The management of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) has confirmed that Hannatu Musawa, the minister of art, culture and creative economy, is a serving corps member.

This follows a claim by the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), a civil society organisation, that Musawa is undertaking the one-year mandatory youth service scheme while she is still a member of President Bola Tinubu’s cabinet.

Eddy Megwa, director of press and public relations at the NYSC headquarters, confirmed to TheCable on Thursday, that the minister is a corps member.

“Yes she is a serving corp member,” Megwa wrote in a message to TheCable when he was contacted for enquiries.

On Monday, President Tinubu swore in 45 ministers, including Musawa as members of the federal executive council (FEC).

But in a statement on Wednesday, HURIWA claimed that the culture minister is a member of NYSC, whose place of primary assignment is a law firm in Abuja.

When contacted by TheCable, the minister did not answer calls put through her mobile phone, nor did she reply to messages sent to get her response.

The rights group asked the management of the NYSC to compel Musawa to focus on her national youth service or the ministerial appointment.

“HURIWA wondered why the correct status of Musawa wasn’t made known to the members of the public before the senate sensationally failed to screen her as it should,” the statement reads.

“HURIWA wonders about the kind of scrutiny being conducted by the Department of State Services so much so that it wasn’t disclosed that the minister is actually a youth corper.”

The rights group alleged that years back, Musawa abandoned her NYSC in Ebonyi state but later showed interest in completing it.

The organisation added that the minister was mobilised this year and got posted to a law firm in Abuja before President Tinubu picked her as a nominee.

“She was confirmed by the senate without proper screening and sworn in by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu as minister of arts, “HURIWA further alleged.

BACKGROUND

In September 2020, former President Muhammadu Buhari nominated Musawa as a national commissioner representing the north-west geopolitical zone on the national pension commission board.

But the senate in October of the same year rejected her nomination over a report from the committee on establishment and public service matters that Musawa failed to provide her NYSC certificate or exemption letter.

An NYSC certificate or exemption letter is a mandatory requirement for those seeking public offices on the basis of election or appointment.

When the culture minister appeared before the senate during the ministerial screening, the lawmakers did not ask her any questions regarding her NYSC certificate.

WHAT THE NYSC ACT SAYS

However, according to the NYSC act, those who are 30 years and above are exempted from taking part in the mandatory one-year scheme.

Others who are excluded are those who have served in the armed forces of the federation or the Nigeria police force for a period of more than nine months, or a staff member of the Nigerian security organisation, the state security service, the national intelligence agency, the defence intelligence service or anyone who has been conferred with any national honour.

…Says Two-Year Loan Repayment Period Too Short

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has called on the members of the House of Representatives to amend the Student Loan Act such that access to loans would become less stringent for interested students.

The union added that the criteria for access to the loan according to the Act were too stringent, and the 2-year time frame for repayment should be reviewed to 4 – 5 years as that was too short.

The NANS President, Usman Barambu, made the call while speaking at the legislative summit on student loans and access to higher education, organized by the ad-hoc committee on Thursday in Abuja.

He asked that the list of guarantors needed to access the loans be looked into, as most students would be unable to meet that requirement.

Barambu also urged the House to include students on the board as well as representatives of Polytechnics and Colleges of Education, as opposed to only members of the National Universities Commission (NUC).

“Student loan is for us and there is no student representation on the board. The board only captured NUC sidelining the polytechnic and colleges of education, they should all be included for fairness and equity.

“Also, the method of payment should be looked into as most students are not able to find their ground financially two years after graduation, it should be revised to 4 to 5 years. The Act also gives no room for forgiveness in cases of death, especially for security officers, that should also be looked into,” he said.

The Nigerian Telecommunications Commission on Thursday disclosed that Nigeria was rated eleventh in terms of Internet penetration and seventh in terms of mobile phone usage worldwide.

The Executive Vice Chairman of the Nigerian Communications Commission, Prof Umar Danbatta, said this at the opening ceremony of the two-day Emerging Technology Forum for the Telecommunications Industry in Abuja.

The EVC, who spoke through the Head, Spectrum Database Management, NCC, Abraham Oshadami, stated that the worldwide data gathered by the NRI team demonstrated that digital transformation was a global need in order to optimise the social and economic effects of the digital era.

He added that the NRI examined the performance of 131 economies across four categories: technology (infrastructure), governance, people, and effect.

He said, “Nigeria is a telecommunications powerhouse, accounting for 82 per cent of the continent’s telecom subscribers and 29 per cent of the continent’s internet consumption.”

“Our country ranks eleventh in the world for Internet penetration and seventh in mobile phone usage.

