By Tonye Clinton Jaja

In the past few weeks, the Nigerian public and others have received a lot of confessions from both current and former public officials.

Although not originally planned as public confessions, the public statements of these former and current public officials, UNWITTINGLY provided deep insights into the “inner workings”, the modus operandi and the priorities of the top public officials of Nigeria.

It started with the confessions of the current Governor of Bayelsa State, who admitted that he spent a whopping $15,000 as transportation fare for marabout (spiritual adviser) who had been imported from Senegal to “secure” his successful emergence as Governor of Bayelsa State!!!

Then the next person to take the microphone, was Rt. Hon. Yakubu Dogara, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, National Assembly. In his own written testimony, he provided details of how Nyesom Ezenwo Wike (NEW) expended over ₦1bn of Rivers State government funds to finance the election of Governor Bala Mohammed in the year 2018/2019.

Then last week, Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi (RCA) took the microphone and announced that PBAT and all other Nigerian politicians will NEVER RELINQUISH VOLUNTARILY. That they are prepared to kill, maim and steal (and amend the necessary laws to elong the IGP’S tenure) to retain their hold on political power!!!

And most recently, Mr. Muyiwa Adejobi, the Police Public Relations Officer-PRO has joined the list of confessors.

So that I would not be accused of misquoting him out of context, I will reproduce verbatim what he said as follows:

“Muyiwa Adejobi, the public relations officer of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), says it is ridiculous for Nigerians to believe that officers can not afford expensive phones.

Adejobi, while responding to a query on his X handle, on Saturday, said netizens need to be “straight and be objective” when questioning police officers’ source of income.

HOW IT STARTED

On Friday, Adejobi posted a picture of one David Victoria, a deputy superintendent of police (DSP) and secretary to the inspector general of Police (IGP), who appears to be holding a Samsung Galaxy Fold 2 and a diamond-branded watch around her wrist.

“We have beautiful and intelligent ones in the force. This is DSP David Victoria, secretary to the IGP. Happy weekend. Ire o,” Adejobi wrote.

Netizens, who reacted to the post, asked for a disclosure of the officer’s salary that could afford a cellphone worth ₦1 million.

An X user also requested that Victoria’s account statement be printed out to track her cash inflow claiming her salary cannot afford such an expensive gadget.”

When a public servant, owns any property that is beyond their current salary, there can be only two LEGITIMATE sources and explanations as follows:

1. A legitimate gift or legacy bequeathed by a very wealthy spouse or relative or friend. Or earned from bonds or shares; and
2. Income earned from agricultural activity which is the only approved extra-secular activity that Nigerian public servants are permitted to engage in.

Therefore, the Nigerian Police PRO owes us as the general public an objective explanation as to the other sources of income that accrue to public servants, in this instance police officers (other than their salaries and income from agricultural activity).

Mr. Muyiwa Adejobi’s proposed explanation can be a source of renewed interest and recruitment into the Nigerian Police by majority of unemployed Nigerian youths who would no realise that apart from the regular salary there are other sources of income for Police officers (which was previously unknown to majority of Nigerians)!!!

Unwittingly, Mr. Adejobi’s response has inadvertently provided additional explanation to the reason why the IGP lobbied for and was granted an extension of tenure.

Considering that an ordinary Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) and Secretary to the IGP is using a wristwatch and phone that costs over ₦1m, what would the IGP himself be using?

And unless, the IGP has an undisclosed mental health challenge, or is not a “typical” Nigerian public official, which “Nigerian” public official in his “right senses” would not seek to elongate his tenure when such an office gives him access to such humongous public funds!!!

Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja,
Executive Director,
Nigerian Law Society (NLS).

Each time we hear or read outsiders say they are fighting for Yoruba Muslims, some of us (Yoruba Muslims) laugh. Who told them that we cannot fight our war ourselves – if there is a war? A statement signed by an Imam Haroun Muhammad Eze on behalf of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) led by the Sultan of Sokoto alleged last week that Yoruba Muslims were suffering marginalization in Yorubaland. The statement headlined ‘Live and Let Live’ complained about what it called “calculated attempts to prevent Muslims in the (South-West) region from practising their faith.” I read it and asked myself if that truly was the case. I asked some of my Muslim friends also. We compared notes and laughed.

