By Lillian Okenwa
“The United Kingdom issued a travel advisory on your capital city and cancelled flights leaving many of your citizens stranded. Your government called the advisory reckless. You did not summon or demand a retraction from US/UK Ambassadors. Instead you went on a medical trip to the UK days later.” Wrote one Ahmad Salkida on his Facebook page.
After urging Nigerians to be calm but vigilant amidst the travel advisory, warning of possible terror attacks in the Nigerian capital, Abuja President Muhammadu Buhari, in a statement signed by his spokesperson, Garba Shehu, also advised “the nation’s security establishment and entire citizens to continue being vigilant and careful with security, saying it is important to avoid panic,” then took off to attend to his health in the United Kingdom.
The US has since suspended consular operations in Abuja and advised its staff and their families to relocate from the Nigerian capital.
Charles Okeibunor, Lawyer and workplace transformation expert, expressed concern over the president’s nonchalance to matters of grave concern.
“The primary responsibility of the President is security of lives and property. This is why he doubles as the commander in chief of the armed forces. Ordinarily the travel advisory shouldn’t stop him from going to take care of his health. What is disturbing is that this piece of intelligence is ignored and even worse still denied.
“Given the far-reaching implications of canceling all inbound flights, such action should have elicited a response from the government. The United Kingdom is a very popular destination for Nigerians. The hardship and inconvenience that such cancelation will inform is not one to ignore.
“Last month, the United Arab Emirates stopped issuance of visas to Nigerians and there is no response from the ministry of foreign affairs. A few months ago, a successful jail break left many suspected terrorists on the run and not one of them has been apprehended.
A few days ago the President was commiserating with the South Korean President for the loss of lives in Itaewon. Yet his house is not in order. It is either the President has superior intelligence to warrant his nonchalance or that he, as usual is past caring.
“Whichever the case, his failure to communicate confidence to the hearts of Nigerians is a significant let down.” He said.
To Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, law teacher and former Chairman of Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission “Buhari drives one into depths of expletives.”
For Kachi Okezie, lawyer and International media and management consultant “the key issue to grasp here is that a travel advisory is a serious instrument which represents the last official word on the destination or situation to which it is directed. It is the official interpretation of the state of play by the issuing authority or government.
“All responsible governments which take seriously their duty of securing their citizens would always issue travel advisories concerning destinations that are popular with their citizens. The idea is to look out for the safety, security and welfare of their citizens. It’s about the fundamental responsibility of government.
“Travel advisories have serious legal implications especially for the insurance industry, but also for international tourism. They help to determine issues of potential liability in insurance such as in claims for personal injury or loss due to a peril about which an advisory was issued. Such advisory could serve to absolve an insurer from liability and no responsible individual or corporate body would go against it, as doing so would tend to vitiate any liability for injury or loss incurred as a result of a peril about which a travel advisory had been issued.
“An advisory could also help the reinsurance industry in determining the level of risk associated with a particular destination and therefore the cost of premiums chargeable for providing travel insurance cover for that destination.
“When destinations are ranked on a table as the safest or place to visit etc, such ranking usually derives from an aggregation of travel advisories from various sources.
“Against the foregoing backdrop, it must be stated that the recent advisories issued for Abuja were no more than would be expected of responsible governments who take their duty of protecting their citizens seriously. And the primary target of such advisories would be their citizens, their own insurance industries and employers who might be contemplating sending out their employees on official assignments to those destinations, in this case Abuja, Nigeria. It’s really not about the Nigerian government or Abuja authorities. What the Nigerian government or Abuja authorities choose to do with or about the adverse security situation about which those advisories were issued, is really up to them; it has absolutely no brush on how the US or British or Canadian governments go about discharging their duty to their own citizens.
“ So, really, the whole debate, and the kerfuffle accompanying it, speaks more to the Nigerian penchant for deflecting from the issue than any supposedly sinister ploy by foreign governments to de-market its tourism prospects.”