“The NRI team’s global data shows that digital transformation is a global imperative for maximising the social and economic effects of the digital era. Despite these remarkable metrics, our Network Readiness Index (NRI) ranking for 2022 of 109th out of 131 countries is both humbling and challenging.”

Danbatta went on to state that, as representatives of social and economic development in the country, prioritising network preparedness is not only a strategic need but also a mission.

“It can create new inequalities, which can hinder the ability of younger generations to engage in the digital economy, but it also remains a powerful way to do more with less at all levels of income. Formal education is evolving, and metrics are important to support informed policy making.”

Serena Williams, widely hailed as the greatest female tennis player of all time, is solidifying her position as one of the world’s multimillionaires, with her net worth soaring to new heights.

The tennis icon, also recognized as one of the wealthiest Black women in America, has experienced a remarkable surge in her financial fortunes, with her net worth inching closer to the coveted $300-million mark.

According to a recent report by Forbes, a U.S. business magazine renowned for tracking the wealth of ultra-high net-worth individuals, Williams has witnessed a substantial $30 million increase in her net worth since the beginning of this year, rising from $260 million on Jan. 1 to $290 million on Aug. 24.

This surge in Williams’ fortune follows a significant boost of $20 million in 2022, when her net worth leaped from $240 million to $260 million.

Over the past three years, her net worth has witnessed a notable surge of $65 million, soaring from $225 million in 2020 to her present $290 million.

The accomplished tennis star, who gracefully retired from professional tennis in 2022, has left an indelible mark on the court and established herself as one of the world’s highest-paid athletes.

Her earnings in 2022, a staggering $45.3 million, were primarily the result of lucrative endorsement deals inked with prominent brands such as Nike, Lincoln, and Michelob Ultra. In a significant testament to her influence and success, Williams secured the 49th position on Forbes’ esteemed list of the highest-paid athletes globally.

Throughout her professional career since debuting in 1995, her earnings have accumulated to an astonishing $470 million, underscoring her status as a trailblazer both in the realm of sports achievements and financial triumphs.

Looking towards the future, Williams is expanding her horizons beyond the tennis court. Her focus has shifted toward private equity investments, a domain she has been exploring through her venture capital firm, Serena Ventures.

A testament to her acumen, the firm has raised an impressive $111 million from investors, facilitating the creation of a diverse portfolio featuring 60 firms.

What sets Williams’ investment approach apart is her commitment to promoting underrepresented communities.

A remarkable 78 percent of her investments are dedicated to companies founded by individuals from marginalized groups, whether people of color or women.

The Minister of Information and Orientation, Mohammed Idris, has responded to Edo State Governor, Godwin Obaseki, after he accused the Bola Tinubu administration of failing to properly plan for the economic consequences of removing petrol subsidy.

Idris said Obaseki’s absence from National Economic Council (NEC) meetings led by Vice President Kashim Shettima resulted in his lack of knowledge about the reliefs and support measures initiated by the Tinubu administration to alleviate the impact of the fuel subsidy removal on citizens.

Governor Obaseki on Wednesday raised concerns about the impact of the administration’s alleged incompetence on the “weakest and most vulnerable” members of society during an interactive session with journalists in Benin, the Edo State capital.

The governor, who is a chieftain of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), spoke against the backdrop that some states were yet to receive the N5 billion earmarked as part of the Federal Government’s palliative package for each state.

But reacting, Idris first clarified that the removal of fuel subsidy had been widely advocated by Nigerians, state governors from various political parties, as well as global institutions like the World Bank and IMF.

He noted that Edo State under Obaseki had significantly benefited from the fuel subsidy removal, resulting in a substantial increase in federal allocations to the state.

The financial boost, according to the minister, was evidence of the positive impact of the policy change on state finances.

Idris challenged Governor Obaseki to explain to the people of Edo why he absented himself from “the two NEC meetings under the current administration”.

The minister advised that rather than shift “focus to the nation’s economic challenges as cannon fodder to divert attention from his poor performance at the state level,” the governor should pay attention on “how the Edo State Government will be using available resources to drive impactful projects that genuinely uplift the people of Edo State.”

Idris noted some of the measures taken by the Tinubu administration to mitigate impact of fuel subsidy removal to include the allocation of N5 billion to each state for the purchase of food items for distribution to families.

The measures, he added, include the establishment of a committee by NEC to negotiate a new national minimum wage with Labor Unions and to review salaries for public sector employees.

“President Tinubu is guiding our country through very challenging times. We are supremely confident that we will soon turn the corner into a prosperous future.

“What is required at this time is for leaders at all levels to cooperatively bind together to make life better for Nigerians, not to play cheap politics that serves no better purpose.

“As President Tinubu has admonished, the time for politics and politicking is over. We are now in the season of the serious business of governance to build a stronger, more viable, socially cohesive and more prosperous Nigeria,” Idris affirmed.