The statement from the NSCIA wanted Sharia law in Yoruba states. Eighteen years ago, Kano-based Islamic scholar, Sheikh Adam Koki, was quoted as telling the New York Times that “politicians (have) started seeing Sharia as a gateway to political power.” They saw right and used it very well in pocketing Kano and its two million votes. They still annex and harness that gateway to arrive at power and wealth. With the piety of Sharia, a partnership in governance has evolved with northern Nigeria’s highbinders. And, because some persons pestled a tiger to death yesterday, some club-wielding people without muscles are on the prowl in 2025 Yoruba forest, hunting tigers and leopards. They do not know that it is not every leopard that is fated to fall to clubs.

The present cries are very unnecessary. Sharia never left Yorubaland. Our fathers called it seria. It has evolved adopting adept procedures in deft accommodation of its environmental and social realities. Yoruba Muslim families, who desire it, still conduct their private affairs in accordance with Sharia without disturbing their neighbours.

A quiet Sharia panel has been sitting for decades at Oja’ba, Ibadan. There is another one in Osogbo. I suspect that other major Yoruba towns have them. They adjudicate on marriage and marital issues; they arbitrate on disputes among Muslims. They do their thing without noise and drama and excesses. Every willing Muslim who goes there loves what the panels do and how they do it. The respective state governments are aware of their existence but they do not disturb them. At the compound and family levels, check out what we do with Muslim weddings, burials, administration of estates and inheritance matters etc. Those who want more than this should be bold to say what exactly they want.

They want hisbah, moral police on the streets of Ibadan, Abeokuta and Akure? They want a Yoruba Bello Buba Jangebe who would be amputated for stealing a goat while big men who steal roads and bridges hold court? Anyone who wants the Kano, Zamfara kind of Sharia in 2025 Western Nigeria needs counseling. They can have that only in an Islamic Republic of Yorubaland. And, to have that, they will need more than mere words and farty threats. The Nigerian state is a multi-religious reality; it exists to enforce its laws – your creed and my credo notwithstanding.

The case for officially sanctioned Sharia in Yorubaland will be easy to argue and win if its solicitors can show how its introduction in the North has helped the North. They should just exhibit how 22 years of ‘Sharia’ has turned Kano to Dubai or Riyadh or Doha; how more religious, more pious, more equitable, more peaceful and more prosperous the Muslim North has become since ‘Sharia’ became their guiding moral and political philosophy. That is all they need to prove to the Yoruba that Western Nigeria is missing something cool and good for their physical and spiritual growth.

The claim that Yoruba Muslims suffer persecution at the hands of Yoruba leaders and principalities is absurd. The most powerful human being in Nigeria today is the president; he is a Yoruba Muslim. He possibly read that NSCIA’s press statement and laughed as I did. Am I, a Yoruba Muslim, marginalised in Yorubaland? Who is marginalising whom and who is complaining or should complain?

I come from a state (Osun State) that has had six elected governors since it was created in 1991. Five of those six governors are/were Muslims. And, I will identify them: Alhaji Isiaka Adeleke was the first elected governor of the state. He was in power from 1992 to November 1993 when General Abacha sacked everyone everywhere. With democracy in 1999 came Chief Abdulkarim Adebisi Akande, a Muslim. After Akande came Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola, a Christian. Then came Alhaji Rauf Aregbesola, a Muslim who spent eight years in power and was succeeded by a Muslim, Alhaji Gboyega Oyetola. Alhaji Oyetola’s successor, Senator Nurudeen Ademola Adeleke, flaunts his Muslim heritage and pedigree for all to see. No one has ever complained about the religious identity of these leaders – and no one will. Indeed, there is a governorship election next year; virtually all contenders that have shown their faces so far in the two principal parties are Muslims.

