Emma Emeozor [email protected], @Emekaili
The demolition of the buildings of Nigeria High Commission in Ghana provoked outrage among Nigerians at home and in the Diaspora. The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila was firm when he told the Foreign Affairs Minister Geoffrey Onyeama, that apology tendered by Accra is unacceptable and retaliatory measures must be taken against Ghana. The position of the Speaker and other Nigerians who were enraged was informed by the cumulative reports of attacks on Nigerians and their property in Ghana. In this report, Olusola Ojo, Professor of International Relations and Dean, School of Social and Management Sciences, MacPherson University, Seriki, Ogun State, says walking the talks was the right approach and not retaliation. He tasks the Federal Government and particularly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be pro-active in dealing with other countries: 
Certainly, Onyeama did not expect the fury emitted by Gbajiamila when the former appeared before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, to brief it on the demolition of the buildings in the premises of the Nigerian High Commission located at 19/21 Julius Nyerere Street, Ringway Estates, East Ridge, Accra, on Friday, 19th June, 2020 and the reaction of the government of Ghana which included an apology.
Gbajiamila was unequivocal when in his response, he said Nigeria must retaliate. Apparently, he considered Onyeama’s position as soft and diplomatic. His words: “It was not a building that was demolished, no; the Nigerian state was attacked. I think if we look at it from that premise, we will begin to understand or underscore the importance or gravity of what we are dealing with.
“In terms of immunity and inviolability, in terms of diplomacy, it also extends to property. We are not just talking about the states. It is trite that the embassy of any country is actually the state, a sovereign location in that particular foreign country. That is why if there is any problem in Nigeria today, all the Americans will run to the American Embassies to seek shelter, because you cannot even move near there.
“So, from that point of view, we need to address this in that context that Nigeria was attacked. I’m not interested in the land dispute; it is not an ordinary land dispute. It is not! It has now metamorphosed into dispute between two countries, not by land owners.”
But between Gbajiamila and Onyeama, whose position was justifiable in the case of the Ghana incident? Ojo says the two positions can be understood from the different perspectives of the two top government officials. He said: “Onyeama is in diplomacy, the Speaker is a politician. A politician wants to be a populist. Of course, citizens of any country whose facility has been so attacked will be angry. But how do you translate your anger into action, is it every time when there is a diplomatic incident that you will fight, do you just wake up and start fighting, I mean is it every incident or attack that requires war, of course, the answer is No.”
Ojo was mindful of the strong argument the Speaker made, citing the example of the United States. “Another reality we must also accept is that, yes, if it was the United States, but the reality is that we are not America, Nigeria is not the United States of America. In our dream, in our wish, we might wish to be like America but if wishes were horses, beggars will ride and you know beggars cannot ride horses because they won’t have access to one.
“It is not because they cannot be taught how to ride, but they are not sure of even owning or hiring one. This is a reality that we must accept. So, Onyeama is in diplomacy. Diplomacy is not a one-event issue, is continuous, one incident may not be the end of it.”
However, the Professor did not condemn the reasoning of Gbajiamila. He was diplomatic when he said: “Okay, if it were possible, let us say Ghana has done that, let’s teach the country a lesson and what is the lesson, we cut off relations, we deal with Ghana, we can even send in soldiers . . . because what happened is a violation of Nigeria’s territorial integrity. Because anywhere any diplomatic property or location is, that particular land belongs to the nation that has diplomatic authority over it.
“In other words, the territory that was attacked, because it was an attacked, by Vienna Convention, the premises was no longer Ghana’s territory, it was Nigeria’s territory. Therefore, a politician would say oh, this has happened, let’s send our soldiers there. Having established the facts, what are the implications, if we are looking at the issue, we should look at what happened.”
Ojo was quick to dismiss the argument of Ghana’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Shirly Botchwey that Nigeria failed to provide documents of ownership of the Land as demanded by the Lands Commission. Botchwey also said the Land Title Certificate had not been issued to the High Commission.