Confusion over the leadership of Labour Party (LP) continued, yesterday, as the Court of Appeal in Owerri, Imo State, removed Julius Abure as national chairman.

The court, consequently, recognised Lamidi Apapa as national chairman and the one Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should deal with, in terms of candidates of the party for the coming Imo, Kogi and Bayelsa governorship elections.

The court also ordered INEC to immediately recognise and publish the names of candidates produced by the Apapa-led National Working Committee in Imo, Bayelsa, and Kogi states for the governorship elections.

The court further annulled the candidature of Senator Athan Achonu for the governorship of Imo State and others produced for other states by the Abure-led faction.

In April, Apapa had said his suspension as a member of the party was invalid and that he remained the ‘legitimate acting chairman.’

The ruling followed judgment of the Court of Appeal in Benin City on April 14, which affirmed Abure as national chairman.

In the case of Mr. Lucky Shaibu v. Julius Abure & 5 ORS (Appeal No: CA/B/93/2023), Justices Theresa Ngolika Orji Abadua, Fatima Omoro Akinbami, and Sybil O. Nwaka-Gbagi, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

Shaibu, who claimed to be a member of LP in the Ward 3 executive, in Esan North East local council of Edo State, had suspended the LP chairman.

In her lead judgment, Justice Abadua affirmed the decision of the High Court of Edo State and held that one man could not suspend the national chairman, in line with Article 13 and 17 of the constitution of the party and extant Electoral Act of 2022, particularly when the appellant has been described by the party as unknown.

Also, the state High Court in Edo had dismissed the notice of suspension of Abure by some LP members at his ward in Edo State.
Reacting, the Lamidi Apapa faction maintained that the ruling on the Imo governorship primaries has invalidated all off-season governorship primary elections conducted by the Abure faction.

Addressing journalists in Abuja, Apapa insisted that the Federal High Court order restraining Abure from parading himself as LP chairman is yet to be vacated.

He said the Court of Appeal judgment in Benin City, which affirmed Abure as national chairman, was a civil matter.

Apapa said: “The Edo state issue, more or less, has to do with civil matters. The excos in Edo suspended him and they went to court because of that, and they don’t have the right to suspend him. I’m talking about ward level.

“But the FCT restraining order has to do with criminal matters. It is between the state and Abure, and nobody is above the law. That’s the difference between the civil matter and a criminal matter.

“The order of FCT has not been vacated, and that is why on the basis of that, the Appeal court reaffirmed that by the time he conducted his primary, a restraining order was in place. And up till today, the order is still in force. That’s the difference between the two.”

Apapa said he was ready for reconciliation, adding that the presidential candidate of the party in the 2023 election, Peter Obi, acted against the judgment of the court during the party’s mega rally in Edo, held earlier this week

He said: “From the look of things, you will also agree with me that the day before yesterday, our principal and Abure went to Owerri, despite the court order against them, that Ikenga was the right person for Imo State.

“He went ahead and raised somebody’s hands; somebody that had been asked not to go ahead by the judgment of Imo State. Today, it has also been reaffirmed by the Appeal Court. I don’t know what he will do again, whether he will reaffirm that again.

“What I want everybody to know is that nobody is above the law. Anybody who is above the law should not be in politics because it’s a creation of law, and where you are disobeying the law that provides you the authority, then you are not supposed to lead the people. So, like I said, we are ready for reconciliation but not at our expense.”

Our lengthy dissertation on this vexed issue took us in part 4, through the gamut if threat of war and sovereignty under international law; the UN and Regional Agencies and international laws and instruments that govern wrongful intervention. This is th concluding part of our discourse.

The UN Charter prohibits the use of force which is almost consistent with subsection (7) of the same Article that the UN do not intervene in essential domestic affairs. The said section provides as follows:

“The Security Council and the General Assembly adopted many resolutions that contained implicit references to Article 2(4). In a number of resolutions, adopted by both organs, they affirmed the principles of territorial integrity and political independence of States or deplored their violation and sought full respect for the said principles. Many resolutions adopted by the Council and by the Assembly reaffirmed the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by means of resort to force”.

 These provisions are almost similar to those of the African Union Constitutive Act which provide for the principle of non-interference in Article 4 (g). It provides as follows:

“The Union shall function in accordance with the following principles: non-interference by any Member State in the internal affairs of another”.

African Union Constitutive Act Article 4(h) also provides for situations where ECOWAS shall interfere in the internal affairs of member State as follows:

“…the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely: war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity”.

There are no war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity being perpetuated in Niger Republic to warrant the proposed intervention by ECOWAS. The action of ECOWAS’s proposed Military intervention in Niger Republic is, expressly by the above provisions of the UN’s Constitution and the African Union Constitutive Act, are not supported by International laws.