No one’s religion has ever truly been an issue in Osun State. On May 29, 2003, a Muslim Chief Judge swore in a Christian governor (Oyinlola) and a Christian deputy governor (Erelu Olusola Obada). The Christian-Christian ticket of Oyinlola/Obada was elected by an electorate from three senatorial districts, two of which are predominantly Muslim. There was not a single word of complaint from anywhere. The Muslim incumbent who lost that election did not bother to contest his loss in court.

I work in a state (Oyo State) that has produced five governors from 1999 to date. Three of the five are/were Muslims. Again, I will identify them: Alhaji Lam Adesina (Muslim) was the first to take the baton in 1999. He was succeeded by Senator Rashidi Ladoja, a Muslim. Otunba Adebayo Alao Akala, a Christian, succeeded Ladoja. Alao-Akala spent a term and handed over to Alhaji Isiaka Abiola Ajimobi, a Muslim, who spent two terms. The incumbent is Mr Seyi Makinde, a Christian. He will be succeeded by a Muslim or a Christian in two years’ time – no one cares.

If Sharia as it exists in the North is truly a priority of the Yoruba, would those Muslim governors have ignored doing it? Or are those gentlemen not Muslim enough? Indeed, as recently as 2011 to 2015, the governors of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, and Osun States were all Muslim. We are talking of four out of six states being ruled by Muslim governors at the same time. I am referring to the years when Raji Fashola (Lagos); Ibikunle Amosun (Ogun); Abiola Ajimobi (Oyo) and Rauf Aregbesola (Osun) were governors. The four states operated under Muslims – leaving Ekiti and Ondo states for Christians. And there was peace. There will always be peace because what throws in governors and what kicks them out in Western Nigeria is the sobriety that comes with good behavior and good governance –not praise and worship.

Where I come from, we were taught to learn how to state our case before learning how to fight. The statement from the NSCIA said sharia was a constitutional issue. If it was, shouldn’t it be properly handled in a constitutional way? If we, Yoruba Muslims, truly want codified Sharia law and Sharia Courts, there are Muslim legislators in virtually all the state Houses of Assembly. Sharia proponents should ask these Muslim legislators to sponsor bills on the matter and lobby their colleagues to pass them into law. Or, if they think it is already in the constitution, and it is their right, let them go to court for enforcement of that right. If I were they and I could not do this, I would keep quiet forever. Extra-legal, unilateral, self-help declarations cannot help them in a democracy.

I once wrote against some Yoruba Pentecostal Christians who said (and still say) my sallah meat is sin. We look at such here and say they’ve packed unwellness with their faith. Yoruba Muslims who jog to the North in search of pity and support are exactly like those ones. They are as misguided as the misguided Pentecostal Christians. They are both working hard to rip open the belly of amity in Yoruba land with their fundamentalism. And they cannot succeed.

Now, what do I think of Imam Eze signing a Live-and-Let-Live statement on Sharia in Yorubaland? An Eze, I assume and presume, is from the South-East. If that signatory is from the South-East, then it was a ghastly error on the part of those who procured him to sign that statement. It was also an insult to the Yoruba, a people with a robust history of engagement with Islam dating back to more than seven hundred years. Procuring outsiders to speak for the Yoruba Muslim is a misnomer. They have leaders; their leaders are the Imams; they listen to the Imams, the Imams listen to them. Channeling the Yoruba spring to flow desert-wards for rejuvenation is an effort that hurts.

The Imam Eze statement will make me draw an analogy: We all know that Ilorin has no physical and spiritual space for Sango, the Yoruba god of thunder. Now, imagine an Ilorin man donning the costume of the Mogba, priest of Sango, and marketing the god of thunder to Oyo Alaafin, Sango’s hometown. Or who does not know that Mùsùlùmí Ìgbò gégé bi OníSàngó Ilorin ni? I will neither interpret nor translate that question. The Eze man should have first launched Sharia for his own home region before looking the Yoruba way. My people say if you think velvet is good and you would clothe me with it, I must first see on you velvet or something superior to velvet. How can the unclad clothe the clothed?

