Connect with us

News

Foreign Policy: The Path To Peace In A Dangerous Neighbourhood

Published

on

ADVERTISEMENT
Zoom Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Zoom Ad
Nigeria’s foreign policy to promote peace and prosperity is a constitutional obligation as much as it is a considered and sensible manifesto pledge, writes Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar (OON) Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I was born in a civil war and was not able to vote for my leader until I was in my 30s. Nigeria is now a country guided by the rule of law and a constitution that clearly defines our system of government. This includes our foreign policy objectives, and rightly so, because in an interconnected world, we define our sovereignty in the context of certain, key principles: our right to self-determination; our right to defend our autonomy and secure our borders; and responsibility to respect our obligations under international law.
As foreign minister, I think these provisions are not just reasonable but vital – both for our own democracy, domestic peace and prosperity but also for a more just and stable international order. But the point is this: it is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not the manifesto of a political party or predilections of a particular politician, that lays out these provisions. In a democracy, we have the privilege of healthy debate about our values, policies and performance. But if we are to live up to the responsibilities that come with democracy, that debate should be informed, fair and reasonable.
I respect the Constitution and its vision for Nigeria’s place in the international community, as do many of us. It has been an honour and a privilege to protect and promote those constitutional principles. They are the best guarantees for legitimacy, and the authority all governments need if they are to deliver. It is complex and time consuming. To our cost, we have learnt that there are no short cuts. Some Nigerians find fault in our Constitution, while others seek to amend it. There is always room for serious debate in a healthy democracy. But the fact remains it is the very document that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and every public official has sworn to uphold since 1999.
Nigeria’s Constitution declares that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, from whom government, through this Constitution, derives all its powers and authority. The same Chapter of the Constitution goes on to state Nigeria’s five foreign policy objectives: promotion and protection of the national interest, African integration and support for African unity, promotion of international cooperation for peace and mutual respect, respect of international law and treaty obligations and promotion of a just world economic order. Those who suggest Nigeria does not have a foreign policy or those who agitate for a shift away from an Afro-centric foreign policy are wrong; either they are ill-informed, or deliberately disingenuous.
The irony of it all is that Nigerians are able to speak in support of our military-ruled neighbours, governed without constitutions, precisely because Chapter Four of our own constitution guarantees them these rights and freedoms. This is not the same for the citizens ruled by the very regimes for which they seek to cheerlead of those countries governed without constitutions. Nigerians who are older than 30 know this to be true because we have been there, done that. Somehow in the passage of time, some forget that the military regime here that despatched troops to restore democracy in Sierra Leone and Liberia in the 1990s had first – and by force – taken that same democracy and rule of law away from us – just as military regimes continue to do the world over.
The Constitution also makes clear why any responsible Nigerian government should be concerned when neighbours are governed without a constitution or codified rules. It goes without saying that the sovereignty of our neighbours is their business. They can grant powers to whatever governing structures they deem fit and should expect their autonomy to remain safeguarded. But when our Interdependence Sovereignty overlaps, we equally have a right to exercise control over our borders in those cases where neighbours face insurgencies that significantly comprise territorial integrity and state authority.
International Legal Sovereignty also becomes an issue when we consider that respect for international law and treaty obligations is one of our irreducible foreign policy objectives. This is not the Tinubu administration’s foreign policy; it is a constitutional provision that every Nigerian President and government official swears to uphold. Nigeria is a member of ECOWAS, which is founded on treaties and protocols to which our foreign policy objectives commit us. All 15 member countries are signatory to the treaties and protocols, which is why it was no surprise that President Tinubu, as one who swore to uphold the Constitution, abided by it when ECOWAS leaders collectively objected to Unconstitutional Changes of Government.
In reality, the contemporary nation-state system is highly competitive and Nigeria exists in a self-help world. Our Constitution and international laws are meant to serve as guard rails in navigating the system. And by virtue of our size, we have the additional responsibility of being the regional power. Regardless of how some may try to diminish our standing, it is the way other countries perceive us. Our Constitution further reifies this leadership role right from the preamble- dedicating ourselves to promoting inter-African solidarity, to the foreign policy objectives- promotion of African integration and support for African unity and elimination of discrimination in all its manifestations.