The other intervention which the ECOWAS has so far proposed and which appear to be within its powers when it gave the junta seven days’ ultimatum to restore normalcy. This is more within its economic powers which includes:

1. Closure and monitoring of all land borders with the Niger Republic and reactivation of the border drilling exercise;
2. Cutting off Electricity supply to the Niger Republic;
3. Mobilising international support for the implementation of the provisions of the ECOWAS communiqué;
4. Preventing the operation of commercial and special flights into and from Niger Republic;
5. Blockade of goods in transit to Niger especially from Lagos and eastern seaports of Nigeria; and
6. Embarking on sensitization of Nigerians and Nigeriens on the imperative of these actions, particularly via social media.

These are acceptable means of pressuring a member state to restore its democratically elected government; rather than pursuing a Military intervention which would ultimately lead to the loss of lives and properties. This shall further deepen the rancor between members’ states, particularly as the military junta in Burkina Faso and Mali have declared support for Niger Republic.

ECOWAS AND DECLARATION OF WAR

A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces an impending war activity against another. The declaration is a performative speech act (or the signing of a document) by an authorized party of a national government, in order to create a state of war between two or more states.

LEGALITY OF DECLARATION OF WAR

The legality of who is competent to declare war varies between nations and forms of government. In many nations, that power is given to the head of state or sovereign. In other cases, something short of a full declaration of war, such as a letter of marque or a covert operation, may authorise war-like acts by privateers or mercenaries. The official international protocol for declaring war was defined in the Hague Convention (III) of 1907 on the Opening of Hostilities.

Since 1945, developments in international law such as the UN Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely obsolete in international relations; though such declarations may still have relevance within the domestic laws of the belligerents or of neutral nations. The UN Security Council, under powers granted in articles 24 and 25, and Chapter VII of the Charter, may authorize collective action to maintain or enforce international peace and security. Article 51 of the UN Charter also states that: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a state.”

Declarations of war have been exceedingly rare since the end of World War II. Scholars have debated the causes of the decline, with some arguing that states are trying to evade the restrictions of international humanitarian law (which governs conduct in war) while others argue that war declarations have come to be perceived as markers of aggression and maximalist aims.

DENIGRATION OF FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR BEFORE WWII

Even in classical times, Thucydides had condemned the Thebans, allies of Sparta, for launching a surprise attack without a declaration of war against Plataea, Athens' ally – an event that began the Peloponnesian War.

The utility of formal declarations of war has always been questioned, either as sentimental remnants of a long-gone age of chivalry or as imprudent warnings to the enemy. For example, writing in 1737, Cornelius van Bynkershoek judged that “nations and princes endowed with some pride are not generally willing to wage war without a previous declaration, for they wish by an open attack to render victory more honourable and glorious.” Writing in 1880, William Edward Hall judged that “any sort of previous declaration therefore is an empty formality unless the enemy must be given time and opportunity to put himself in a state of defence, and it is needless to say that no one asserts such a quixotism to be obligatory.”

The UN has issued Security Council Resolutions that declared some wars to be legal actions under international law, most notably Resolution 678, authorizing the 1991 Gulf War which was triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. UN Resolutions thus authorise the use of “force” or “all necessary means”.

DEPLOYMENT OF NIGERIAN SOLDIERS IN NIGER

Nigeria is not only a State in the ECOWAS. It is also subject to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. The sovereignty of Nigeria does not exceed Nigeria. However, under provisions of the Constitution earlier cited, the President of Nigeria is permitted to deploy Nigerian Armed Forces on combat duty outside Nigeria if he is satisfied that the National Security of Nigeria is under imminent threat or danger.

The recent military coup in the Republic of Niger does not pose or threaten the National Security of Nigeria. Nigeria is not at war with Niger. Further, the military coup in Niger is a domestic affair of the Republic of Niger.

SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF ECOWAS MILITARY INTERVENTION