A group of eminent Yoruba Muslim scholars, seven years ago, published a book entitled: ‘Islam in Yorubaland: History, Education and Culture’. The editors were kind enough to give me a copy. Those who are seeking to fetishize Sharia today will learn from those scholars that what they seek to import has actually been part of their heritage before the white man created Nigeria with all its contradictions. Persons who are begging for external help on Sharia should read what the scholars say in that book. They will read the story of a Timi of Ede, Oba Abibu Lagunju (1817-1900), his court and the existence of Ilé Bàbá Kóòtù (compound of baba who holds court) in Ede. They will read also of Oluwo of Iwo, Momodu Lamuye, who became Oluwo of Iwo in 1858 and died in 1906. They will read of why a compound is named Ile Alikali (Alkali’s compound) in Iwo. They will read more of Islam, Sharia and the Yoruba society before colonialism.

Provocation excites and tickles us in this country. In 2016, a bill for a Christian court was sponsored by Hon. Gyang Dung (PDP) from Plateau State and eight other members of the House of Representatives. It scaled the second reading and that was the last we heard of it. The bill was an act of provocation and it was so treated and trashed. The statement from Imam Eze and its associated noise fall in the same category.

The difference between the past and the present is change. We live in a world that shifts with time. The World Bank in 2020 ranked Saudi Arabia as the fastest-reforming country in the world. That country has gone far doing that, redefining the concepts of right and wrong and striking a balance between Islamic law on the one hand; local politics and global economic realities on the other. Today, even rude Donald Trump lowers his voice when the subject is Saudi. Those who have knowledge tell us that the reforms that burnish and refurbish Saudi Arabia do not make that country less Muslim.

It should be the same here. Reform and innovation are at the core of Yoruba’s cultural resilience. That is possibly what the Muslim North has not sat down to study and understand about Western Nigeria.

Let me say finally that making Sharia a hot-button topic in 2025 Nigeria is suspect and very unnecessary. Elections are coming, especially presidential and governorship elections. Flightless birds need the winds of religion to fly their political planes. They will use all magic and talismans to conjure those winds. The sudden interest in Sharia is one talisman that worked wonders in other climes at other desperate times of polls. It cannot work in today’s and tomorrow’s Yorubaland. So, I appeal to the Sultan and other well-meaning Muslim leaders to back off on agitations that seek to use their respected and respectable anvil to forge this idle tool. Adding their weight to weightless claims does no one any good.

In the ongoing controversy surrounding Mr. Egbetokun’s tenure extension, the key issues are not merely legal compliance but the legitimacy of both the legislative process that amended the Police Act and the extension itself.

While the Attorney General’s perspective suggests that Egbetokun may legally remain in office despite surpassing the 60-year age limit, the broader implications of legitimacy are significant. The public outcry concerning the process and the extension should be a primary concern for Egbetokun, especially given the discontent within the Nigeria Police Force (NPF). Many senior officers feel that their career trajectories have been compromised by this extension.

The amendment bill that facilitated this tenure extension originated from President Tinubu, for whom Egbetokun served as chief security officer during his time as governor of Lagos State. Egbetokun’s public expressions of loyalty to Tinubu raise questions about the neutrality of the amendment process, especially when the Nigerian Senate, led by Godswill Akpabio, exhibited a willingness to swiftly carry out the President’s directives. The unprecedented speed at which the bill passed through all legislative readings—complete with no public hearing—further erodes its legitimacy. How can such a critical amendment to the Police Act be enacted without public consultation?

The outcry regarding the amendment process and Egbetokun’s tenure extension is a vital concern for both him and the government, especially if they profess to value due process, transparency, and public trust. Even if the amendment withstands legal scrutiny, questions about its retroactive application remain. Should Egbetokun benefit from an amendment made while he was already in office? This challenges the principle of non-retroactivity in law and raises further legal and ethical considerations.

In conclusion, while legalities may outline the framework of governance, it is the legitimacy of actions taken that will ultimately determine public faith in institutions like the Nigeria Police Force. Egbetokun’s focus should shift from merely defending his legal standing to addressing the very real concerns surrounding the legitimacy of his position and the processes that brought him here.

