If there wasn’t this global alliance of mostly English-speaking nations based on common law principles, there would be a need to create one.
Commonwealth leaders are meeting this week on the island of Samoa for our bi-annual summit. Intense discussion over free and fair trade, security, and climate action are occupying us 56 members – all friends and allies.

If an alliance of primarily English-speaking nations rooted in common law and shared commitment to global rules didn’t exist, one would need to be created. Like-minded countries would naturally come together to amplify their values while also providing a mechanism to lend collective heft to the individual economic and geopolitical interests of each member.

The world already has such an organisation, and its bi-annual leadership forum – the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) – is it. Yet, every two years like clockwork, the usual, ill-informed questions about the purpose and future of this oldest international organisation of partner nations appear: How can it survive its members becoming republics? What is the purpose of an institution that is neither a single market nor a regional political union?

The organisation’s demise has been predicted for decades, mostly because of the misunderstanding that becoming a republic means Commonwealth exit. Quite the opposite: it is in fact a path most members have trod.

History aside, today the Commonwealth is more relevant than it has been in decades. The world is moving beyond regional trade and governance blocs, shifting towards global networks of nations with shared interests across regions and hemispheres.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) – spanning the Americas and Asia, and with the accession of the UK, Europe and binding 12 countries in a trade-based pact – is one example; the Alliance for Small Island States (AOSIS), an intergovernmental organisation of low-lying coastal and small island countries, comprising 39 nations stretching across all corners of the globe is another. Though one is for trade, the other for political salience, both are based not on geography but on a common interest – the convening principle for which the Commonwealth is the original item.  

While multi-continental, global networks are back in favour, that doesn’t mean the Commonwealth could not benefit from a rethink. As President of the Commonwealth’s second most populous state, I believe more can and should be done together on economic cooperation and mutual political support.

Bi-lateral agreements between AfCFTA and leading Commonwealth economies such as the UK, India, and Australia would create a web of interlinked trade agreements among Commonwealth nations, driving closer cooperation and deeper integration across the Commonwealth. Britain has proposed a UK-AfCFTA trade agreement. Others should follow.

Nigeria urges larger Commonwealth economies to prioritise importing materials and foodstuffs from African Commonwealth nations.

Supported by bilateral trade agreements, there’s no reason why African coffee or fresh produce couldn’t be offered to Western Commonwealth members at preferential rates in exchange for investment in local processing industries. This would not only integrate our economies but also provide nations like Britain with affordable products they can’t grow while creating jobs in Africa – reducing the need for migration by offering better opportunities at home.

The Commonwealth has finally begun caucusing as a group at the United Nations, a development that surprisingly only became official a few years ago. While not every vote is or should be taken as a bloc, one thing is clear: securing an African seat on the UN Security Council with Commonwealth backing would supercharge the relevance of our 56-country family. This move would decisively prove the Commonwealth’s importance and silence doubts about its future.

Far from done, the Commonwealth’s time has come.  

•Bola Tinubu is the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria