Why Tinubu must pay for the sins of ECOWAS, By Rotimi Fasan

National Tinubu broadcast
Last week, THIS column backed the resounding sentiment of Nigerians that the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration should not participate in any sort of direct military intervention in the affairs of Niger under the rule of the junta commanded by Abdourahamane Tchiani. The rationale behind this rejection of using force to restore democracy in Niger was that Nigeria already has too many internal crises to deal with; adding the political crisis in Niger to all of these would be the least of our problems. This was especially true given that Nigeria would likely shoulder the majority of the financial burden associated with the deployment of troops.

Since then, enough events have transpired to cause a modest but significant shift in perspective, all as a result of the junta’s attitude in Niger and the way some participants and pundits in the Nigerian political sphere have chosen to distort the Niger problem while criticising Abuja. But first, before I elaborate on my revised assessment of Nigeria’s stance in the Nigerien conflict, let’s focus on Nigerian critics of Abuja’s purported position, which is the position of the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, in the situation.

It is obvious that Nigerians who oppose their nation’s military involvement in Niger fall into one of two categories. First, there are those who are genuinely concerned about the impact of such an intervention on relations between Nigerians and Nigeriens, people whose lives cross the nearly 2,000 km land border between the two nations. These people are related—in fact, they are cousins—and have coexisted peacefully along their shared borders for many years. Given the shared cultural and religious experiences of citizens of the two countries, as I made clear last week, Niger could have easily been a part of Nigeria if not for the irrational decisions of European policymakers who, as conquerors and colonialists, ran an artificial line of separation that divided the people into two nations under the rule of three different colonial powers.

The Northern political and religious establishment, which has expressed genuine concerns about their situation and about their relatives on both sides of the Nigerian and Nigerian borders, is primarily responsible for this group of Nigerians who oppose Nigeria participating in any use of force in overthrowing the junta in Niamey. They had vociferously opposed the executive’s request for permission to involve Nigeria in a regional military action in Niger in the National Assembly, and their resistance was quite audible in the rejection of that request. These are valid worries that shouldn’t be disregarded. They express the angst and fear of a people who are witnessing the gradual evaporation of the life they have always known. Such voices of concern should be heard by a responsible administration and leader.

The other inclination in the resistance to the Nigerian military joining the proposed alliance to remove the usurpers in Niger is a disguise for dissidents suffering from one grievance or another against the Tinubu government, if not Tinubu himself. Similar to the Nigerian junta, they have been steadfast in their efforts to portray the political situation that followed the coup in Niger as a conflict involving only Niger and Nigeria. This is not just an inaccurate portrayal of the Niger problem and the relations between the two nations; it is also an outright lie that should be exposed for what it is, along with those peddling it.

These critics are not peddling the things they are carrying on their heads in front of the buying public, to use a Yoruba expression. One thing becomes clear after taking a closer look at several of them: the majority of them are people who have long harboured animosities towards President Tinubu and the government he leads due to the fact that he won the most recent election. This topic is more complex than it might first appear to someone who only pays passing attention to Nigerian politics, especially in light of the recent election campaigns, many of the outcomes of which are still being challenged in tribunals and courts across the nation. As long as it gives them a chance to criticise the current administration, these people and organisations will grasp at any straw. Their criticism of Tinubu and the APC-led administration uses just about anything and everything as fodder.

It is simple to comprehend where Nigeria’s spokespersons are coming from and, with that understanding, some insight into their attacks on Abuja once this crucial aspect of Nigeria’s role in Niger is revealed. It also goes without saying—and this shouldn’t come as a surprise—that the bulk of these critics are members of a particular party, and that party actually has an impolite and snobbish inclination that has claimed the right to attack and criticise anything about or related to Nigeria. The irony is that the same organisation, which poses as true patriots, has been outspoken in asserting that it won the most recent election without providing any supporting evidence.

In order to support their criticism of Abuja (read: President Bola Tinubu), in its current stance with ECOWAS on the crisis in Niger, its spokespersons have been eager to combine many problems, both in their journalism and public opinion. They are secret participants in the above-mentioned party. When Nigerians voice their displeasure over the rise in petrol prices, they seize the opportunity to criticise Tinubu or the APC, just as they do when the public is outraged by inter-agency rivalries like the one that resulted in the ugly altercation between employees of the Department of State Services and the Correctional Service over Godwin Emefiele.

When people question the motivations of the coup plotters in Niger, they discreetly infer that Tinubu is one of them while subtly inviting the Nigerian military to interfere by asking why ECOWAS has said nothing about ‘civilian coup plotters’. There is a persistent effort to connect Tinubu’s two-month-old administration to any observable issue in contemporary Nigeria. However, it must be emphasised time and time again that ECOWAS, not Nigeria, is the party having grievances against the Nigerien junta, not Nigerians as a whole. The regional ECOWAS force is distinct from the Nigerian Army.

Beyond all of this, the junta in Niger’s current position and its intent to attack Nigeria make the country a dangerous neighbour with a potential to let forces hostile to Nigeria’s interests cross its borders. What’s up with the free pass given the mercenary forces? In this sense, Nigeria owes it to herself to take the events in Niger seriously.