Okechukwu Nwanguma  

February 1, 2025

By Abimbola Adelakun

The case between Dele Farotimi and Afe Babalola reached a climax when we were informed early on Monday morning that the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi, had intervened. Media reports indicated that the traditional ruler and a consortium of elders met Babalola the previous night. Even though the story was reported in multiple media outlets, no journalist appeared to have witnessed it; they only reported what was reported to them. Consequently, the same account of the occasion was repeated almost word for word across media channels without any of the recyclers asking relevant questions, such as who instigated the reconciliation meeting and why Farotimi, the key figure in this case, was remarkably missing from the whole picture.

We thank the Ooni for playing the peacemaker, but the trouble with offering an agboolé -style resolution for issues bordering on the integrity of modern institutions is that they merely put the bubbling crisis in abeyance and ultimately compromise an opportunity to positively strengthen the forces that shape our lives.

Ooni’s intervention resonates meaningfully within the context of our society and its traditions where the egungun was—and still treated as— a part of juridical institutions whose mystique must be preserved. If an egungun is de-robed in public, fellow masked spirits must quickly gather around it and use themselves to protect its nudity from the glaring eyes of the public while leading it out of sight. Protecting its nakedness is about retaining the moral universe of the people who have accepted the masked one as the spirit of their dead ancestor. By stepping up, the Ooni similarly used his moral legitimacy to re-dress an elderly man, a legal institution in himself, who got into a demystifying fight and for whom this face-saving closure was necessary.

That conclusion would have been satisfactory if the matter was just about a contest of wills between the two leading actors. When you really look at it, Babalola was not the only egungun in this dance. The other one is his co-accused, the Supreme Court. By leaving the serious accusation against judges unaddressed, the institution remains exposed to the harsh weather elements of public distrust. Are there ethics, values, and legitimacies composed in our traditional institutions that can be called upon to similarly re-dress the Supreme Court’s demystification? The easiest answer, of course, is to quickly point out that Ooni’s moral jurisdiction does not extend to those modern institutions. It should not be his duty to salvage the face of an institution that has fallen into serial disrepute.

But the question subsists, what of the Supreme Court? Is there still anything left of the supremacy of its ethos that maintains its qualifications to dispense justice to the rest of society? Someone described the resolution as “the best of Yoruba jurisprudence” and it is striking how our people are quick to tout the supremacy of native resolution when what is at stake is the ideals of modern society. This was not merely about a clash between an elder and a stubborn younger man who can be patronisingly “forgiven” but justice as a condition for the continued existence of Nigeria. Babalola pointed out that Farotimi also “attacked” Supreme Court judges, but that is not accurate. The Supreme Court’s systematic self-demystification has been unfurling for years, one election petition at a time.

One of my disappointments with the unfolding of the case was how even the media managed to reduce it to a clash between two men. That failure to look beyond personalities blinded many commenters to the point they reduced the issue to either their annoyance at the disrespect of calling out an elder or mere legal technicalities. If this was about establishing the truth of what went down in the case in contention, this would have been a civil—not criminal—case. Farotimi would not be locked up at the behest of Babalola but given an adequate chance to subpoena those Supreme Court judges he accused of complicity, and they would be compelled to explain the magic by which “10” became “254”.

If the case had been allowed to proceed reasonably, it would have been one of the most interesting in the history of our society because we would be asking the judges who determine our lives to judge their own selves. It would have been a test of their virtues and ability to redeem an institution that is becoming a parody. Instead, what did we get? If Nigeria were a society where the truth matters, commentators on the case would not sit in their lazy chairs asking, “Can he even prove his accusations?” They would be invested in the search for the truth.

Unfortunately, our collective ethics have been so disintegrated that accusing the Supreme Court of corruption did not warrant that urgency to ascertain the truth. It got so bad that none of the television anchors who were dishing out hot takes while the case raged were curious enough to look for a copy of the disputed court judgment to at least offer an informed analysis. Their best effort in making public intervention was to bring in one lawyer after the other to rake over the dead leaves of wilted opinions about the letter of the law. Thank God for Dr Opeyemi Banwo who took the initiative to search for the original copy of the case and analyse it, showing that Farotimi was on to something with his accusations. If you did not read his article titled, The ‘10-Hectare-for-254-Hectare Mistake’ That Sparked the Mother of All Defamation Wars Between Dele Farotimi and Chief Afe Babalola, I urge you to do so.

