Follow Us on Google
Penultimate week, I started a conversation that expressed my conviction that Africa is doomed. This conviction is especially against the backdrop of emerging information about the sort of characters that parade Africa’s political space masquerading as leaders. This is also supported by several developments on the continent and in particular with regard to the coup in Niger Republic, a neighbouring state of Nigeria where Muhammadu Buhari pumped in several billions in development aid. The most open of these was the railway to Maradi, which, though unattractive and unjustified before most Nigerians, was funded with a certain dogmatic zeal.
The reaction that trailed the decision by ECOWAS leaders to militarily invade Niger and remove its new military leaders for the ousted Mohamed Bazoum was greeted with voiced support for Niger by Burkina Faso, Mali and Guinea. Understandably, these are also military regimes. Their silence would encourage ECOWAS, if it achieves its mission in Niger, to take a step further into those countries. But the ECOWAS itself is fast losing relevance due, mainly, because of the credentials of its chairman, which has come under serious question by many ECOWAS people, especially those of francophone ECOWAS. Commentators on a South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) television programme had said that the leadership of ECOWAS was weakened by the legitimacy questions over the election of Bola Tinubu. This same issue had also been raised by other commentators in the sub-region while reviewing the ECOWAS ultimatum on Niger.
However, in ordering a military invasion of Niger, ECOWAS leaders, who had progressively destroyed democracy in the sub-region and supplanted the brightest meanings of democratic leadership with kakistocracy, blinded their minds and eyes to the tumultuous welcome that the military adventurers received in Niger, Guinea, Mali and Burkina Faso when they hit the scene. Those receptions, very rousing as they were, were statements of the people’s disenchantment with the sort of democracy practiced in the region. As seen, it is the sort where a President who had completed constitutionally allowed two-term limits, takes advantage of his powers to alter the constitution such as to grant him further terms in power. This is always done with impunity and silencing of opposing voices and in the brazen suggestion that he alone is capable of leading. This was the basic reason the military struck in Guinea. It also happened in Ivory Coast. It is also now happening in the Central African Republic (CAR). No African leaders have condemned this or sought to impose sanctions on their colleagues that do this. Alassane Ouattara succeeded with this in Ivory Coast. If Alpha Conde had succeeded, he would be standing alongside Ouattarra and other ECOWAS leaders to condemn Niger’s military leaders and impose sanctions.
What is the fundamental difference between a military coup-plotter and a civilian who manipulates his country’s constitution to achieve endless term limits in office, or one who rigs an election against the popular will of the electorate? This is the question military coupists ask. Paul Kagame did this in Rwanda and got away with it. His neighbour, Pierre Nkurunziza, moved to copy him but was resisted. He had to accept the reality of an election after bringing Burundi to the brink of war. Several others got away with the same behaviour while their peers in the African Union and regional blocs like ECOWAS looked the other way only to converge for swearing in and pontificating about the beauty of democracy before a hapless people.
I guess this was why President George Opong Weah of Liberia questioned the justification for the silence of African leaders when constitutions are supplanted to extend tenures and presidential term limits. He said: “As long as ECOWAS tolerates institutional coups that allow lifetime presidencies, and fraudulent declaration of election results, manipulation of judicial announcements, there will always be military coups. We cannot condemn military coups when we do not condemn those who carry out institutional coups.”
No ECOWAS or AU leader has said a word in response to Weah. Of course, Weah bears the pain of a manipulated election. Remember his debacle with Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, and how Abuja ‘resolved’ it?
Tinubu had also dispatched a former Nigerian military ruler to see if he could talk the military leaders in Niger to back down. This may be a move to prove that diplomacy works better in situations like Niger. But the thing here is this, how would this ‘envoy’ defend his credentials as one who was democratically elected to the presidency of his country? Assuming, but not conceding, that the coupists in Niger ask to know how the ‘envoy’ too got to become head of state, would he, for instance, say he was elected by the majority of the electorate in his country?
However, the case of Niger Republic is pathetic. Those Nigerien soldiers struck for reasons of economy. That country is the seventh biggest exporter of uranium in the world. It accounts for 25.4 percent of uranium export to Europe. Kazakhstan leads the table and accounts for 26 percent. This is according to statistics from Euratom Supply Agency and, according to World Nuclear Association, Niger accounts for 4.8 percent of uranium supply in the world, ranking seventh biggest supplier. The implication of this is that there is something of Niger’s uranium in one of every three light bulbs in the world. Yet, it sits on the lower rungs of the poverty index with a poverty ratio of 44 percent and a very low human development metric.
These are statistics that are making Nigeriens excited about the military takeover. And these, also, make them happy that young military officers, who also feel the bite of poverty, have sacked political leaders that they see as inept, insensitive and manifestly ignorant of the signals while entertaining themselves within the high walls of their presidential villas. Nigeriens are excited that those walls were breached by guns. For them, it is not just a statement on Niger. It was a statement on what should happen across the West African region in order to reignite a new sense of radical economic nationalism and install leaders that would convert Africa’s natural resources to African gains.
This is the reality that brings tears to the eyes of a lot of Nigerians too. Available statistics indicate that under the soils of the North Central geopolitical region of Nigeria are buried a variety of natural resources that far outweigh those found in the entire Asian continent in both quality and quantity. However, these resources are mined, mostly illegally, by economic migrants in association with locals who create an army called terrorists or bandits to provide a security buffer while such mines are exploited for resources that could boost Nigeria’s manufacturing capacity. Why the Nigerian government is silent on this is unexplainable.
Even though there are no guarantees that military rule will change the poverty index in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea anytime soon, the people are happy that their civilian tormentors are off the grid, at least, for now. I have no doubt that there will be wilder street parties if soldiers rise up against many African leaders, though I do not advocate for it. However, there are signals that people are becoming more disgusted with the type of leadership that is said to be democracy. It is such frustration that led to the EndSARS protest of 2020. It is also the same factor that propped youth support for Labour Party in the 2023 general election in Nigeria.
