AU post: Putting the record straight

Alot has been said about the just concluded elections into the African Union Commission, which took place on January 30, 2017 in Addis Ababa, when new members of the commission, including the chairperson, the deputy chairperson and 8 other Commissioners were elected. The set of the elections was just one item on the agenda of the 28th Ordinary Session of the African Union (AU) Assembly of Heads of State and Government, which took place from 30 to 31 January, 2017, under the Theme: ‘Harnessing Demographic Dividends through Investments in the Youth’. Other no less important agenda items of the Session included the application of the Kingdom of Morocco for accession to the Constitutive Act of the AU and the institutional reform of the African Union Commission. At home in Nigeria, it was not the Summit’s outcome on the main theme of the Session, despite its critical relevance to Nigeria, nor the institutional reform of the AU, let alone the admission of Morocco into the continental body after 32 years of absence that attracted most of the media comments, analyses and reactions. It was rather the outcome of the elections that were focused upon, obviously because Nigeria contested for, and lost the position of Commissioner, Peace and Security. Almost all the write-ups invariably criticised the Buhari administration, squarely blaming it for the failure to clinch the post.

On the selection process, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Geoffrey Onyeama indeed chaired not only the meeting where prospective candidates were shortlisted, he also chaired the interview panel which not only graded the candidates but also recommended names for the consideration of Mr. President. My investigation revealed that Fatima Kyari was graded as second best candidate along with another female candidate. All the other candidates, I learned, were also found to be competent and this reflects Nigeria’s strong human resource capital. However, only one candidate was to be selected. While only Mr. President and possibly those who were privy to the final selection process could say why Fatima and not any of the other three highest rated candidates was approved, the AU rule regarding gender parity, may have been a determining factor in favour of a female candidate. The rule requires that the two commissioners from each of the five regions must be a male and a female. While Nigeria was still on the selection process - as always we were running late - , Senegal and Ghana had already put forward candidates for the two topmost posts of chairperson and deputy chairperson respectively. Fatima’s proficiency in French Language, among other set of skills, stood in her favour.

On the much talked about “inexperience”, and/or “incompetence” of the candidate, it is interesting to note that the AU contracted an independent consulting firm that evaluated, assessed and cleared those who were adjudged to have the requisite skills, experience and competence to hold the positions they wanted to compete for. Fatima went through this process as all other candidates did, and was duly cleared or she would not have been allowed to run. It, therefore, amounts to ignorance, malice and/or mischief to label the candidate as inexperienced and incompetent to serve as commissioner at the AUC. The candidate is indeed highly, qualified not only by the assessment of the AU consultants, but also by the testimonies of many other African and non-African personalities, bodies and organisations. She is skilful, competent and experienced to do the job very well and indeed add value into the job with new and pragmatic ideas. I understand that she was selected, along with 12 other African mid-career leaders for the Eisenhower Fellowships’ 2016 Africa Programmme, but could not participate because it coincided with the preparations for the AUC election.

Clearly, therefore, Nigeria’s failure to clinch the post can only be attributed to other factors and not the quality of its candidate. In this kind of elections, countries base their voting pattern more on political and other considerations than on the substantive quality (competence, skills, experience) of candidates. This pattern is clearly reflected in the election of all the other categories, including that of the chairperson and the deputy chairperson.

Most worrisome and unfortunate is the issue of the so-called Note Verbal issued by our embassies in Addis Ababa and Algiers, conveying a decision by the Federal Government of Nigeria to withdraw from the race in favour of Algeria. The truth is that there was no such decision by the government. While indeed there were Note Verbales to that effect, these notes were issued without the knowledge, let alone approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who, normally, will be the one to authorise such action on the express approval of the president. If anything, the government deserves commendation for keeping calm and abstaining to raise dust, despite initial indication of an external influence in the issuance of these highly embarrassing notes.

I understand, however, that government had, well before the 30th January elections, instituted an investigation into the matter. A serving director and two retired permanent secretaries with reported ties to one of the candidates from a friendly country that vied for the same position of Commissioner, Peace and Security, were said to be behind the illegal, fraudulent and highly unpatriotic issuance of these infamous notes. The serving director had since been issued with a query. This, certainly, is another case of suspected fraud and corruption which, by the way, is also endemic in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in its more than one hundred missions abroad. It will, therefore, be interesting to see how this case will be resolved.

The assertion, including in some major media, that our candidate is the daughter of the chief of staff to the president is utterly callous and malicious, clearly made with the intention to generate bad feelings against not only the Chief of Staff but the President, and to also denigrate the candidate by associating her to nepotism. This is much so because it does not take anything to cross-check her lineage, if no malice was intended and if professionalism was a motivating, and guiding factor.

Meanwhile, there was also the general assessment that by loosing the election, Nigeria was humiliated; or that the failure to clinch the post represented a failure of our diplomacy and foreign policy drive.

One can agree that in the particular case of this election, there was failure somewhere in our diplomacy or foreign policy drive or both. For instance, let us ponder on this: reportedly, up till the election time, the assessmentof the Nigerian campaign team, which not only was chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs but was composed of three other serving ministers and two former ministers of foreign affairs and seasoned diplomats, was that our candidate was going to win either in the first round or in the subsequent rounds. So, what was wrong with that assessment? This and many other questions should be posed by not only the committee in particular but also the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the government in general and to seek to find answers.

There are certainly lessons to be learned from the experience and, instead of blames and accusations, it should lead to constructive national debate to help government refocus its diplomacy and recalibrate its foreign policy drive.

Meanwhile, I do not share the view that Nigeria was humiliated because it lost its bid to be elected Commissioner for Peace and Security of the African Union, by a decision of a majority of sovereign member countries. It is not the first time we lost a bid into the membership of the AU Commission or some of its agencies.