In a society where people take themselves seriously, not only will the judges involved in this case be summoned to account for changing their judgment, but they will also face intense scrutiny. Every case they have previously determined will be re-examined in the light of the accusation that what they corrected could be more than a clerical error. Real journalists will examine their record of using the “slip rule correction” and debate our judiciary system. Instead, what did we get?

The fact that an individual in Nigeria gets to initiate a criminal case against a fellow Nigerian and then turns around to announce that he has dictated its withdrawal to the police only confirms Farotimi’s contention that some people in this county have an inordinate amount of power that allows them to abuse public institutions.

It was not enough that Babalola got what he wanted, he also had to heighten the drama by reeling out the names of the big people whose solicitations he had previously refused. Of course, he would not have been a successful lawyer if he did not know the value of a good drama. He entertained the audience with several instances of his virtues such as that one time he turned down an offer of an oil block because “the money was too much” and he was already struggling under the weight of what he had already acquired. It was far more interesting that his rejection of that oil block was not because he thought the offer was morally wrong. I wished he mentioned the name of the person who offered him that oil block.

In any case, after spicing things up with a narration of Yoruba history and the necessary valorisation of tradition, he eventually gave in just at the point the occasion hit the climax. Everything ended there, including the gràgrà of the ideologically compromised police who pretended there was nothing to their interest in this matter other than running the errand of the rich and the powerful. In the hands of a seasoned dramatist like Ola Rotimi, the whole affair would have been written into an elegant satire.

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

In the aftermath of the announcement on 28 January 2024 by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger Republic denouncing the Revised Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and leaving the regional bloc “without delay”, reactions spanned the spectrum from hubris to hyperbole. From Nigeria, the regional anchor and chair of the Community, the predominant sentiment was: “the three countries would have more to lose.”

Outside the continent, some described the situation as “West Africa’s ‘Brexit’ moment” or Sahelexit, likening it to Britain’s decision in 2016 to quit the European Union. Reinforcing the comparison, the finalization this past week of the exit of the three countries from ECOWAS coincided with the fifth anniversary of the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. The temptation to read too much into this coincidence should be resisted.

It is significant that the announcement by the three ECOWAS frontier states in 2024 was made shortly after the arrival in France of Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu for what was said to be a “private visit”. All three countries have been involved in a plurinational dispute involving both Nigeria and France and connected with military rule and transitions to elected government.

In reality, however, the disputes have been more about historical legacies of French colonial rule, the complex insecurity in the Sahel, and Nigeria’s regional role. In reference to this, the joint statement by the three countries accused ECOWAS of  being “under the influence of foreign powers and betraying its founding principles.”

These were not allegations to be treated lightly. There was also significance to the fact that the announcement came on the eve of ECOWAS’ golden jubilee year and represented the latest escalation in what is in fact a debate about how to calibrate inter-state relations in an increasingly complex regional environment.

It did not have to end this way. As a matter of law and notwithstanding the peremptory language deployed, the departure declaration by Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger in 2024 denouncing the ECOWAS Treaty was not immediate. Article 91(1) of the Revised ECOWAS Treaty requires departing countries to “give to the Executive Secretary one year’s notice in writing” and their departure can only take effect at the end of the period.

ECOWAS had every opportunity during this period to exert itself to show it desired a different outcome. In the end, the Community appeared manifestly incapable of sustaining two contradictory ideas. One is the strategic importance of good neighbourliness within ECOWAS as a regional community of sovereign peers; the other is the commitment to government founded on democratic legitimacy.

The fact that ECOWAS finds itself in the current predicament ostensibly over the fate elective government in the region is somewhat perverse acknowledgement of how far it has advanced since its origins.

