Nigeria’s Economic Diplomacy Initiative as a Potential Catalytic Agent of Institutional Corruption
Ina press release number MFA/PR/41/2018/23, on April 3rd, 2018, the launching of ‘Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Economic Diplomacy Initiative (NEDI)’ was announced and scheduled to take place on Thursday, 5th April, 2018 at the Banquet Hall, State House, Abuja. And true enough, it came to pass as planned: Professor Yemi Osinbajo, Vice President, was on ground to launch the NEDI. As explained by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ‘NEDI is an initiative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment (FMTI); the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC); and the Nigerian Export Promotion Council (NEPC).’ More important, ‘the initiative aims at spurring economic growth and development through facilitation of market access, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), cross-border trade and recruitment of skilled Nigerians in Diaspora for national development.’
And perhaps most importantly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also has it that the ‘NEDI leverages on online technology and on existing infrastructure in Nigerian Missions across the world. The platform is divided into two parts - NEDI Business and NEDI Professionals.’ In this regard, while ‘NEDI Business matches Nigerian Business with business opportunities around the world,’ the NEDI Professional ‘serves as a one-stop shop for recruiting and engaging Nigerian professionals in the Diaspora for national development.’
Additionally, at the launching of the NEDI on April 5, Professor Osinbajo said: ‘economic diplomacy, as most of us know, is the use of diplomatic methods to address national economic interest and, of course, it has a key role to play in our case in achieving the objectives in our Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP).’
Thus, many issues are directly and indirectly raised in the initiative. First, what do we mean by Nigeria’s economic diplomacy? This expression implies that there is another economic diplomacy that is not Nigerian in character. Put differently, economic diplomacy also exists elsewhere, and by implication, there is also the economic diplomacy that is typically Nigerian which we should be dealing with now.
Again, when talking about economic diplomacy, that is typically Nigerian, in which way is the new economic diplomacy launched on Thursday, April 5, 2018, majorly different from that of the Ibrahim Babangida era? It should be recalled that under the military presidency of Babangida, Major-General Ike Nwachukwu came up with the policy of economic diplomacy when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs.
And to a great extent, the policy has always been talked about since then. In many ways, it is not different from what is again being proposed to Nigeria and the world as a new initiative. For instance, the institutional stakeholders are not different: NIPC, NEPC, FMTI, and, in fact, the private sector stakeholders were also conceived to be actively involved. The objectives are essentially the same: attraction of fresh FDI in order to grow and develop the economy. It was on the basis of the Ike Nwachukwu-driven economic diplomacy that even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had a special trade and investment unit headed by Ambassador Olusegun Akinsanya who brought the private sector to equip the unit in an unprecedented scientific manner.
Besides, the launching of the NEDI took place on the same day the Kaduna Economic and Investment Summit was also held. The summit was organised to promote economic diplomacy through partnerships. This means that it is not only the Federal Government, but also the state governments, that are showing much concern for issues in economic diplomacy. Therefore, when discussing Nigeria’s diplomacy, what the constitutive states of Nigeria do, are necessarily also constituent parts of Nigeria’s diplomacy and cannot be restricted to only what the federal ministries do.
As such, what makes the NEDI an initiative? Is it really a new initiative? An initiative necessarily implies ingenuity, originality, freshness of idea, a new beginning, a new development, a new approach, acting first, and, in fact, something that is not comparable. While it can be admissible that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is taking a fresh look at the old or existing policy of economic diplomacy, especially from the perspective of seeking to leverage on online technology and trying to have a two-typology approach -business and professionals - in the implementation of the economic diplomacy, the truth still remains basic: the NEDI is a reflection of change-in-continuity. Consequently, the use of the word ‘initiative is not appropriate as it suggests an academic theft or intellectual fraud, which should not be.
If Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama wants to re-invent the existing economic diplomacy, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it will be quite commendable, especially that the Buharian administration is yet to have any clear foreign policy focus since it came to power. Seeking to articulate one for the government cannot but therefore be a welcome development. However, changing the tactic or technique does not make the fresh approach conceptually an initiative.
What probably could qualify the NEDI as an initiative is the fact that it has the great potential to promote and strengthen institutional corruption in Nigeria and the reason cannot be far-fetched: who are the professionals to be used? Will they not be or include Nigerians, especially senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? In terms of Nigerian businesses and international business opportunities, in which way will they be different from what are currently in place in terms of inter-personal relationships? Regarding the attitudinal disposition of the Nigerian business men, and that of the public servants, in which way will NEDI address it for the purposes of economic growth and development?
Without scintilla of doubt, the Nigeria of today is that of self-deceit and where policy pronouncement always conflicts with policy implementation. Nigeria of today is where a Government Agency or Department or Ministry will approve or adopt a policy decision and then come back to eat its words claiming ignorance of the time of adoption of the earlier decision. No continuity of policy. New policy is without historical precedents informing it. Every Minister is a leader without follower and philosophy. And perhaps, most disturbingly, Nigeria is apparently the only country in the world where the very people who are required to ensure good governance are the same people aiding and abetting bad governance frolic around with impunity.
Put differently, when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is talking about recruiting professionals, the Ministry, even under the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, there is the need to ask how it has managed or supervised the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs in its capacity as Supervisory Authority. Asking such question is apt in order to appreciate how the Ministry is likely to manage the NEDI when saddled with the responsibility. In this regard, Vie Internationale posits, and strongly too, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as it is, is not capable of implementing NEDI or any policy without having to encircle itself in subjectivity of purpose, with corruption, political chicanery, and ethnic jingoism.
Again, and for the umpteenth time, the empirical case of what happened at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs is a clear illustration of the foregoing thrust. One case study may not be sufficient to make a general conclusion. However, when a government is coming out to the public to preach the gospel of holiness, fairness and justice as basis for national development, and yet the same government is also consciously aiding and abetting unholiness of character, unfairness and injustice in political governance, the people of Nigeria only need to remind the same Government not to make haste in forgetting history and moving slowly in admitting that truth is constant.
NEDI as Potential Agent of Corruption
There are two main rationales for considering the NEDI as a potential and catalytic agent of corruption under the present Buharian administration. The first rationale is that the administration is on record to have been consciously appointing people with known bad records in public positions. President Muhammadu Buhari does not appear to bother much about integrity of those people serving under him. He is always claiming their competence over moral integrity as justification for his action and official remissness. There is no disputing the fact that the Buhari administration attempted to reinstate the former Chairman of the Presidential Task Force on Pension Reforms, Mr Abdulkareem Maina. Mr. Maina was indicted and sacked because of mismanagement of N2.7 billion pension funds.
There is also the case of the Executive Secretary of the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), Professor Usman Yusuf, who was indicted for corruption, and yet, President Buhari is on record to have reinstated him. Additionally, on Tuesday, 3rd April, 2018, the organised labour unions drew public attention to the plans by the Federal Government to reinstate the Director General of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), Mr. Mounir Gwarzo, who is currently on suspension for corruption charges.
Concerns about the plans of his reinstatement prompted the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN) to remind that ‘Gwarzo was suspended after a properly constituted administrative panel set up by the Finance Minister, Mrs Kemi Adeosun, found him culpable of financial impropriety.’ What the President and his cabal do not probably know, the ASCSN has also said, is that ‘the impression being created in the minds of millions of Nigerians with the policy of recalling chief executives and other top government officials enmeshed in financial malpractices is that the war against corruption is a ruse.’ I cannot agree more with this viewpoint and this brings us to the second rationale: the case of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) and the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the handling of the case.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the Supervisory Authority for the NIIA. When I was the Director General of the NIIA, 2010-2015, drew the attention of the then Governing
Council, chaired by Major General Ike Omar Nwachukwu, to various acts of serious misconduct as defined in the Public Service Rules in which some members of staff were engaged but which the Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council simply covered up.
For instance, Miss Agatha Ude, Director of Administration and Finance, changed promotion examination result for some staff and I complained to the Council. The Council asked the Council Committee on Appointments and Promotions to look at the matter. Being the complainant and also the statutory chairman of the committee, another member of the committee was directed to chair the investigation. When the decision was to be taken on the matter, I was asked to go and look for some ludicrous documents. When I returned and still raised questions about the matter, I was told the matter had been resolved by the Committee of which I was a member. I could only protest, but to no avail.
The same Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council dictated the contents of the letter to be sent to assessors of professorial candidates, a thing that had never occurred in the life and academic existence of the NIIA. In fact, for the first time, the Director of Research and Studies, Professor Ogaba Danjuma Oche, revealed the names of possible assessors to the candidates. The Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council opted to keep silent over it.