Connect with us

Opinion

Tinubu’s Ministers and Nigeria’s Dilemma

Published

on

By Reuben Abati

Yesterday, 45 Ministers took the oath of office as Ministers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pursuant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu exercising executive powers as granted under Section 5 of the 1999 Constitution, and in line with Section 147(3). These Ministers of the “Restored Hope Agenda”, we are told have a mandate to deliver Tinubu’s eight-point agenda as stated in his election manifesto to wit: national security, economy, agriculture, power, oil and gas, transportation, education, and healthcare, with special emphasis on economy and security.

What immediately stands out about this cabinet is that it is the largest since Nigeria’s return to civilian rule in 1999, and given Nigeria’s current economic situation, this is somewhat disappointing as it signals a resort to “big government” with heavy cost implications. President Olusegun Obasanjo began in 1999 with a cabinet of 42 Ministers (1999 – 2003), which he later reduced to 27, and had increased to 30 by the time he was leaving office in 2007. In 2007, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua had a 39-member cabinet. President Goodluck Jonathan appointed a cabinet of 33 Ministers (2011-2014), and later 37 just before the 2015 general elections. In 2015, President Buhari appointed 36 Ministers, later increased to 42 in 2019. Although 45 Ministers were sworn in yesterday, it must be noted that President Tinubu actually nominated a total of 48 Ministers – three of whom were told to await further screening – Stella Okotete (Delta) Senator Abubakar Danladi (Taraba) and Nasir el-Rufai (Kaduna). El-Rufai has since announced that he is no longer interested with a cryptic Marley-an “Who The Cap Fits” declaration that “man to man is so unjust…your best friend could be your worst enemy”. That is another interesting matter worthy of full commentary. But if you were to add a list of 45 ministers, which may possibly increase to 48 later, to the 20 slots for Special Advisers earlier approved by the Senate for the President, and the accompanying appointment of Senior Special Assistants and Special Assistants, President Tinubu is set to run the most bloated government since 1999. This is curious in the light of the fact that many Nigerians had expected a lean government, to save costs and increase efficiency.

The current state of Nigeria’s economy is frightening, with over 113 million Nigerians living in multidimensional poverty; headline inflation at 24.08%; food inflation – 26.98%, Nigeria’s unemployment rate is about 41%, debt service to revenue ratio is calculated at about 90%, total debt is over N81 trillion, the available band for more borrowings is extremely narrow. Under such a scenario, the basic expectation would be for government to trim its size at all levels and tighten its belt. The only thing we have heard is the Federal Government asking the people to make sacrifice: fuel subsidy has been removed, resulting in increase in the pump price of fuel, the fuel exchange rate has been harmonized resulting in over 16% depreciation of the Naira, and a rampaging epidemic of empty pockets among the people, with the people trooping to the streets in Yola, Port Harcourt, Ibadan and elsewhere pleading with the government “to please allow them to “breathe”.

On top of it all, the Federal Government has announced plans to achieve an 18% tax to GDP ratio by 2024, and even if Taiwo Oyedele, the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy Reforms says this would not mean higher taxation, the simple logic is that the people would be required to make more sacrifices to help government generate much-needed revenue. What is shocking is that whereas government is imposing a regime of austerity, the Nigerian government at all levels is not showing a similar commitment in the governance process, and this much was confirmed again yesterday by the sheer size of the Federal Government. Many would recall that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tajudeen Abass upon assumption of office recently announced the recruitment of 33 aides! The Senate President also has a similar number of 33 aides, and in total, the 10th National Assembly members have since June appointed about 3, 000 legislative aides! It is worse at the state level. The Governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Fintiri recently appointed 47 media aides; the Governor of Kano State Abba Yusuf has appointed 97 persons as special advisers and assistants. In Niger state, Governor Mohammed Umaru Bago has 131 aides, all of them women. Whereas the President may claim that he is exercising his powers under the Constitution, he has in actual fact created more Ministries. Obasanjo at a time had 27 Ministers, and still fulfilled Constitutional provisions. Jonathan had 33, and still did not violate the Constitution. It is to be expected that Tinubu’s Ministers would soon announce their own aides, further bloating the size of government. Under Tinubu’s government, the cost of governance would shoot through the roof, with the expansion of size, staff and bureaucracy.

The Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), the media and other informed groups in society had urged before now, that one of the main priorities of President Tinubu’s “Restored Hope” agenda should be the implementation of the famous Oronsaye Report – an 800-page 2012 Report on the Restructuring and Rationalization of Federal Government Parastatals, Commissions and Agencies which stated that the Federal Government alone has 541 parastatals, 929 MDAs, and that there should be mergers, complete abolitions, and rationalizations to block wastages and duplications and ensure efficiency. It is obvious that President Tinubu has no intention to take a look at the Oronsaye Report. In its June 2023 Nigeria Development Update (NDU), the World Bank had also recommended that for Nigeria, it was now “time for business unusual”. It seems so obvious that well, business will remain as usual in the governance arena, and our fear is that a day may well come when Nigerians will begin to praise President Buhari as things currently stand! And that will be a completion of our worst nightmare.

The process of appointing these Ministers was not impressive enough. Those who know Tinubu and his antecedents were convinced that he would hit the ground running and that he would have no difficulties identifying strong talents, a team of the best and the brightest that would help him deliver on his mandate. But it has been one big anti-climax. It took close to the 60-day deadline, and additional days for the President to come up with a list of party loyalists, former Governors, close advisers from his days in Lagos, and a few technocrats. Nine former Governors, with one of them grudgingly withdrawing conveys a veil of staleness, no matter the experience that the former Governors may bring to the table. The kind of unsureness that governed the list is also embarrassing. During the screening process, the President had to substitute the name of the Kano nominee, Maryam Shetty. Nobody even had the decency to inform her. She only got to know when she got to the Senate for her screening. Nobody deserves to be treated so shabbily.

To worsen matters, it only occurred to the President on the. eve of the inauguration of the Ministers to make last minute changes. He reassigned the 66-year-old Abubakar Momoh whom he had named as Minister of Youth to the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs. Young Nigerians had complained that a 66-year-old politician as Minister of Youth was an odd choice. The Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) had also raised an alarm about the non-inclusion of the Niger Delta in the list of Ministries. Then the Ministers-designate for Transportation, Interior, and Marine and Blue Economy were reshuffled. The Ministry of Environment and Ecological Management was renamed as the Federal Ministry of Environment. This back and forth looks untidy. It shows lack of preparedness, someone certainly was not paying attention to details about credentials, nomenclature and vested interests. If the President’s excuse is that the last-minute reshuffling is to ensure that the right persons are in the right places, then his attempt does not go far enough. It is one of the reasons why we argue that portfolios should be attached to Ministerial nominations to provide enough room for adjustments before the nominees are eventually confirmed. Further, there are fewer women than expected on the Ministerial list, and there are persons who think that the women have been given decorative positions. This is feedback that the President should pay attention to and address as he makes other appointments into the MDAs. And why is there no person living with disability on the list?

For the most part, the Ministerial list looks like an attempt by the President to settle political IOUs. Every President in appointing their first cabinets feel obliged to settle those who worked for their victory. But even at that, there are many aggrieved APC members and foot-soldiers who must genuinely feel left out, because they believe they deserve to share the spoils of victory. However, Nigerians are not interested in “jobs for the boys”. They want a quality team. This is why the present cabinet must be rejigged within a year or 18 months at best. President Tinubu must constantly move people around and recruit only the best. Ministerial positions must not be treated as chieftaincy titles. The kind of sit-tight, “Kabiyesi syndrome” that we witnessed under President Buhari, with some Ministers staying in office for eight years and remaining anonymous and ineffectual throughout – must not be allowed to happen this time around. Nigerians want Ministers who are ready to serve, not traditional chiefs of Aso Villa.

The President has talked about giving the Ministers a Performance Index. This is also known as Key Performance Indicators (KPI), very important but it must not be couched in general terms such as the emphasis on the eight-point agenda. It must be Ministry and sector-specific, and if any Minister does not show enough promise or capacity within the next 18 months, he or she must be turned adrift without fear or favour. Nigerians are impatient. The Federal Executive Council must be seen to work truly in the best interest of the people. It is standard practice to organize seminars and retreats for newly appointed Ministers. Whatever syllabus may have been chosen for the class of 2023 certain specific subjects must be addressed. It is not enough to pack documents inside conference bags – a copy of the Constitution, Public Service Rules and Regulations, the Procurement Act or some other briefing notes – NO. There must be a proper breakdown of expectations Ministry by Ministry and robust discussions. Nigerians don’t like to read except when there is an examination to be passed; putting documents together and hoping that the Ministers would read on their own would be presumptuous. Many of them probably don’t know what their Ministry is all about. They have to be taught and guided.

As is often the case, they are probably thinking of the contracts that they will award through their Ministries and what would be in it for them. They need to be given a crash course in the details of the Procurement Act and Public Service Rules. Out of ignorance, many past Ministers depend on civil servants who lead them by the nose and astray. Having sound knowledge of procurement is part of the process. It is tied to budget performance and defined regulations.