Of the 15 heads of state and government present at the adoption of the Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States in May 1975, seven were military rulers and another six were succeeded by soldiers. Felix Houphöuet-Boigny of Côte d’Ivoire was the only president as such among the original signatories who was neither a soldier nor directly succeeded by one but his successor was toppled by the military in December 1999. Abdou Diouf, who represented Senegal at the adoption of the treaty was then Prime Minister to President Leopold Senghor, whom he later succeeded as president on 1 April, 1981.

Cape Verde and Senegal are, therefore, the only ECOWAS countries to have been spared the experience of military rule. This fact should ordinarily have equipped the Community and its member states with adequate skills in reacting to military coups. However, it would be a mistake to suppose this denouement is the result of an argument over coups alone or mostly.

ECOWAS began life in the middle of the global energy crisis of the 1970s, founded by rulers who declared it as their goal to “foster and accelerate the economic and social development of our States in order to improve the living standards of our peoples.” A combination of misrule and debt overhang miscarried this objective even before the ink was dry on the parchment on which it was written.

In the wake of instability that followed, the community adjusted its mission in 1981 to include mutual defence and security, importing an implicit obligation of regional solidarity. When the Mano River countries, first Liberia and then Sierra Leone, descended into war from 1989, Nigeria, then led by military ruler, Ibrahim Babangida, launched a regional intervention known as ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) in 1990.

 A review of the original ECOWAS Treaty followed in 1993, chaired by Nigeria’s former military ruler, Yakubu Gowon, himself the prime mover behind the original ECOWAS vision. The Revised ECOWAS Treaty again enhanced the obligations of mutual solidarity among the countries of the sub-region.

As the anchor country in ECOWAS, Nigeria was naturally expected to bear much of the burden of financing this obligation. But a straitened economy at the end of decades of misrule have frustrated that capability on the part of Nigeria at precisely the time that the countries of the Sahel needed its presence the most in response to Islamist insurgencies.

The resulting vacuum has been filled by external actors. The French proved to be their own worst enemies in their attempt to fill this vacuum, providing the soldiers who have seized power in these countries with a common foil. French departure in November 2022 and regional isolation by ECOWAS have proved to be a boon to Russia which has quickly built up assets and relations with the regimes in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger.

Notionally, the departure of these three countries will cost ECOWAS 54.35% of its landmass, 20% of its sovereign membership, 16.5% of its population and seven per cent of its GDP. The actual costs are incalculable. First, Mali and Niger have been historic buffers between the violence of the Sahel and the Maghreb on the one hand and the coastal states of the Gulf of Guinea on the other. Their departure could create new security exposures.

Second, the informal economies of West Africa depend significantly on these countries. Trade, migration and pilgrimage routes traverse through them and the impact on the poor and the excluded who rely on these informal routes could either prove to be prohibitive or prove that our inter-state borders are hollow in legitimacy and meaning in the lives of ordinary people.

Third, these countries are important for civil aviation in West Africa for overflights. If they were to deny these, ticketing and routing into their southern neighbours could also become prohibitive.

The upshot is that, in a region defined by notoriously porous borders and transnational communities, severing ties could be easier said than done. Even now, there is still reason not to give up hope: Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger retain their membership of the CFA Franc Zone in the UEMOA, five of whose members remain in the ECOWAS.

ECOWAS has put a brave face on its diminution, claiming that its institutional doors remain open to these countries but their Alliance of Sahel States (AES) is up and running. The feeling remains inescapable that this outcome was not foregone and that it has been enabled by high-level ineptitude among the leadership of ECOWAS.

Ghana’s new president, John Mahama, has in a practical manner made it a priority to advance rapprochement with the AES countries, appointing a personal envoy to lead this process. The Community should fully support him.

It is impossible not to contemplate what might have been. Over the past year while the imminence of these losses escalated, Nigeria’s President and Chairperson of ECOWAS, Bola Tinubu, has been to France on numerous occasions. Consider what might have been if he found time to engage and personally visit these West African neighbours? Surely, that was a mission fit for a new presidential jet.

A lawyer & a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]