper-middle-income country by the World Bank but remains highly unequal, with 43% of the population living in multidimensional poverty as of 2021. Nandi-Ndaitwah emphasised the need for land reform and a fairer distribution of wealth. She drew from examples from elsewhere in Africa and global best practices in women empowerment, giving insights to a strategy that will invite through diplomacy, women with economic power around the world to inspire, motivate, and invest in Namibian women. Her appeal to voters seeking economic justice appears to have resonated well.

Thirdly, recent offshore oil and gas discoveries have the potential to significantly boost Namibia’s economy. Nandi-Ndaitwah’s focus on economic diplomacy included plans to utilize these resources to double the country’s GDP growth to 8% within a decade, promising improved livelihoods for Namibians.

Finally, as a seasoned politician with extensive experience in government, including a stint as Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Nandi-Ndaitwah’s economic diplomacy platform offered continuity and stability. Her leadership was perceived as a means to maintain peace and stability while implementing necessary economic reforms, which appealed to voters desiring a steady hand during transformative times.

While Namibia’s election of its first female President is a historical milestone, it is her decision to anchor her campaign on economic diplomacy that appears to be a game changer for the continent. Her victory represents a significant step toward gender equality in African leadership. It could be argued that what delivered her victory was more of her policy shifts and economic transformation agenda, more than the focus on economic diplomacy. Before comparing her strategy with those of contemporary political leaders across the world, it may be instructive to assert that her commitment to “radical shifts” in addressing poverty and unemployment suggests potential departures from previous policies. She focused on equitable wealth distribution and land reform as pointed out earlier. By prioritizing economic diplomacy, she aims to transform Namibia’s economy from one reliant on raw material exports to a more diversified and industrialized economy, enhancing resilience and sustainability.

Contemporary pacesetters on economic diplomacy as political strategy

There seems to be a thread that runs through a set of themes for political leaders that have anchored their campaign strategies on economic diplomacy, which may offer some clue on where Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah is coming from. The themes across the campaigns have typically included global integration, infrastructure and industry, natural resources endowments, and regional leadership.

Candidates often emphasize strengthening their country’s position in global trade. Many, if not all of the examined campaigns promote FDI for large-scale development projects. The resource endowed nations amongst them have used economic diplomacy to attract ethical and sustainable investments while aiming to position their economies as regional economic hubs. Despite some variables, the campaigns generally show how economic diplomacy can be a powerful narrative, especially in countries seeking economic transformation and greater global influence.

Here is a paintbrush of notable presidential campaigns across the world that centered on economic diplomacy, emphasizing international partnerships, trade, and economic reforms to drive development, from which Nandi-Ndaitwah may have drawn inspiration.

Olusegun Obasanjo (Nigeria, 1999) Unlike Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah,     economic diplomacy was not Olusegun Obasanjo’s sole campaign theme. However, it was a cornerstone of his broader promise to restore stability, improve governance, and lay the foundation for economic growth in Nigeria. His approach was shaped by Nigeria’s economic challenges in the aftermath of military rule and his commitment to reestablishing Nigeria’s position in the global economic and diplomatic landscape.

Key aspects of the Obasanjo strategy include a focus on debt relief, emphasising his ability to engage with international financial institutions and foreign governments to address Nigeria’s crippling foreign debt. Upon election, his administration’s efforts led to significant debt forgiveness, which was a key part of his economic diplomacy. He made demonstrable efforts to reintegrate Nigeria’s economy into the Global Economy. Following years of isolation under military rule, Obasanjo’s campaign pledged to rebuild Nigeria’s reputation internationally. He highlighted his previous leadership experience, as military head of state in the period 1976–1979 and his global network, promising to attract foreign investment and improve trade relations.

It was clear from his consultations pre-election that if he undertakes economic reforms, international support will be easier to secure. Obasanjo’s platform therefore inevitably included promises to reform Nigeria’s economy through privatization, liberalization, and improved governance. This resonated with voters and the international community, positioning him as a candidate capable of modernizing Nigeria’s economy. His Advocacy for Regional Integration turned out to be a winning strategy as he also campaigned on leveraging Nigeria’s position as a regional leader in West Africa to strengthen economic ties and enhance trade within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

Enjoying high personal credibility as he did at the time, Obasanjo’s international reputation as an advocate for African development lent credibility to his promises of fostering economic diplomacy. His  antecedents including his work with organisations like the United Nations and the African Leadership Forum and his post-election actions,  including extensive international outreach and reforms, reinforced the campaign promises centered on economic diplomacy.

Barack Obama’s (USA, 2008 & 2012) key focus was on economic recovery post-2008 financial crisis. He approached his economic diplomacy from the angle of  strengthening trade ties with emerging markets in Asia and Africa. The means to his goal was advocating for multilateral trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and promoting innovation and clean energy partnerships with Europe and China. The major outcome of his strategy was that it positioned the U.S. as a global economic leader during a period of economic uncertainty.

Narendra Modi’s (India, 2014 & 2019) main attention was on conomic growth, “Make in India,” and global investment. His economic diplomacy point of departure was promoting India as an investment destination through campaigns like “Make in India.” Strategically, he signed bilateral agreements with Japan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the U.S. for infrastructure and trade development while proactively participating in global forums like BRICS, G20, and the UN to bolster India’s economic positioning. His major deliverable was increased FDI inflows and global partnerships, though challenges like domestic economic inequality persist, as the gap between the rich and the poor grew wider.

Emmanuel Macron (France, 2017 & 2022) pitched his tent around liberal economic reforms and stronger EU integration. In terms of economic diplomacy, his angle was a push for stronger, unified EU economy through deeper market integration while he attracted foreign investment by proposing pro-business reforms of which an intentional strategy was labour market deregulation as he laid the foundation stones to strengthening trade relationships with Asia and pivoting a new Africa policy from the Anglophone economies. While Macron has so far  successfully positioned France as a global economic player, he continues as of 2025 to face domestic resistance to reforms and waning influence in Africa.

Joko Widodo (Indonesia, 2014 & 2019) was a proponent of global infrastructure and trade partnerships. His economic diplomacy strategic direction emphasised investments from China under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and strengthened partnerships with Japan, South Korea, and the U.S. for manufacturing, R&D, and technology transfer. He mounted a strong advocacy for Indonesia as a hub for Southeast Asian trade, all of which resulted in improved infrastructure and trade opportunities. One critical downside though was criticisms of overreliance on foreign capital.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s (Liberia, 2005) post-conflict reconstruction and economic rebuilding enjoyed enormous global goodwill. She strategically converted the goodwill into economic diplomacy, which garnered international aid and investment through partnerships, notably with the U.S., EU, and China. President Sirleaf promoted natural resource management reforms to attract ethical investment resulting in secured substantial foreign aid and investment, laying the foundation for Liberia’s economic recovery.

Moon Jae-in (South Korea, 2017) zeroed in on peace on the Korean Peninsula and economic revitalization, of which his economic diplomacy angle was advocacy for inter-Korean economic cooperation to attract investment and foster peace. Jae-in strengthened South Korea’s position as a technological and economic leader through global trade agreements. The outcome was a stabilised South Korean economy with significant expansion of its global partnerships.

Nana Akufo-Addo’s (Ghana, 2016 & 2020) key focus was on economic self-reliance and foreign investments while approaching economic diplomacy from the angle of strengthening of ties with China, the U.S., and EU nations for industrialization and infrastructure development. Genuine efforts were made to take the shine off aids with the launch of initiatives such as “Ghana Beyond Aid”. The efforts resulted in the boosting of Ghana’s reputation as an investment destination, especially in the mining and tech industries.

Conclusion

President-elect Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah’s victory and her focus on job creation and economic diplomacy hold the promise of significant positive changes for Namibia, provided that her administration can effectively implement the proposed strategies. Implementing her ambitious plans will require overcoming challenges such as securing the necessary funding, ensuring effective governance, and addressing potential resistance to reforms. Additionally, fostering a conducive environment for FDI while safeguarding national interests will be crucial.

Collins Nweke is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Public Management of Nigeria, Institute of Managements Consultants, and Distingushed Fellow of the International Association of Research Scholars and Administrators, where he also serves in its Governing Council. He writes from Brussels, Belgium.

Ghana’s Mahama: Navigating Economic Challenges and Democratic Legacy

This week the good people of Ghana will continue adjusting to last weekend news of the return of John, not The Baptist, but Dramani Mahama, to the presidential villa. While this is understandably good news for his supporters, those that lined up behind incumbent Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia, his opponent, are left to nurse their wounds. But did this come entirely as a surprise to them? It probably didn’t. I will tell you why in a moment. It certainly didn’t matter to objective watchers like me with no horse in this race except a desire to see the consolidation of democracy in a prominent West African nation. This is at a time when things are falling apart in the region and dominant regional players like Nigeria are struggling to hold the centre together.

Call it the day after. We can then begin to ask how this victory came about given that the same issues that led Ghanaians to sack Mahama in 2016 are same for renewing their faiths in him eight years later. So, where was Ghana then economically and politically? Where are they now; what has changed?

Let us begin with the present. As of election day in 2024, Ghana’s consumer inflation rose to 23.0% year-on-year, up from 22.1% in October. This marks the third consecutive monthly increase, primarily driven by higher food prices. The market women of Makola, central Accra felt this especially in the prices of vegetables, yam, cassava, and plantains. However, the second quarter of 2024 saw Ghana’s economy grow by 6.9% year-on-year, the fastest rate since the Nana Akufo-Addo presidency. This growth was propelled by strong performances in the mining and quarrying sectors, with the gold sector expanding by 23.6%. The country equally restructured $13 billion in U.S. dollar bonds, effectively exiting a nearly two-year debt default. This restructuring reduced the nation’s debt by over $4 billion. This brings with it the prospect of positioning Ghana for a return to global capital markets.

While the nation’s debt was reduced, it could safely be said that the elections were held amid significant economic challenges. The high inflation linked to debt defaults were skilfully made electioneering issues. This leads one to ask if Ghanaians are quick to forget that in 2015,  Mahama’s government equally sought a $918 million bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to stabilize the economy and address high debt levels.

Ghanaians may not be quick to forget. It might simply be that Mahama was a better political communicator with better packaged messaging than Bawumia and his New Patriotic Party. He may have been better at bringing on  issues that influenced voter sentiment at a time when many are seeking change due to rising living costs. Mahama dipped into his accomplishments as President from 2012 to 2017. He successfully emphasized his infrastructure development that focused on roads, schools, hospitals, and energy projects. He reminded voters of initiatives like the Atuabo Gas Processing Plant and expansion of ports and airports which modernised Ghana’s economy.

Tried as he could, Bawumia was unable to successfully shine the light on the energy crisis that enveloped Ghana under Mahama’s watch. Ghana faced a severe power crisis, the so-called Dumsor with frequent outages crippling businesses and causing pains to households.

On his part Mahama got the focus to rest on the efforts his administration invested in  to achieve energy mix. This includes thermal and renewable energy plants, to address the power crisis. His campaign was good at deploying contrast communication strategy. For instance while admitting that the economy was hard hit with declining prices of gold, cocoa, and oil, his team was quick to point to the fact that the fault lay with decline in global commodity prices and had nothing to do with  government policy or lack of it. To rub it in, they then end the messaging with a pointer to the early years of his administration when oil production boosted GDP.

Mahama drew attention to how he oversaw a relatively peaceful political environment and upheld Ghana’s democratic tradition. Despite mostly unfair criticisms, he told voters that he ensured free and fair elections in 2016, where he conceded defeat to Nana Akufo-Addo, solidifying Ghana’s reputation for political stability. He could not be blamed for exercising his bragging rights around investments in education including the Community Day Senior High School project, which improved access to secondary education; expansion of the National Health Insurance Scheme; and increased access to healthcare facilities.

While he can’t match the records of incumbent President in shuttle diplomacy, Mahama did not shy away from highlighting his key role in regional diplomacy, including efforts to mediate political crises in neighboring countries like Burkina Faso.

As the dust settles, the Bawumia team will be assessing their communication failure in not leveraging on some of the major scandals that docked Mahama. How on earth were they unable to convince voters that they can’t trust a guy involved in a contract to brand public buses with photos of Ghanaian presidents with a whopping $3.6 million. What about the GYEEDA Affair? The Ghana Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial Development Agency (GYEEDA) was implicated in the misappropriation of funds meant for youth employment programs. Yet the youths of Ghana were allowed by Bawumia to trust their faiths in the man’s hands! Again? How on earth did the Bawumia campaign miss the opportunity to paint all of the country black with the ghost of the SADA Controversy? The Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA), established to develop Ghana’s northern regions, faced allegations of mismanagement and corruption involving millions of cedis. And then comes the Ford Expedition Gift Imbroglio! Mahama was accused of accepting a Ford Expedition vehicle from a Burkinabe contractor who had won lucrative government contracts, raising concerns about conflict of interest and ethical breaches.

From all indications, it appears the people of Ghana are fine to forgive economic mismanagement and persistent allegations of corruption preferring instead to settle for a legacy of focus on infrastructure development and commitment to democracy. His manifesto, Mahama’s First 120 Days Social Contract with the People of Ghana, was a fine read. The next four years will prove whether the people’s gamble with Mahama will pay off.

For the renewed presidency of John Dramani Mahama, which by the way, reminds us of the return of Donald Trump of the United States, the challenges facing him are humongous. But he has the parliamentary majority needed to push through his agenda. His legacy will be anchored on a number of policy areas of which analysts are now on the look out to asses his soon to be appointed cabinet. His appointments will give a window to his succes or failure in areas crucial in addressing Ghana’s current challenges while building on lessons from his previous tenure.

On debt management, who will be his point person in building on Ghana’s recent debt restructuring success by adopting prudent fiscal policies to prevent further accumulation of unsustainable debt? Mahama needs to improve revenue collection through tax reforms and combating tax evasion. Are there lessons that he’d pick from the tax reforms components of Tinubunomics? In controlling inflation, Africa will be on the look out for Mahama to deliver a template on successful measures to address rising inflation, particularly in food prices, by supporting local production and reducing dependency on imports.

If his Minister for Employment has no track records of expertise in youth employment through aggressive skills development programmes and projects and incentivizing private sector growth, particularly in industries like technology and manufacturing, he has beautifully set himself up to fail. Of course Mahama must do everything he can to rid himself of the ghosts of GYEEDA by not bringing close to him, anybody that resembles the crooks that misappropriated funds meant to give young people career prospects a decade ago

If you are no proponent of Economic Diversification, Mahama should not have you on the shortlist for consideration either as trade or economic portfolio. Ghana should have reduced yesterday its undue reliance on commodities like gold, cocoa, and oil. But if by tomorrow, Mahama pays more attention to investing in agriculture, renewable energy, and digital technology, Ghana will not easily forget his second coming.

It is expected that the President-elect will defend his credentials for infrastructure through his policy around sustainable energy solutions. Under him Ghana must expand its renewable energy capacity, through solar and wind to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and prevent future power crises and by so doing wave a final goodbye to the ghosts of Dumsor. While on it, he must strengthen public-private partnerships for energy infrastructure investments. In choosing his international partners for energy, he must keep away from Western leaders who’d preach to him the gospel according to jettisoning oil to embrace exclusively clean energy despite oil still supporting a significant chunk of the economy of Ghana. Amongst the friends he made while serving as a member of European and Pan African Parliaments’ Ad hoc Committee on Cooperation, he must know who to run away from and who to embrace as international partners willing and able to respects Ghana’s sovereignty and facilitate the provision of targeted subsidies to ensure affordable electricity for low-income households while promoting efficient energy use.

If his job description for Minister for Transport does not include proveable experience and expertise in managing investment in road and rail networks, he must withdraw and edit it. It is the imperative of Ghana’s time in history to enhance connectivity between rural and urban areas, promoting trade and economic activity. He must expand and modernize ports and airports to make Ghana a regional logistics hub. He did it before. He must do it again in his second coming.

A President Mahama must prioritise building on existing healthcare infrastructure by improving access to quality care, particularly in underserved rural areas. He must strengthen public health initiatives to address ongoing issues like malaria and rising non-communicable diseases. Strengthening of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) to ensure universal coverage and address challenges like delays in claims payments should be a priority..

Building on his efforts up to 2016 and whatever accomplishments of his predecessor, President Mahama must accelerate efforts to make senior high school universally accessible and improve technical and vocational training to align with market needs.

The promise of constituting the leanest and most efficient government in the fourth Republic of Ghana is easy to say because lean government is the new trend. So, this President can’t listen to anyone who tells him to create more ministerial portfolios. He however must give consideration to refocusing existing portfolios and perhaps rename or merge some ministeries. For instance it might serve Ghana well to have a ministry for institutional reforms and digitisation into which ministeries with overlapping portfolios could be collapsed. Such a ministry could be tasked with strengthening  anti-corruption institutions like the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Auditor-General’s office. It must facilitate policies around transparent procurement processes and punish financial mismanagement to rebuild public trust. His Year One accomplishment must include Public Sector Efficiency. This is as urgent as it is. Ghana should urgently show other African  countries how to reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and streamline service delivery to make government programmes and projects more effective. While at it, it must foster greater civic engagement with the civil society to ensure inclusivity in decision-making and policy implementation.

As of today Ghana ranks 133 out of 191 countries and maintains the same human development index (HDI) value for 2020 and 2021 with 0.632. This puts the country in the medium human development category, according to UNDP report. Between 1990 and 2021, Ghana’s Human Development Index (HDI) value grew from 0.460 to 0.632, reflecting an increase of 37.4%. However, though Ghana falls in the medium human development category, when considered for unequal distribution of human development, the country records a loss of 27.5 per cent in its HDI. For instance, Ghana’s level of gender inequality remains high over the years and ranked 130 out of 170 countries in 2021 in terms of gender inequality between female and male achievements. President Mahama has every reason to take Social Protection and Welfare seriously. He must make work out of poverty alleviation, expand social protection programmes to cushion the impact of rising living costs on vulnerable populations. Genuine focus should go to food security by supporting smallholder farmers with subsidies, access to credit, and modern farming techniques. Affordable housing in urban centres has remained a challenge. There can’t be a better time than now to partner with private developers to create affordable housing units to address the housing deficit.

Not unimportant is how President John Mahama will perform in the international stage with special reference to Regional Leadership and Foreign Policy. The principles enshrined in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, particularly Article 40, which underscores the promotion and protection of the nation’s interests, respect for international law, and adherence to the principles of organisations such as the United Nations and the African Union, have continued to guide the country at the international stage. Over the years, the foreign policy has evolved to adapt to changing international dynamics. It is the hope that Mahama will remain consistent in the area of economic diplomacy and will leverage Ghana’s strategic position in West Africa to attract foreign direct investment and promote trade through agreements like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Doing this will not preclude him from continuing to play a mediating role in regional conflicts to ensure peace and stability in the sub-region.

In conclusion, the 2024 elections that returned John Dramani Mahama as President underscores Ghana’s resolve to give him a shot at navigating the country’s economic recovery while upholding its democratic traditions. That he received as high as 56.55% mandate by Ghanaians indicates the readiness of the people to give him another chance. He can’t take this for granted by assuming that he has completely been forgiven his sins of old. He needs to rebuild trust amongs Ghanaians. As independent onlooker but one with a vested interest in the Pan-African agenda, I urge Mr President to place accountability and legacy building high on his agenda. It is not enough to state in his contract with the people of Ghana that he’d establish a robust code of conduct and standards for all government officials. The people of Ghana ade more interested in his clear mechanisms to address scandals and allegations of corruption from the past to rebuild credibility. Resting on this, he has no option but to focus on completing unfinished projects from his previous tenure, particularly in infrastructure and energy, to strengthen his governance legacy. By focusing on these recommended imperatives of the time, Mahama can address Ghana’s current challenges while leveraging his experience in rebuilding trust among Ghanaians and Africans.

The author, Collins Nweke is opinion-maker writer with The Brussels Times. A Fellow of both the Chartered Institute of Public Management of Nigeria and the Institute of Management Consultants, he serves on the Governing Board of the International Association of Research Scholars & Administrators, where he is also a Fellow. He features on several Afrocentric media as Global Affairs Analyst. A Green Party Municipal Legislator in the legislature 2006 – 2025, he writes from Brussels, Belgium.

Addressing Neocolonialism in Nigeria-France Diplomacy

State visit as a tool of diplomacy is underpinned by a few core principles. It is unarguable that there are some of the principles that watchers of Nigeria-France relations will pay keen attention to, as President Tinubu of Nigeria touched down early evening on Wednesday in the cold Orly airport, France. One can’t help but be curious how Presidents Tinubu and Macron will have a frank and fair conversation yet avoid confrontational or unilateral demands. At least behind closed doors.

What about Regional Influence?  Nigeria seeks to assert its leadership at least in the West Africa subregion, sometimes conflicting with France’s relationships with Francophone African countries. France’s deep ties with Francophone nations overshadows, if not undermines, Nigeria’s efforts at regional integration and leadership through the Economic Community of West African States  (ECOWAS). How will this be navigated in the new French partnership with Africa? Or could this be one of the contentious issues that will be avoided?

Focusing  on cooperative and respectful dialogue is desirable. And indeed there are much more that unite than divide both countries. But would it not be waste of Nigerian taxpayers money if Tinubu returns home without confronting a number of knotty issues all in the name of the principle of mutual respect? France is on an offensive to redefine its Africa partnership given the growing anti-French sentiment across the continent. The discerning Nigerians perceive  France’s actions in neighboring Francophone countries as neocolonial. Also, Concentricism has always been the main thrust of Nigeria’s foreign policy, which denotes that Africa’s interests is at the heart of Nigeria’s interest. Little wonder Nigeria often advocates for African sovereignty and self-determination, which clashes with France’s historical influence in West and Central Africa. A redefined partnership with Africa that does not sufficiently take this into consideration will be short lived if it even manages to take off. Is this on President Tinubu’s agenda?

French-Nigerian Convergence

Before delving into the contentious issues in the French-Nigeria relations, it should be helpful to briefly touch on the areas where the two economies see eye to eye. There is agreement in principle on security cooperation for mutual benefits because both nations align on the fact that the sustainability of the warm economic and trade relations between them today, can only continue to be anchored tomorrow on a secure environment. While it could be said that there is alignment around the principles  of climate change and environmental matters, there is disparity on the speed to be applied in achieving energy transition. Call it a nuanced disagreement. Finally, cultural exchange has continued to be tied to education and in part on youth development. Both countries value cultural collaboration, with France being a significant promoter of African art and culture. French institutions in Nigeria, like the Alliance Française, facilitate educational and cultural exchanges.

Press releases from both the French and Nigerian presidency is unlikely to touch on the sticking points but by identifying these contentious areas, Nigeria can approach its dialogue with France strategically, emphasizing mutual interests while addressing critical points of divergence.

Divergent policy areas

Truth be told, neocolonialism even if it is in perception, remains an issue that analyst of France-Nigeria relations continue to monitor. As mentioned earlier there is growing anti-French sentiment across Africa. This derives its origin from the perception of neocolonialism. Nigeria has often advocated for African sovereignty and self-determination, which clashes with France’s historical influence in West and Central Africa. France has loads of work to change that perception and Nigeria can leverage its Regional Influence to help France on this rebranding mission. The major negotiating point would be France’s deep ties with Francophone nations and how this has overshadowed Nigeria’s efforts at regional integration and leadership through ECOWAS, of which President Tinubu is the current Chairman.

Counterterrorism

While France and Nigeria agree on countering terrorism, there are differing approaches. Nigeria’s perspective was shaped by skepticism over the effectiveness of France’s military strategy in the Sahel and concerns over France’s dominance in shaping regional security policies. If France has no ulterior counterterrorism motives, this is a matter that can be resolved with reassurance and transparency on the part of France.

ECOWAS Economic Independence

Nigeria’s advocacy for financial autonomy in the ECOWAS region, including the proposed ECO single currency, sometimes clashes with France’s support for the CFA Franc. Tinubu has implied that the CFA Franc remains a tool of economic control over Francophone countries, undermining regional economic independence.

Immigration Policies

France’s current strict immigration policies, deployed in response to the rising profile of the far-right political elements, which particularly target African migrants, including Nigerians, have been a point of contention and incrementally too. Of course it is the most normal thing in the world for Nigeria to advocate for fairer treatment and integration of African and Nigerian Diaspora in France. This is of critical importance to Nigeria as Diaspora is part of the 4D Renewed Foreign Policy strategy of the Tinubu administration. How vocally will Tinubu represent this advocacy given the Japa syndrome in Nigeria, its level of unpopularity amongst the political elites, and the potent anti-immigration sentiments in Europe?

Repatriation of Artifacts

Nigeria has been pushing for the return of artifacts taken during the colonial era, but progress has been slow, leading to frustration over France’s reluctance to expedite repatriation but also reparation. As a matter of point, a Senator of the ruling party of Tinubu, Ned Nwoko has made this a cardinal political point.

Energy Transition

Nigeria calls for a gradual, Africa-tailored approach to the energy transition to accommodate its developmental needs. This is one issue where some trade-offs may be required to resolve it. One can say that there is a good starting point because both nations agree at least in principle on climate goals. But given Nigeria’s reliance on oil exports, it will be unconscionable for President Tinubu to support  France’s push for aggressive energy transition policies.

Fairer international system

President Tinubu’s ambition to secure a fairer international system for Nigeria and Africa is both conceivable and attainable, particularly with strategic support from influential global partners like France. In President Macron commitment to redefining France’s relationship with Africa, he has emphasised mutual respect and equitable partnerships. This alignment presents opportunities for collaboration to advance Nigeria’s and Africa’s positions in the global arena. France can be positioned here as a pivotal ally. It’s got to require concerted efforts in advocacy, economic collaboration, security cooperation, and cultural exchange. A more equitable global order that benefits Nigeria, Africa, and the international community is doable. But was it on or off the table during the Tinubu state visit?

United Nations Security Council and Nigeria’s ambitions

Nigeria’s membership as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is conceivable, given its influence in Africa and globally. As Africa’s most populous country and largest economy, Nigeria has long expressed its ambition to represent Africa on a reformed UNSC. However, achieving this goal requires significant diplomatic support and global consensus, including backing from influential nations like France. The question in the minds of analysts is the extent to which such a conversation forms part of the Tinubu state visit to Macron. France can play a constructive role in advancing Nigeria’s UNSC ambitions by leveraging its global influence, fostering regional consensus, and advocating for a reformed Security Council that includes African representation. For Nigeria to succeed, it must also address domestic challenges, build stronger alliances, and sustain its role as a leader in regional and global peacekeeping efforts. What trade-offs could Macron put on the table and which concessions can Tinubu commit to? Again was this on the agenda or conveniently avoided?

It may very well be that the Tinubu state visit and a possible reciprocated one by Macron will help to lay the foundation stones in the much needed rebuilding of trust by France and redefining of its Africa partnership. The job will be made easier if France is ready for an open and honest dialogue on how France can rebuild trust with African nations. If Tinubu can get Macron to commit to the reorientation of France’s foreign policy towards true partnership and respect for African sovereignty, the ball would be set rolling in addressing the critically important and broader geopolitical dynamics between France and Nigeria and Africa by extension.