These Ministers also need to be told that they are Ministers of the Federal Republic with responsibility to all the people and parts of Nigeria, regardless of religion, political affiliation, class or gender and the President was right in stressing this yesterday. Cronyism, nepotism, prejudice are the major afflictions in Nigeria’s governance process. New Ministers would come under severe pressure, both external and self-imposed, to use their positions to settle their own incurred political costs. The party in their wards, local governments and states would call on them to remind them that it is their slot they are using and that they owe them an obligation to fund the party in the state, employ children from the state, award contracts to contractors from within the party and ensure major projects are brought to the community that produced them because “it is their turn”. Nigerians are very good at blaming leadership but the followers themselves are mean. A Minister would be asked to come and help pay hospital bills for newly delivered babies, even when he had no knowledge of the pregnancy: “Honourable Minister, we thank God oh, your wife has just put to bed”. The Minister is likely to be confused because his wife probably gave birth to his last child 15 years ago! But every woman in his state would suddenly become his wife, every pregnancy his own, every wedding must receive his blessing. Some other pressures are self-imposed. To keep the job, for example, some Ministers think that they are obliged to build goodwill among the informal circle around the President – very dangerous people – who exploit their proximity to the President to amass unmerited wealth. They promise appointments and access, and bear tales by moonlight. Many Ministers make the mistake of focusing more on this informal ring of vipers, but others commit the crime of thinking that they must take every project to the President’s home-town or state, to gain favour as a result. Tinubu must discourage such sycophancy.

Pastor Tunde Bakare has already warned about an emerging pattern of “imperial Presidency” in his recent State of the Nation Address. The term as described in a book of the same title by Arthur M. Schlesinger (Houghton Mifflin, 1973, 2004) refers to the abuse of power, its reckless use, and a President getting carried away with his own importance. No government can break the law without the President’s consent, because the buck stops at his desk. Nigerians have a way of misleading their Presidents with excessive sycophancy and Aso Rock is the headquarters of sycophancy. Even the best of men can be tempted like Samson, the Israelite. There are those men who in the President’s presence would immediately go down on their knees and start crawling towards him from a distance, bowing and scraping the floor and intoning “rankadede sir”. Others would prostrate. Oftentimes, such persons are clutching a file under their arms. They want the President’s signature. Whoever acts in that manner should be asked to stand up immediately and stop scraping the floor! Tinubu must make it clear that such flattery would not work with him. Work has begun for the Ministers. It won’t be long before the misfits among them will be exposed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Opinion: Big Brother Africa: A Case of Cain and Abel

Published

on

By

By Modest Ibe

Against the backdrop of the nauseating news of attacks on immigrant Africans in South Africa by our South African brothers, whatever the grievances are. I am painfully constrained to make this plea to our human conscience.

“…While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him .” – Genesis 4:8

It is no doubt that South Africa, since her Independence in 1994, having been subjected to the official segregation policy known as Apartheid as enforced by the National Party (NP), from 1948 up to 1994, has been a Big Brother to all peoples of the world, especially those of African descent. Thus earning the most beautiful description as ”Rainbow Nation” – a term coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to describe post-apartheid South Africa, after South Africa’s first fully democratic election in 1994.

The country having experienced first hand the monstrosity of man’s inhumanity to man, made the most forgiving and humane declaration through a foremost member of the liberation struggles for Africa and Africans and the country’s first democratic President, Nelson Mandela that:

”Our daily deeds as ordinary South Africans must produce an actual South African reality that will reinforce humanity’s belief in justice, strengthen its confidence in the nobility of the human soul and sustain all our hopes for a glorious life for all – never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another, and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world.” – From Mandela’s inaugural address as President of South Africa (Emphasis mine).

This above quote was a corroboration of Mandela’s belief that “a new society cannot be created by reproducing the repugnant past, however refined or enticingly repackaged.”

Following the death of this great African on December 5, 2013, the whole world converged on the soil of this rainbow Africa nation, in honour of Africa’s uncommon humanity as exemplified in Mandela’s life. His life was a gospel of forgiveness; this message was even stronger at his death, creating an atmosphere of reconciliation and love, even between long-sworn enemies like America and Cuba. For the first time in over fifty years, there was a handshake between both countries, over the remains of Nelson Mandela.
As such, his life was that of a Big Brother, father and king, within whose kingdom all peoples of the world were accommodated and shown the true hospitality, care and love that are intrinsic to and beautifies Africa and Africans, wherever they may find themselves.

Thus this was one legacy that Mandela bequeathed to South Africa and all who live in it, as a man’s true legacy is the life he lived, not the possessions he left behind. His was a legacy of being a Big Brother to all – friends, neighbours, strangers, whatever the relationship definition, so long they are humans, they deserves our humanity and it is wicked to deny them that. Being our brother’s keeper is the finest demonstration of that legacy.

The foregoing eulogy on Mandela is against the backdrop of the recent Afrophobic (not xenophobic, for we are African brothers and sisters and not foreigners or strangers to one another, though distance may separate us) miasma that began to rear its ugly head like an octopus on our African soil, nay Mandela’s South Africa, unleashed by the misguided South African against his brothers and sisters, putting one in a strange paradox of memories – the evil and the desirable.The former being the memories of the dark evil nights of segregation against Africans that bred fear and terror in the minds of all Africans, as painfully articulated by the South African Poet Oswald Mbuyiseinil Mtshali in his quest-for-freedom-and-safety poem:

NIGHT FALL IN SOWETO

Nightfall comes like
a dreaded disease
seeping through the pores
of a healthy body
and ravaging it beyond repair
A murderer’s hand,
lurking in the shadows,
clasping the dagger,
strikes down the helpless victim.
I am the victim.
I am slaughtered
every night in the streets.
I am cornered by the fear
gnawing at my timid heart;
in my helplessness I languish.
Man has ceased to be man
Man has become beast
Man has become prey.
I am the prey;
I am the quarry to be run down
by the marauding beast
let loose by cruel nightfall
from his cage of death.
Where is my refuge?
Where am I safe?
Not in my matchbox house
Where I barricade myself against nightfall.
I tremble at his crunching footsteps,
I quake at his deafening knock at the door.
“Open up!” he barks like a rabid dog
thirsty for my blood.
Nightfall! Nightfall!
You are my mortal enemy.
But why were you ever created?
Why can’t it be daytime?
Daytime forever more?

The latter are the memories of nostalgia and longing of the life of humanity of Mandela and the Africa of his dream and for which he boldly declared at the Rivonia Trial, 20 April 1964:

“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized. But if needs be, my lord, it is an ideal for which I am ready to die.”

The reality of the recent hate, murder and killing perpetuated by our African brothers against their fellow African brothers and sisters, with their concomitant destruction of property and looting of shops in heaven’s broad day light, as against the ”night fall” of our dear brother Oswald Mtshali, bespeaks of the devilry and callousness that have possessed our hearts like an evil spirit, in place of our grandest and unmatched African humanity, kindness, care, hospitality and sacrifice for our brothers and sisters.
Painfully, as it is today, we seem to have descended from the shinning mountain top of a Big Brother, for which South Africa and indeed indeed Africa has always been known to the dark valley of the Biblical Cain that kills his brother, Abel. Consequently, the society that Africa’s founding fathers dreamt of is giving way to a society that is now reproducing the repugnant past of hate, even among our African family.

This question we must answer, which is a moral one, is: What justification do we Africans have to condemn the White Apartheid regime, if our current thoughts, attitudes and actions after having attained freedom from white oppression, is turning worse than those of the days of white segregation?

The challenge before us is to refute, by the generality of our behaviour, the conclusions of the former White South African dictator,P.W. Botha on the Black Race 27 years ago, as reprinted by David G Mailu for the Sunday Times,a South African newspaper, in 1985.

“We are not obliged even the least to try to prove to anybody and to the blacks that we are superior people. We have demonstrated that to the blacks in 1001 ways. The Republic of South Africa that we know of today has not been created by wishful thinking. We have created it at the expenses of intelligence, sweat and blood……We do not pretend like other whites that we like the blacks. The fact that, blacks look like human beings and act like human beings do not necessarily make them sensible human beings. Hedgehogs are not porcupines and lizards are not crocodiles because they look alike. If God had wanted us to be equal to the blacks, he would have created us all of a uniform colour and intellect. But he created us differently: Whites, Blacks, Yellow, Rulers and the ruled. Intellectually,we are superior to the Blacks; that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt over the years. I believe that the Afrikaner is honest, God fearing person, who has demonstrated practically the right way of being. By now every one of us has seen it practically that the Blacks cannot rule themselves. Give them guns and they will kill each other . They are good in nothing else but making noise, dancing, marrying many wives and indulging in sex. Let us all accept that the Blackman is a symbol of poverty, mental inferiority, laziness and emotional incompetence. Isn’t it plausible? Therefore that the Whiteman is created to rule the Blackman……And here is a creature (Blackman) that lacks foresight….. The average Black does not plan his life beyond a year”.