“To be able to approach this issue, we already know the story of what happened, the issue we should be concerned with is: what are the implications of the action of the persons who attacked the High Commission. He believes Botchwey’s excuses were diversionary and does not remove the fact that Nigeria’s diplomatic immunity has been violated.
“Even if the Nigeria High Commission had taken the land without paying money and without following due process, or still if the High Commission had stolen the land (in quote), it cannot be a justification for such an attack. In fact, nobody has the right to take the law into his hands. “Because, from whichever way they see the land, so long the Nigeria High Commission has erected a building over it, it (the land) belongs to Nigeria territory. What they should have done was to contact their own government and sort out the problem diplomatically. Such self-help action is illegal, is criminal, is a violation of the Vienna Convention of 1963 relating to diplomatic property and immunity that Ghana, Nigeria and other countries are signatory to.”
Even then, he insists that “Nigeria cannot act … despite the violation of its territorial integrity, Nigeria cannot respond by attacking … because that is what some Nigerians wanted. Some people had argued what is the distance from Nigeria to Ghana, Nigeria could fly in within 30 or 40 minutes and Nigerian troops will land there . . . what is the population of Ghana, about 28 to 30 million versus over 200 million Nigerians.
“I mean, we can’t do that, this time around the government has acted properly. But when we are looking at the issues raised, that is the time we can now criticise … what has the government been doing … this crisis has been building up, we bought a land and we did not apply for the Land Title Certificate as required by Ghana’s law on land acquisition, so we can now talk about these issues, in terms of the competence and effectiveness of our diplomatic Mission(s).”
Ojo expressed worry over the security arrangements in Nigeria’s Missions abroad, using the Ghana incident as an example. “Having said that, we can look at the security implications of what happened for both Nigeria and Ghana. It would have a ripple effect if Ghanaians can just go to any embassy and destroy their property as in the example of Nigeria’s experience; it would make Ghana to run into problems with other countries.
It was not only Ghana that earned the condemnation of the Professor. Nigeria also did. “And even as we criticise the attack on the High Commission, we must also take look at the security put in place by the Commission. The question we must ask is how did the Commission’s security personnel responded to the entry of the attackers into the premises. Suppose they came with the intent of attacking the High Commissioner, they would have just kidnapped or killed him.
“Now, look at what happened, the Inspector-General of the Ghanaian police said the Nigerian High Commission’s head of the security personnel had his direct telephone number but when the demolishing was taking place, they did not bother to call him. This is part of the problems facing our Missions. Nigeria must appoint competent people to take responsibilities in the Missions. Also, the Missions must be adequately funded. Many of the developed country’s foreign Missions have well trained and competent staff. What happened raises fundamental issues for Nigerians, the Foreign Ministry and the Federal Government.”
Ojo also berated the Nigerian government for allowing Ghanaians to unleash attacks on Nigerians unchecked, pointing to the series of complaints made by Nigerians over time. “What we ought to have done is to have engaged the Ghanaian government, before these incident, Nigerian traders have been severally harassed and their shops illegally sealed. In our own case, we also closed our borders with Benin Republic and the government and people of Ghana felt it was an action against their country because it affected them negatively.
“So, the Federal Government ought to have engaged in a very serious diplomacy with Ghana. This is one major difference between us (Nigeria) and the United States which Gbajiamila and others cited. I must say Nigeria did not act with the seriousness the issues deserve. This gave those invaders the temerity to take a bulldozer to demolish those building.”
Ojo wondered how Nigeria can be respected abroad if its diplomats are beggars. “Who will respect Nigeria. . . the image of the country affects it either positively or negatively as the case may be. We can’t expect people to respect us if we are damaging ourselves at home. The domestic and foreign environments are tied together, the things we do to ourselves: insecurity, corruption, etc, all of these cannot give Nigeria any respect abroad, we treat ourselves as if we are not a serious nation yet we want others to see us as a serious nation.”