Niger Crisis: Dispelling emotionalism and disinformation on war declaration authority

One of our nation’s misfortunes is that the “wise” men who drafted the current constitution that serves as the framework for the governance of Nigeria, thought that a blind and wholesale plagiarism of the American presidential constitution was the best for our country.  We are still dealing with the fallouts of the imposition of the American constitution on our country with its apparent incongruity with our cultural, historical, economic, and institutional peculiarities.  Be that as it may, and as neo-colonial as it is, and as a result of the blind and insane plagiarism of the American constitution, we cannot debate specific aspects of the Nigerian constitution including the long debate about which branch of the government has the ultimate power to declare war, without going back to its source, the American constitution.  For centuries in the US, that debate about who has the ultimate power to declare war remains unresolved.  Many past US presidents have simply capitalized on the ambiguity in the relevant section of the US Constitution related to war declaration and have simply ignored congressional authority and oversight to declare war.  So, given this historical context, it is unsure whether the recently reported Nigerian Senate resolution to reject President Tinubu’s letter about his intent to deploy the Nigerian military in the ECOWAS-mandated war resolution to use the military against the Juntas in Niger would stop him from conducting his constitutionally mandated presidential responsibilities to maintain the security and territorial integrity of the country.  The question we all should debate is whether or should any president allow Congress to have veto power over his or her constitutional power to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. In other words, should a president, based on security reports decide that going to war was necessary to defend the territorial integrity of the country from a foreign power or a crisis in a neighbouring country, should he or she capitulate to the resolution of the senate which may be opposed to it? That is a debate that is centuries old in the US and that may be relevant to the ongoing Niger crisis and President Tinubu’s power or lack thereof to take the country to war against Niger.   Below is the relevant section of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution related to the power to declare war, it states in subsection 4: “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this, section:-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 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.” However, in the same constitution, its drafters perhaps recognising the danger of tying the hand of the president in case of urgent threat to the sovereignty and its territorial integrity, made the following seemingly contradictory provision by stating: “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 14 days.” There are no higher responsibilities of the president of any nation than to protect and defend its constitution and its sovereignty and territorial integrity against any threat.  Almost universally across the globe, the presidential oath of office talks about protecting and defending the nation’s constitution and its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  There are no more consequential decisions the president of any nation can take than to send its sons and daughters to die in a war.  It is exactly the reason one of the most heavily litigated sections of the American constitution  on which many would argue sadly and ill-advisedly, the Nigerian constitution was constructed, is the section, dealing with war declaration The Niger military coup and the involvement of Nigeria as a leader and participant in the ECOWAS’s resolution to intervene militarily to restore the democratically elected president to power, represents a unique opportunity for Nigerians to debate this all important question.   Does the military coup in Niger qualify, as one of those situations under the section that empowers the president to engage in limited military combat if he and his defence council see a need for it? Can, in fact, the president sleekly deploy the military in a “limited” military combat whatever that means since the constitution does not explicitly define what “limited” means. Hopefully, the Supreme Court might begin to clarify the contradiction in the matter of war declaration and what constitutes war.   Sadly, because the Nigerian social media landscape, especially the ubiquitous WhatsApp forum has had its oxygen completely sucked up by emotionalism and Russian disinformation warfare, fake news and propaganda, we Nigerians have been denied the opportunity to have this urgently needed debate in a logical and rational manner.   Since the Nigerian constitution was largely fashioned after the US presidential constitution, some might find the article referenced below stimulating. It explores how various US presidents in history have tried to sidestep the landmines inherent in the US Constitution on the subject matter of war declaration. https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-war-powers-congress *The Writer, Dr. Adewale Alonge, is the President, Africa-Diaspora Partnership for Empowerment & Development (ADPED) & Egbe Omo Oduduwa of South Florida, Miami.

Niger Crisis: ECOWAS Parliament divided over military option

The ECOWAS Parliament was on Saturday divided over taking military action as an option aimed at tackling the political situation in Niger Republic and restoring civil rule there. Some members called for actions that would nip the military incursion into politics within the region, while others identified diplomacy and dialogue as the best approaches to tackling the crisis. No fewer than 22 parliamentarians participated in the virtual extraordinary meeting to discuss the political crisis in Niger. Some members who were against military intervention highlighted the economic woes that the people of Niger could experience if invaded. Ali Djibo, from Niger Republic, said already at least 9,000 schools had been shut down owing to the crisis. “War will only compound the economic woes the peoples of the sub-region are already going through. “As we speak, over a thousand trucks, loaded with goods, are stranded at the border. “If a coup happened in Nigeria or Cote’d’Iviore tomorrow, where’s the ECOWAS going to mobilise troops to fight the Nigerian or Ivorian military? How many borders are we going to close? “We must also bear in mind that if we’re applying the ECOWAS treaty, it should be applicable to all.” Awaji-Inombek Dagomie Abiante (Rivers), ECOWAS must pay keen attention and treat the root causes of coups in ECOWAS countries Members of the ECOWAS Parliament making a case for military intervention in Niger said diplomacy had contributed in no small measure to the increase in the spate of military takeover of government in the West African sub-region. Contributing, Adebayo Balogun, posited that ECOWAS leaders were proposing military action to remove the junta, and not clamouring for a fully-fledged war. He recalled that Niger was a signatory to the ECOWAS’ revised protocol on non-military intervention. Also, Bashir Dawodu expressed the belief that the body should open itself up to the possibility of a military option and apply pressure on the junta while also exploring dialogue.

African Union supports ECOWAS’ military response to Niger coup

The African Union (AU) has expressed its endorsement of the proposed military intervention led by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) against the coup perpetrators in Niger. Moussa Faki Mahamat, the Chairperson of the AU, conveyed his solidarity with ECOWAS’ stance against the Niger Republic coup. Following a pivotal summit held in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital on Thursday, ECOWAS directed its military leaders to establish a rapid-response force for potential deployment to Niger. The organization emphasized the importance of prioritizing peaceful means to address the crisis. Mahamat reiterated his call for the immediate release of ousted Nigerien President Mohamed Bazoum and all individuals from his administration and family. He condemned the treatment of a democratically elected leader and expressed concern about Bazoum’s reportedly deteriorating detention conditions. The upheaval occurred on July 26 when Niger’s presidential guard removed Bazoum from power. Subsequently, the commander of the elite unit, Abdourahamane Tchiani, seized control and dissolved the constitution. Bazoum and his family have remained confined to their residence for over two weeks. Niger had been a noteworthy exception within the Sahel region’s “coup belt,” maintaining a democratic government and serving as a vital ally to the West in the fight against regional Islamist extremists. The international community has unequivocally criticized the coup and urged the coup leaders to restore order and transfer authority back to the democratically elected administration.

Niger Crisis: Tinubu urges diplomatic measures from ECOWAS leaders

President Bola Tinubu, as the Chair of the ECOWAS Heads of State and Government, has called upon the leaders of member countries to continue pursuing diplomatic solutions to the political turmoil in the Republic of Niger. His remarks were delivered during the 2nd Extraordinary Summit on the Socio-Political Situation in Niger held in Abuja on Thursday. Tinubu emphasized the importance of assessing the effectiveness of interventions undertaken and identifying any obstacles that may have impeded progress. He stressed, “Only through this comprehensive assessment can we collectively chart a sustainable path toward lasting peace, stability, and prosperity in Niger.” In his address, he reaffirmed the commitment to democracy, human rights, and the well-being of the Nigerien people. He underscored the necessity of prioritizing diplomatic negotiations and dialogue to reach a resolution. “We must engage all parties involved, including the coup leaders, in earnest discussions to convince them to relinquish power and reinstate President Bazoum. It is our duty to exhaust all avenues of engagement to ensure a swift return to constitutional governance in Niger,” Tinubu asserted. While urging the leaders to recognize the impact of the political crisis on Niger’s stability and the broader sub-region, he advocated adherence to democratic principles, good governance, and the rule of law to restore peace and prosperity. Tinubu also regarded the summit as a momentous occasion to reinforce West Africa’s unity and resilience. “Let us seize this opportunity to make a lasting impact on the lives of our fellow Africans as we strive to build a future defined by peace, progress, and prosperity,” he remarked. He commended the diplomatic envoys deployed to mediate in Niger, Libya, and other partner countries. The summit attendees included Presidents Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone, Umaro Mokhtar Sissoco of Guinea Bissau, Everiste Ndayishimiye of Burundi, Alassane Ouattara of Cote d’Ivoire, Mohamed Ould Ghazouani of Mauritania, Nana Akofo-Ado of Ghana, Macky Sall of Senegal, and Patrice Talon of Benin Republic. Retired Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, Babagana Kingibe, and the Sultan of Sokoto, Abubakar Sa’ad III, were also present. In response to the military coup in Niger, ECOWAS had implemented a no-flight zone over the country, aiming to curb the junta’s influence. Immediate financial sanctions were imposed, and the junta was given a week to relinquish power, with the possibility of a military intervention if necessary. ECOWAS maintained recognition of President Mohamed Bazoum and called upon member states and the international community to uphold these decisions to restore peace and stability. Speaking at the emergency meeting, President Tinubu condemned the coup and asserted that Africa had reached a new level of maturity.