Let us all, as Africans reflect on that, and also learn to re-ignite that spirit and culture for which Africa is known, which is being our brother’s keeper and not killer, like Cain who attacked and killed his brother Abel, when he ought to guard and keep him.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Beyond the Present Impasse: Five-Pillar Strategy for Restoring Credibility of ECOWAS

Published

on

By

By Tolulope A. Adegoke PhD

PREAMBLE: THE STRATEGIC MOMENT AND ITS IMPERATIVES

The Economic Community of West African States confronts a moment of institutional reckoning without precedent in its fifty-year history. The confluence of democratic recession, the fracturing of regional solidarity, the commodification of the Community’s security space by external actors, and the erosion of popular faith in the tangible benefits of integration has converged to pose a systemic threat to the organization’s foundational relevance. The established toolkit of declaratory diplomacy, automatic suspension, and sanctions escalation has demonstrably exhausted its capacity to compel compliance or to stabilize the regional order.

The way forward, therefore, cannot be a mere intensification of existing methods. It must be a strategic recalibration of ECOWAS’s institutional posture, operational doctrines, and normative architecture. The objective is not the preservation of institutional prestige for its own sake, but the patient, principled, and incentivized reconstruction of a regional political community in which sovereign member states and their citizens perceive membership as a demonstrable enhancement of their national security, economic prosperity, and democratic legitimacy. The following roadmap articulates a sequenced, non-biased, and operationally concrete way forward, structured across five interdependent strategic lines of effort.

STRATEGIC LINE OF EFFORT I: RECALIBRATE THE NORMATIVE FOUNDATION OF THE COMMUNITY

The prevailing perception that the ECOWAS normative framework on democratic governance is applied with selectivity—penalizing military seizures of power while remaining diplomatically passive in the face of civilian constitutional manipulation—has inflicted severe damage on the institution’s moral authority. Rectifying this asymmetry is an indispensable precondition for the restoration of credible institutional leadership.

 

Action 1.1: Convene an Extraordinary Authority Summit Dedicated Exclusively to Normative Self-Correction

The Chair of the Authority must convene, within a non-extendable 90-day period, an Extraordinary Summit with a single, undiluted agenda item: the critical review and amendment of the 2001 Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance. This Summit must not be subsumed within a broader agenda of security or economic matters. Its singular focus signals institutional seriousness and prevents diplomatic evasion.

Action 1.2: Codify and Adopt a Binding Symmetrical Sanctions Regime

The Summit must adopt a formal Supplementary Protocol that introduces, with legally binding precision, a definition of the “Constitutional Coup” or “Incumbent Entrenchment.” This shall be defined as any action by a sitting elected executive, whether through legislative manipulation, compliant judicial ruling, or tailored constitutional referendum, that modifies the fundamental law of the state for the primary purpose of abrogating or eliminating established presidential term limits in order to extend the incumbent’s tenure. The sanctions prescribed for this defined violation must be identical in their automaticity of trigger, procedural robustness, and severity of consequence to those prescribed for classical military coups d’état. This single act of symmetrical legal self-correction eliminates the charge of institutional bias and re-establishes the Community as a principled, impartial guarantor of democratic integrity.

Action 1.3: Mandate the ECOWAS Council of Ministers to Develop a Compliance Monitoring and Early Warning Matrix

The Council of Ministers must be mandated to develop, within 120 days, a transparent, indicator-based Compliance Monitoring and Early Warning Matrix. This matrix must track, on a continuous and publicly accessible basis, the compliance status of every member state against the full spectrum of democratic governance norms, including term limit provisions, electoral calendar integrity, and civil liberties protections. The matrix serves as an objective, depoliticized early warning mechanism that triggers preventive diplomatic engagement before a crisis crystallizes, removing the element of discretionary political judgment that fuels perceptions of bias.

STRATEGIC LINE OF EFFORT II: REPOSITION THE SECURITY ARCHITECTURE FROM PUNITIVE POSTURE TO ENABLING PARTNERSHIP

The region’s security space has become an unregulated, competitive marketplace for external military projection. ECOWAS must fundamentally reconceive its security offer to member states, pivoting from a posture associated with kinetic interventionism to one of technical enabling partnership that sovereign states perceive as enhancing, rather than constraining, their national security.

Action 2.1: Adopt and Promulgate a Binding External Security Partner Code of Conduct

The Mediation and Security Council must convene a high-level Strategic De-confliction and Transparency Dialogue with all external state actors conducting unilateral security operations on the territory of ECOWAS member states. The binding, legally codified outcome shall be an ECOWAS External Security Partner Code of Conduct. Its central provision mandates that all bilateral Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), defense cooperation memoranda, and security-related basing or access pacts between any external state and any individual ECOWAS member state be formally and confidentially deposited with a centralized registry at the ECOWAS Commission within a non-extendable 90-day period. The objective is a non-prejudicial technical audit ensuring that the cumulative effect of multiple, independently negotiated bilateral arrangements does not inadvertently undermine collective regional security.