1. Potential Escalation of Violence: Military interventions, even when conducted with the best of intentions, can escalate violence and trigger unintended consequences. In the Niger Republic, an ECOWAS intervention might lead to clashes between the intervention forces and elements loyal to the coup leaders. This could escalate into a broader conflict, exacerbating the existing security situation in the sub-region.
2. Fragile Regional Stability:The West African region is interconnected, and instability in one country can easily spill over into neighbouring states. ECOWAS' intervention could potentially destabilize the broader region, as extremist groups and criminal networks may exploit the chaos to further their interests.
3. Repercussions from Coup Supporters:A military intervention by ECOWAS might garner support from some segments of the population that oppose the coup. However, there are likely individuals and groups who supported and still support the coup. These might resist the intervention. This could lead to localized conflicts and further division within Niger society.
4. Humanitarian Crisis:Military interventions often displace civilians and disrupt essential services. Niger is already grappling with humanitarian challenges, including food insecurity and displacement due to factors such as climate change and violence. There are thousands of Nigerians in IDP in Niger following the insurgency and banditry in Northern Nigeria.
5. Impact on Regional Counter-terrorism Efforts:Niger is a key player in the fight against extremist groups such as Boko Haram and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). ECOWAS' intervention could disrupt counterterrorism operations, allowing these groups to exploit the security vacuum and expand their activities.
6. Challenges of Exit Strategy: Military interventions often face challenges in terms of exit strategy and ensuring long-term stability after the intervention forces withdraw. Without a well-defined plan for political transition and institution building, the intervention's impact might be short-lived.
7. Hydroelectric power: the Kainji Dam that supports our hydroelectric power passes through Niger. Unilaterally cutting the power supply to Niger is risky because a retaliatory damming of the River Niger by Nigeriens will threaten our source of power supply.

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONSIDERATIONS FOR A BALANCED APPROACH

While the security implications of ECOWAS' potential military intervention are indeed illegal and unconscionable, it is essential to recognize that the regional organization faces a complex dilemma. Balancing the need for stability and democratic governance with the potential risks of military intervention requires careful consideration. Here are some recommendations that should be taken into account in resolving this present impasse:

1. Diplomatic Efforts:Before resorting to military intervention, ECOWAS should exhaust all diplomatic avenues to encourage dialogue and negotiations between the coup leaders and civilian representatives. Mediation and diplomatic pressure could potentially lead to a peaceful resolution.
2. Robust Intelligence Gathering: Accurate and timely intelligence gathering is crucial to understanding the dynamics on the ground. ECOWAS should collaborate with intelligence agencies to assess the extent of support for the coup, potential sources of resistance, and the presence of extremist elements.
3. Comprehensive Conflict Assessment:ECOWAS should conduct a thorough conflict assessment to understand the potential drivers of violence and instability in Niger. This assessment should take into account ethnic, religious, and political tensions that could be exacerbated by intervention.
4. Collaboration with Regional Partners: Collaborating with other regional and international organizations, such as the African Union and the United Nations, can provide a more holistic approach to addressing the crisis. This can help distribute the burden of responsibility and expertise.
5. Humanitarian Preparedness:Any military intervention should be accompanied by a comprehensive humanitarian response plan. This plan should address potential displacement, food shortages, and medical needs to prevent the exacerbation of existing humanitarian challenges.

CONCLUSION

The situation in the Niger Republic following the military coup presents a complex set of challenges for both the country and the broader West African region. While a military intervention by ECOWAS might seem like a solution to restore democratic governance and stability, the security implications must be carefully considered. Balancing the need for intervention with the potential risks of escalation, regional instability, and humanitarian crises requires a well-thought-out approach that encompasses diplomacy, intelligence gathering, and collaboration with regional partners. Ultimately, the goal should be to restore stability while minimizing the negative security consequences that could arise from a hasty intervention.

The delicate situation reminds me of the man who has tsetse fly perching on his scrotum. He must skillfully apply force to kill it without undermining and breaking his scrotum. It is also akin to removing the bull from the China shop in such a way that no damage is done to the bull, the China wares, the owner and the China shop. (CONCLUDED).

Having discussed the many reasons why Nigeria must tarry about leading any war against Niger in part 3 of this treatise, we shall now discuss the critical issues regarding sovereignty in International Law, the UN and Regional Agencies, Nigerien Sovereignty and the International Laws and Instruments that govern wrongful Intervention.

SOVEREIGNTY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE THREAT OF WAR

Sovereignty is the absolute power of a state to control and manage the affairs within its territory without any form of external control. Implicit in this definition are the concepts of equality of States and the territorial integrity of all States. These concepts are contained in the Charter of the United Nations, 1945.

The preamble to the Charter of the United Nations, 1945, clearly highlights the objectives of the Charter. The first paragraph in the preamble to the Charter started with a reminder of the scourge of war that had twice brought untold hardships to mankind. This was why parties to the Charter agreed to:

• practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours;
• unite their strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest; and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.

Article 1 of the UN Charter reaffirms the purpose of the United Nations, which is to maintain international peace. Article 1(4) thereof states clearly that:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Paragraph 7 states that:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII”

Chapter VII of the UN Charter provides instances where the UN might intervene in matters which are within the territorial integrity of a State. Such instances which are entrusted to the UN Security Council are with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression; all of which are considered as threats to international peace and security. However, under Article 39, it is the UN Security Council (UNSC) that has the sole power to (1) determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; and (2) make recommendations; or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. Going by the provisions of Chapter VII, the use of force is the last option/measure to be taken or implemented.