The author, Collins Nweke is opinion-maker writer with The Brussels Times. A Fellow of both the Chartered Institute of Public Management of Nigeria and the Institute of Management Consultants, he serves on the Governing Board of the International Association of Research Scholars & Administrators, where he is also a Fellow. He features on several Afrocentric media as Global Affairs Analyst and writes from Brussels, Belgium.

A case for Diaspora Consult as Driver of Global Service Export


Recently I discovered a young man, in his early twenties, based in Owerri, Southeast Nigeria. A graphics designer  by passion and later by training, he is the reason I and my Associates no longer use suppliers of  graphics that we have retained here in Europe for many years. You’d think that my European suppliers will be mad at me for the decision. No, they are not. As a matter of fact, the Owerri young man has equally become a subcontractor to them. When they have excess assignment or when express delivery is required, they either call Owerri or  my other supplier that I call my Igbuzo Homeboy. This examplifies the saying in circular economic theory that Businesses can Collaborate rather than Compete. This way, every player becomes a winner.

Welcome to the beauty and strength of the new economy, the service economy. More than anything else in all the conversations around diversification of the Nigerian economy away from oil dependency,  Service Export is a low hanging fruit. Not commodities, not solid minerals, not agricultural products. It is about the sale and delivery of intangible products, from the remotest enclave in Nigeria to just about any metropolis in the world. All transacted via WhatsApp, not some other sophisticated gadgets requiring huge startup capital, dependent on an elusive and declining energy supply and other bottlenecks.

The further good news is that the playing field is broad enough to accommodate both the big and the small. Here a brief paintbrush for lack of space. Companies like Globacom, MTN Nigeria, and Airtel provide international telecommunications services, including voice and data transmission, to a global client base. My former employer, UBA and probably every other bank in Nigeria – GTBank, Zenith – offer international banking services, including remittances and cross-border transactions. Nigerian tech companies provide software development, IT support, and other tech services to clients globally. An indigenous company, Andela, trains software developers and connects them with global tech conglomerates. Nollywood, through NETFLIX and the likes, exports films and entertainment content to a global audience, generating revenue from international viewership and distribution deals.

In April during a Lagos and Abuja flag offs of a Business Forum, it was a privilege to interact with many Nigerian consulting firms offering professional advice in oil and gas, agriculture, finance, and management, to international clients. They are joining us in Brussels, Belgium in September at the Nigeria Belgium Luxembourg Business Forum 2024, to expand their frontiers. So too are law firms in Nigeria providing legal services to international clients, particularly in areas related to oil and gas, intellectual property, corporate governance, and commercial law. The list is long and so too are the potentials to grow individuals in Nigeria and in Diaspora and inevitably grow Nigeria’s economy.

The big question is, how do you organise the table? The answer to this could be found in the 2024 Nigeria’s 4D Renewed Foreign Policy Doctrine.  The four Ds, which are Democracy, Development, Demography and Diaspora, are conceived to be quadrilateral pillars of a new foreign policy the details of which are yet to be exhaustively articulated and  made crystal clear. That one of the capital Ds is Diaspora appears to be an intentional invitation to the Diaspora to give it expression. If it wasn’t, well, the Diaspora should seize the moment to audaciously make it so. The Diaspora needs permission from nobody to organise the table around service export. The opportunities there for individuals, businesses, and organisations are limitless. NIDO as umbrella of Nigerian Diaspora has an opportunity here to lead.

By whatever means possible, the Embassies through the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be gotten to reassert the authorities of Diaspora Desk Officers at the Embassies. Every continental arm of NIDO should appoint a point person on Service Exports culminating in a Global Service Export Working Team to provide strategic direction. If at this point Diaspora Consult, a commercial arm of NIDO is birthed, it just might be that imperative of our time that Nigeria needs in harnessing its Diaspora added value.

Collins Nweke | Chairman Emeritus NIDO Europe