Action 2.2: Formally Reconceptualize the ECOWAS Standby Force into a Modular Technical Enabling Capability

The Department of Political Affairs, Peace and Security must be directed to present, within 180 days, a comprehensive doctrinal and operational blueprint for the reconceptualization of the ECOWAS Standby Force (ESF) into a new instrument, provisionally designated the “ECOWAS Crisis Response and Resilience Capability” (ECRRC). This new capability must execute a decisive doctrinal pivot away from large-scale conventional combat power projection—a mission type assessed as operationally unviable and politically irrecoverable in the current environment—and towards the provision of high-demand, low-substitutability technical enabling functions. These core modules shall include a multi-source intelligence fusion and strategic warning cell, a specialized digital border security and management task force, and a dedicated regional counter-financing of terrorism unit operating in institutional coordination with GIABA. This recalibrated offer creates a non-coercive incentive for disengaged states to voluntarily resume security cooperation.

Action 2.3: Establish a Specialized Civilian Harm Monitoring and Accountability Mechanism

The Commission must establish, with immediate effect, an operationally independent Civilian Harm Monitoring and Accountability Mechanism (CHMAM). Its personnel shall be sourced from member states with no direct security-material interest in the Sahelian theatre. Its mandate is the impartial, transparent, and universally applied monitoring, verification, and public reporting of civilian harm perpetrated by all armed actors, including state forces and their external partners. This mechanism depoliticizes the protection agenda and positions ECOWAS as a non-partisan guarantor of humanitarian accountability.

 

STRATEGIC LINE OF EFFORT III: ENGINEER A CALIBRATED, INCENTIVE-ANCHORED POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

The sterile binary between “immediate unconditional constitutional restoration” and “indefinite unverifiable transition” has produced a protracted diplomatic gridlock. A new engagement framework, grounded in verified deliverables and sequenced incentives, is required.

Action 3.1: Constitute a Permanent, Empowered Panel of Eminent Persons for Silent Mediation
The Chair of the Authority must formally constitute, through a Decision of the Authority, a permanent Panel of Former Heads of State and Eminent Persons. Membership must be curated exclusively from a small cohort of former leaders whose nations possess an unassailable living legacy of peaceful, constitutional, and fully contested democratic alternation of executive power. The Panel’s mandate is to conduct a silent, continuous, indefinitely sustained shuttle diplomacy mission, operating strictly on the methodology of interest-based negotiation. No public statements, no deadlines, and no press releases are to be issued by the Panel. This permanently discontinues the counterproductive practice of “mégaphone diplomacy.”

Action 3.2: Table a Formal, Three-Tiered Transition Compact with Verified Deliverables and Sequenced Incentives

The Commission, under the political guidance of the Mediation and Security Council, must prepare and formally table a comprehensive Three-Tiered Transition Compact as the baseline framework for engagement with member states currently under transitional military administration. The tiers are sequenced as follows:

·         Tier 1 (Immediate Confidence Building): Full, unimpeded humanitarian access to all conflict-affected zones, verified by operational humanitarian agencies; and the release of all political detainees not credibly charged with violent criminal offenses, verified by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Upon successful independent verification, ECOWAS commits to a formal suspension of targeted economic sanctions against the state apparatus.

·         Tier 2 (Sequenced Political Roadmap): A binding 24-month, bottom-up electoral sequence—local elections first, constitutional referendum second, presidential and parliamentary elections third—with a guaranteed statutory role for ECOWAS in the technical vetting of the electoral management body. Upon verification of each phase, incremental incentives are released.

·         Tier 3 (Structural Guarantee Against Self-Dealing): The constitutional entrenchment, prior to terminal elections, of a non-amendable clause prohibiting any serving member of the transitional government from contesting those elections. Upon verification and peaceful transfer of power, all remaining sanctions are lifted, and ECOWAS proactively sponsors the state’s full reintegration and development financing package.

Action 3.3: Formally Delink Humanitarian Access from Political Negotiation
The Commission must issue a binding institutional directive establishing that humanitarian access and the protection of civilian populations are non-negotiable obligations under international humanitarian law and the ECOWAS Treaty. These shall not be treated as bargaining chips within political negotiations. This directive establishes an impartial humanitarian baseline that protects the vulnerable and starves extremist narratives of their recruitment material.