Article 51 provides:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”.

In the First Hague Convention of 1899, the signatory states agreed that at least one other Nation be used to mediate disputes between states before engaging in hostilities.

Title II, Article 2

In case of serious disagreement or conflict, before an appeal to arms, the signatory Powers agreed to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good office or mediation of one more friendly POWERS

THE 1907 HAGUE CONVENTION

The Hague Convention (III) of 1907 called “Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities” gives the international actions countries should perform before hostilities. The first two Articles say:

Article 1 thereof provides that

“the Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war”.

THE UN AND REGIONAL AGENCIES

Members of the United Nations are independent States. Their right to join or establish regional agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace is guaranteed under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. This is where ECOWAS comes in. However, under Article 52 (1), such arrangements or agencies and their activities must be consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

Further, Article 52 encourages the UN Members entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies to make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council. Nothing in the Charter gives them any express or implied authority to use force or invade any country under any guise. This power resides only with the UN Security Council. As a matter of fact, Article 53 thereof provides expressly that:

“The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council* with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against the renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state. 2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state that during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

Further, Article 54 provides that:

“The Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security”.

It is therefore clear that neither the AU nor the ECOWAS as Regional Agencies can take unilateral military action against the Niger without the UN Security Council.

SOVEREIGNTY OF NIGER REPUBLIC

The sovereignty of a Country is the most essential attribute of that Country in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory. It is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one. It is the authority of that Country in her decision-making process and in the maintenance of order, outside the intervention of international powers. Niger Republic is a Sovereign State and regional powers such as the AU and ECOWAS are limited in their intervention in the internal matters of a sovereign State like Niger Republic. It must be emphasized that political independence and territorial integrity remain major planks of International Law, International Relations and Diplomacy.

In the case of MARWA & ORS V. NYAKO & ORS (2012) LPELR-7837(SC) (PP. 147-148 PARAS. E), the Supreme Court held on sovereignty thus:

“I would start by saying that there are two forms of government; de facto and de jure. De jure is a government in law; and de facto is a government in fact.  A government recognised as de jure government is the one which ought to possess power of sovereignty although at that time it may be deprived of them, whereas a government recognised as government de facto, but recognised dejure is one which is really in possession of powers of sovereignty although the possession may be wrongful. A de facto government is supreme in all internal matters and its internal acts are internationally valid, it can sue and be sued in courts of recognising states, it is entitled to immunity from judicial process, but in external matters the de jure government is supreme. See the U. S. Supreme Court decisions in Texas v. White 1. 19 law Ed. U. S. 74 - 77 at 2410; Luther v. Sagor (1921) 1 K. B. 456; The Atanizanza Mendi (1939) A. C 236; Banko De Bilbawo v. Sancha (1938) 2 K. B. 176.”  Per MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C.

ECOWAS might argue that it is coming under the standby Force which is an operational multipurpose structure provided for under the Protocol on Mutual Assistance in Defence signed in Freetown on May 29, 1981, (now known as Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peace-Keeping and Security, promulgated in 1999). However, we must state categorically that military intervention by ECOWAS does not fall under this purview. The said regional Standby Force’s functions are limited to observation and monitoring; peacekeeping and restoration of peace; humanitarian interventions; enforcement of sanctions-including embargo; preventive deployment; peace building; disarmament and demobilisation; and policing activities- including the control of fraud and organised crime. These do not include intervening in the political and domestic structure or affairs of a member state.

INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING WRONGFUL INTERVENTION

One might wonder where the ECOWAS derives the legitimate authority to breach the territorial integrity of the Nigerien borders, in spite of that of the doctrine of sovereignty which posits that no nation or international organization shall interfere in the domestic affairs of another. In the light of this, Article 2 (4) of the United Nations governing Constitution provides thus:

“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following principles. … 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

The action of ECOWAS’ proposed Military intervention in Niger Republic is therefore expressly by the above provisions of the UN’s Constitution.

The current global security order was fashioned out after the gruesome and horrific experience of World War II, when the twin Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the first atomic bomb; and when human misery escalated due to the atrocities visited on mankind by the war. The UN Charter thus vests the UN Security Council (UNSC) with the primary mandate to maintain international peace and security. The Charter prohibits the use of force, or threat of force against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any state. Under Article 53 (1) of the UN Charter, only the UNSC can authorise the use of force for collective security where it has been determined that there is a threat, or breach of peace, or an act of aggression anywhere in the world, including amongst regional bodies and agencies. This is not the case here. (To be continued).

In part 2 of this seminar dissertation, we dealt with the principle and forms of intervention; and the many reasons why Nigeria should not be in a hurry to lead an unholy war to militarily attack the coupist in Niger. In this tranche, we shall highlight more of such reasons, and then take on other critical issues surrounding the Nigerien brouhaha.

MORE REASONS WHY NIGERIA SHOULD NOT LEAD ECOWAS TO ATTACK NIGER REPUBLIC

No Nigerian president can declare a war or deploy the military for an external war without the backing and approval of the Senate. Section 218(1) & (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) provides:

“(1) The powers of the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation shall include power to determine the operational use of the armed forces of the Federation”.

(3) The President may, by directions in writing and subject to such conditions as he may think fit, delegate to any member of the armed forces of the Federation his powers relating to the operational use of the armed forces of the Federation”.

In TARABA STATE GOVERNMENT STATE & ANOR. V. SHAKE & ORS (2019) LPELR-48130(CA) (Pp. 101-124 paras. F), the Court of Appeal held thus:

“...The circumstances that may arise which may impel the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to "determine the operational use of the Armed Forces of the Federation" under Section 218(1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 is never closed but is "subject to such conditions" as the President and Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces "may think fit..." under Section 218(3) of the Constitution. The President is also empowered to delegate such powers under Section 5(1)(a)-(b) and 215(3) of the Constitution."  Per TUR, J.C.A.

However, section 5(4) is emphatic that notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section-

“(a) the President shall not declare a state of war between the Federation and another country except with the sanction of a resolution of both Houses of the National Assembly sitting in a joint session; and

(b) except with the prior approval of the Senate, no member of the armed forces of the Federation shall be deployed on combat duty outside Nigeria.”

Section 5 (5) provides that:

“notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, the President, in consultation with the National Defence Council, may deploy members of the armed forces of the Federation on a limited combat duty outside Nigeria if he is satisfied that the national security is under imminent threat or danger:

Provided that the President shall, within seven days of actual combat engagement, seek the consent of the Senate and the Senate shall thereafter give or refuse the said consent within fourteen days”.

In the two instances cited above, the Nigerian Senate on 5th August, 2023, roundly rejected Ahmed Bola Tinubu’s moves to lead an invasion against Niger as ECOWAS Chairman, asking him to critically address the political quagmire in Niger Republic following the sack of the democratically elected Government of Mohamed Bazoum. He was urged to explore diplomatic options and other means; but not military action.

Not only this, ECOWAS countries are divided along their national interests as to whether or not to attack Niger. Majority are against it.

These have put paid to the proposed needless aggression against a sovereign state that has offered no provocation.

There are more compelling reasons why Nigeria should never lead an unholy war against a neighbouring country that has not in any way done anything to provoke her. For example, Mali and Burkina Faso have already deployed warplanes to defend a hapless Niger. More significantly, the adage is true that when a millipede crawls out of its hole, you may never tell if it will return as a millipede or as a snake. What will a war with Niger turn out to be? I do not know. Or, do you?

Russia has been angry and smarting from a nearly 2 years war of attrition with Ukraine where she had initially thought it would simply be a walk over. This has not been the case. To flex muscles and show international relevance, she may descend into the theatre of war, using the Wagner Group. Nigeria had also made the same historical mistake in 1967 when she declared war against Biafra, believing erroneously, that it would simply be a “Police action” from the Nsukka axis. It was later to balloon into a 3-year bloody civil war of attrition in which over 3 million Biafrans were killed in cold blood - a near genocide. The truth is that you can only know when a war starts; but never when and how it will end.

Russia’s Wagner Group officially known as PMC Wagner is Russian state-funded private military controlled by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a former close ally of Vladimir Putin, the Russian President. It was reportedly founded by Dimistry Valeryevich Utkin, a veteran of the First and Second Chechen wars; and it was named after his “Wagner” call sign.

The Wagner Group had since operated viciously in many countries across the world, including Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Syria, Sudan, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Mali, Libya, Sudan and Madagascar (all spamming three continents in Africa, Europe and South America). Is this the group Nigeria, an economically, socially, politically, linguistically, ethnically and religiously weak and polarised country is toying with? Have we all gone crazy?  Can’t we see the looming danger? I can see it. Or, can’t you?

Niger has been our peaceful neighbour with whom we share a very long border of over 1600km for centuries. Indeed, the Islamic leader and founder of the Sokoto Caliphate, Usman Dan Fodio (born on December 15, 1754, at Maratta, Gobir), studied law, theology and philosophy in Agadez (Niger Republic) under Islamic Scholar, Jibril Ibn Umar. As a matter of fact, Niger had fully supported Nigeria during the Biafra civil war between 1967 and 1970. Paying Niger back with a war would appear to be a show of ingratitude.