STRATEGIC LINE OF EFFORT IV: CONSTRUCT AND DELIVER A TANGIBLE, VISIBLE ECONOMIC COUNTER-OFFER

Economic sanctions, while a legally mandated instrument, have inflicted disproportionate harm on vulnerable populations and have been successfully weaponized by transitional authorities as evidence of ECOWAS hostility. A serious, fully-funded, and rapidly disbursing economic offer that demonstrates the irreplaceable material value of ECOWAS membership is a strategic necessity.

Action 4.1: Capitalize and Launch the ECOWAS Community Livelihood and Border Zone Resilience Facility

The Commission, in partnership with the ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development (EBID) and the African Development Bank, must convene a dedicated donor pledging conference within 120 days to capitalize a substantially expanded, fast-disbursing stabilization instrument. The facility’s exclusive investment focus shall be the cross-border communities whose economic fabric has been destroyed by insecurity and political rupture. Priority projects shall include the rehabilitation of transhumance corridors with negotiated local governance structures, the construction of solar-powered border market infrastructure, and the launch of a massive Community-Based Youth Employment and Apprenticeship Program targeted at displaced youth in frontier zones. All projects must be collaboratively and transparently branded as direct dividends of ECOWAS solidarity.

Action 4.2: Adopt a Unified Institutional Position Linking Debt Relief to Verified Governance Progress

The Authority must adopt a formal Common Position directing its collective diplomatic weight towards aggressive advocacy for a comprehensive, non-punitive, and development-sensitive sovereign debt restructuring framework for all severely affected member states. This advocacy shall be executed at the G20 Common Framework, the IMF Executive Board, and the Paris Club. Critically, the ECOWAS Common Position must explicitly and publicly link a pathway to structural debt relief to the affected state’s independently verified, irreversible progress against the Tier 2 and Tier 3 benchmarks of the Transition Compact. This leverages the international financial architecture as a structurally aligned positive incentive for good-faith engagement, offering a sophisticated alternative to blunt unilateral sanctions.

 

Action 4.3: Reaffirm and Technically Safeguard the Free Movement Protocol as a Non-Negotiable Community Asset

The Commission must urgently establish a dedicated, technically staffed “Free Movement Safeguard and Facilitation Unit.” This unit’s mandate is to work bilaterally and discretely with all member states, including those in withdrawal processes, to identify and implement the minimal, security-justified, and technically proportionate border management procedures that can preserve the residual functional operation of the Free Movement Protocol for ordinary citizens, even during periods of political estrangement. Preserving this tangible, daily-lived benefit of ECOWAS citizenship protects the human constituency for regional integration and prevents the political fracture from metastasizing into permanent inter-community estrangement.

STRATEGIC LINE OF EFFORT V: INSTITUTIONALIZE A TRANSFORMED STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AND DIPLOMATIC PROTOCOL

All substantive policy interventions will fail if transmitted through the existing, demonstrably counterproductive communication protocols. A binding institutional transformation of ECOWAS’s mode of public engagement is a standalone strategic priority.

Action 5.1: Institute a Mandatory Linguistic and Register Recalibration Across All Official Communications
The Commission must issue a binding editorial protocol mandating a permanent and institution-wide recalibration of the language employed in all communiqués, declarations, and public statements. The default opening frame of “condemnation, suspension, and ultimatum” must be replaced by a primary, consistent language frame that centers the “non-negotiable, legally binding obligation of ECOWAS to the sustained physical security, human dignity, and economic opportunity of the individual West African citizen.” The primary subjects of all public interventions shall be the identifiable human beings whose lives are affected: the farmer, the trader, the displaced child. This reframes the diplomatic confrontation from a contest between elites into a shared responsibility for protection.

Action 5.2: Permanently Discontinue Mégaphone Diplomacy and Institutionalize a Protocol of Public Humility

The ECOWAS Authority must formally resolve to permanently discontinue the practice of issuing public ultimatum deadlines as an instrument of political mediation. The only regular public updates permitted on the political process shall be confined to measured, independently verified progress on humanitarian deliverables. The substantive, consequential work of political resolution is to be conducted exclusively through the confidential, professional channels of the Permanent Panel of Eminent Persons. This protocol deliberately starves the political crisis of the sensationalist, polarizing public media cycle upon which spoilers and external actors depend, relocating the work of resolution to an environment where trust can be painstakingly reconstructed.