Nigeria even with her economic woes, still offsets about 70 percent of the budget of ECOWAS. It is inconceivable that the western powers, including the US Congress, will simply roll ou their military drums and approve unlimited arm supplies and funds for the use of ECOWAS, to wage war against another sovereign State.

There are today, hundreds of thousands of Nigerians in various IDP camps in Niger Republic following the severe insurgency and armed banditry in the Northern part of Nigeria. As a matter of fact, Niger has been very helpful in the fight against insurgency and banditry in the lake Chad region.

Nigeria also shares the same socio-economic, cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious heritage and ties with Niger Republic.

All our seven bordering states of Kebbi, Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, Jigawa, Yobe and Borno, will surely incur severe direct hits in the event of a war breaking out.

The River Niger that supports our hydroelectric power (one of our major sources of power generation) passes directly through Niger Republic. This also means that if Niger decides to construct a dam over the River Niger, our dams and source of power will become a mirage as they will dry up automatically. The proposed Nigeria-Algeria gas pipeline which is expected to supply gas to Europe must pass directly through Niger. Therefore, any conflict with Niger will kill that project in its embryonic stage.

Neither Nigeria nor other ECOWAS Countries led any military action to dislodge the military coupists in Chad (1975 and 1990); Mali (2012, 2020 and 2021); Burkina Faso (2022); and Guinea (2021). Why that of Niger Republic now? The world wonders.

How come the American and French military bases located right inside Niger Republic refused or neglected to stop a coup that they obviously saw, and are now encouraging us to go to war with a neighbouring country for?

The Niger military has always been partners and comrades in arms with Nigeria military in the multination joint force in the fight against boko haram, lSWAP, etc. Any conflict between ECOWAS and Niger will surely set friends and comrades against each other.

In any event, although the coup in Niger is sad and deplorable, it remains an internal affair of Niger and her people. Only a negotiated diplomatic settlement in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation such as Niger represents the solution to the crisis. Nigeria cannot be more Catholic than the Pope; nor cry more than the bereaved.

The recent military coup over which Nigeriens poured on the streets with jubilation does not in any way threaten the national security of Nigeria. It is a mere domestic affair.

As a matter of fact, the plotters of the coup said their intervention is to save their country from gradual and imminent extinction, given the presence of foreign troops in their country and the unabated insecurity in their country. There is also the belief that the foreign troops in Niger are there for selfish interests. What, therefore, is the basis for deploying Nigerian troops in Niger to restore a President that has been ousted from power? When Bazoum was elected president in 2021, there was a failed coup attempt about 48 hours before his inauguration. Thus, assuming Bazoum is restored to power, he still has no armed forces that will protect him.

It is only the Security Council of the United Nations can authorize military deployment in any member state. Such deployment, if any, must be done when there is a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression in the Niger Republic. Notwithstanding that the lawfully elected President was ousted by the military junta, there is no threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression of such a magnitude that will now necessitate military intervention in Niger.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: NIGER'S POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

Niger Republic, like many countries in West Africa, has experienced a history of political instability, ethnic tensions, and economic challenges. Niger Republic is one of the poorest countries in the world and has been plagued by insecurity. The state had witnessed four military coups since independence from France in 1960. In addition to the security and economic issue stated above, there is debate or uneasiness about the ethnicity and legitimacy of the ousted President, Bazoum, who is from Niger’s ethnic Arab minority. The Arabs are seen as foreigners. Also, Niger’s military was not pleased with the presence of foreign military troops and bases in their country. France’s huge investments in Niger’s mining sector is its interest in the security of Niger. When the French and other European allies withdrew their forces from Mali in 2022, Bazoum invited them to Niger, a move that some influential individuals and the Nigerien military leadership denounced. The current coup plotters in Niger Republic stated that their intervention was necessary to avoid “the gradual and inevitable demise” of their country. In response to the recent coup of 26th July, 2023, ECOWAS is now contemplating a military intervention to restore democratic governance in the country. Lastly, a lot of Nigeriens even welcomed and celebrated the military coup.

Prior to the 26th July, 2023, coup in Niger, there had been similar attacks on democracy in Burkina Faso (2021), Mali (2012, 2020 and 2021), and Guinea (2021). Usurpers in those states also blamed their ruling governments for failing to stem a tide of insecurity that had taken over the Sahel since 2012. In the August 2020 coup in Mali, for instance, the soldiers behind the coup called themselves the “National Committee for the Salvation of the People”. One of them, Ismail Wague, Mali Air Force’s Deputy Chief of Staff, said, “We are not holding on to power but we are holding on to the stability of the country.” (To be continued).