 

Action 5.3: Launch a Sustained, Decentralized Community-Level Public Diplomacy Campaign

The Commission must design and resource a sustained, decentralized public diplomacy campaign that operates below the level of national media and engages directly with local communities, traditional authorities, women’s associations, and youth networks in border regions. The campaign’s message must be non-polemical and focused exclusively on the tangible, practical benefits of ECOWAS citizenship—the right to travel, to trade, to access education and healthcare across borders—documented through the authentic testimonies of real citizens whose lives have been positively impacted. This ground-level, person-to-person diplomacy rebuilds the popular constituency for regional integration from the bottom up, countering the top-down, state-controlled narratives that currently dominate the information space.

Dr. Tolulope A. Adegoke, AMBP-UN is a globally recognized scholar-practitioner and thought leader at the nexus of security, governance, and strategic leadership. His mission is dedicated to advancing ethical governance, strategic human capital development, resilient nation building, and global peace. He can be reached via: tolulopeadegoke01@gmail.comglobalstageimpacts@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

Kano Deputy Governorship: Why Murtala Sule Garo is Most Deserving

Published

on

By

By Abdullahi Sa’idu Baba (Hafizi)

One of the defining slogans of the Governor of Kano State is “Kano First,” a principle that emphasizes prioritizing the collective interest, development, and unity of Kano State above all else. In line with this vision, Hon. Murtala Sule Garo stands out as the most suitable candidate for the position of Deputy Governor. His track record reflects a history of diligent and selfless service to Kano State, marked by consistent dedication to grassroots development and people-oriented governance. Over the years, he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to advancing the welfare of the people, making him a natural fit for a leadership role that demands loyalty, competence, and a deep understanding of Kano’s needs.

Throughout his time in office, Garo distinguished himself through people-oriented policies and impactful empowerment initiatives. He became widely known for implementing large-scale programs that directly improved the livelihoods of youth and women across Kano State. Thousands benefited from his initiatives, which included financial support, business tools, and opportunities for economic independence. These efforts not only reduced poverty at the grassroots level but also demonstrated his belief in inclusive governance ensuring that the dividends of democracy reach even the most remote communities. His approach earned him recognition as a leader who “takes government to the people,” a rare quality that continues to endear him to the masses.

Beyond empowerment, Garo’s leadership style is defined by accessibility, generosity, and responsiveness. He has consistently been described as a “man of the people,” someone who listens, engages, and responds without bias. His political strength lies in his deep-rooted connection with communities across Kano, where he has built trust over the years through direct engagement and consistent support. This grassroots network has become one of his greatest political assets, positioning him as a unifying figure capable of mobilizing support across different demographics and political divides.

In the evolving political landscape of Kano State, Murtala Sule Garo has emerged as a leading and widely endorsed candidate for the position of Deputy Governor. Recent political development shows that he enjoys overwhelming support not only from key stakeholders within the APC, but also from the generality of the grassroots Kano electorate, reflecting not only his political relevance but also the confidence party leaders and stakeholders have in his experience, loyalty, and leadership capacity.

Garo’s suitability for the role of Deputy Governor is further strengthened by his extensive experience in governance and party administration. Having served in multiple strategic positions, including organising roles, advisory capacities, and two consecutive terms as commissioner, he possesses both institutional knowledge and practical governance skills. His ability to navigate complex political structures while maintaining strong grassroots support makes him uniquely positioned to complement executive leadership and ensure stability in governance.

Looking ahead to future elections, Murtala Sule Garo’s political capacity remains one of his strongest advantages. He is widely regarded as a mobilizer who can energize the electorate, increase voter participation, and strengthen party unity. His influence at the ward and local government levels provides a strategic advantage for any administration he is part of, as he can effectively translate political goodwill into electoral success. Observers believe that his inclusion in leadership would not only consolidate party structures but also enhance governance outcomes through effective implementation of policies at the grassroots level.

Moreover, Garo represents a bridge between experience and youthful dynamism. His understanding of both traditional political structures and modern governance demands positions him as a forward-thinking leader capable of contributing meaningfully to Kano’s development agenda. His inclusive approach, engaging traditional rulers, youth groups, and stakeholders, suggests that he can foster a sense of collective ownership in governance, which is essential for sustainable development.

In conclusion, Hon. Murtala Sule Garo embodies the qualities of a competent administrator, a grassroots mobilizer, and a unifying political figure. His track record of service, empowerment, and community engagement presents a compelling case for his emergence as the next Deputy Governor of Kano State. With his proven ability to deliver results and connect with the people, he stands not only as a suitable candidate but as a strategic asset capable of driving progress, stability, and inclusive governance in Kano State’s future.

Abdullahi Sa’idu Baba (Hafizi) writes from Kano, and can be reached via Hafeeezsb@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Trending