The Tinubu administration comes at a time when an interlocking suite of occurrences have made our neighbourhood less secure; implosion of Libya, failure of the EU Sahel Strategy, terrorism and criminal gangs, effects of climate change and population explosion. Nigeria did not create these challenges and was equally contending with its own domestic issue as these challenges escalated. Nigeria was not part of Operation Barkhane or the G5 in the Sahel, which were intended as efforts to fight terrorism and irregular migration but instead strengthened some irridentist Azawad/Tuareg groups that controlled border areas. This created a cauldron of disharmony between them and their national militaries, trained for a lifetime to keep their countries intact.
Nor was Nigeria part of the Partnership Framework with Third countries that conditioned aid and trade deals for Sahelian migration transit states in exchange for reducing the flow of migrants, with penalties for those who do not comply. In the case of Niger, a moment of truth was the passing of Law 2015-36 in May 2015 when its government, in consultation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and technical and financial support from the European Union and its member states, criminalized ancillary activities of the migration economy, such as providing transportation and accommodation to foreign nationals anywhere north of Agadez, in direct contravention of ECOWAS Protocol on the free movement of people. They were persuaded to use a blunt hammer to crack a delicate nut. There is a highly politicised migration crisis in parts of Europe, that together we can and should resolve. But it was reckless to seek to solve one problem by creating another.
There is a reason why we have free movement in West Africa; seasonal migration- referred to in Hausa as ‘Ci Rani’. Seasonal migration in the semi-arid Sahel can be a matter of life and death, which is why we have always had turbaned Tuaregs going as far as Lagos and Port Harcourt to work as Maigadis (security) during the dry months, only to return back north during the rainy season. The weaponisation of sub-Saharan migration in Europe as a political tool led to the securitisation of the Sahel region, further exacerbating the security situation by forcing many of those affected to turn to criminal activities and terrorism. European migration figures show majority of migrants are from Syria, Afghanistan and Central Asia, not sub-Saharan Africa.
Yes, we need to work with our Sahelian neighbours to fight terrorism, by maintaining a right of pursuit into each others territories. But it would be myopic to think of this in absolutist terms, because we can accede to all conditionalities laid by them, it would still not be enough to tackle the challenges without a lasting solution to the bifurcated Libyan State as a source of weapons, training and fighters, as well as the shadowy involvement of a range of other state and non-state actors.
To achieve a lasting peace in Libya and the Sahel, Nigeria needs to deal with all the countries in the neighbourhood as well as all the major powers. For this reason, it does not make sense to simply deduce that Nigeria has to distance itself from France because that is the prevailing trend in its former colonies. The fulcrum of the Tinubu administration’s foreign policy is Strategic Autonomy, providing us with the clarity to engage with any and all nations based on our national interests and not those of others. As a nation, Nigeria is adult enough and sophisticated enough to deal with countries without being unduly influenced, because that has been part of our historical and civic tradition. You cannot cure an illness by picking which symptoms to consider and which to ignore.
Nigeria and ECOWAS will continue diplomatic efforts towards Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. At a minimum, we have shared interest in peaceful co-existence. President Tinubu has sent a number of high-level delegations that included a former Head of State, traditional rulers and religious scholars. President Tinubu pushed for the unconditional removal of ECOWAS sanctions imposed on Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. What he has consistently asked of the countries in question is for them to come up with a timetable for the restoration of constitutional rule and, in the case of Niger, the release of ousted President Bazoum.
Their response was to declare their intention to leave ECOWAS. With the one-year notice period coming to an end in January 2025, President Tinubu further pushed for ECOWAS to extend the grace period for another six months whilst intensifying diplomatic efforts. The response to this initiative last month was evidence-free allegations that Nigeria was harbouring foreign soldiers and as sponsoring state terrorism. Whenever President Tinubu and other democratic leaders offer stoic statesmanship and an opportunity to work together towards our common interests, it is met by confected controversy designed to divert and distract from a failure to meet the basic responsibilities of public administration. I know why coup leaders might seek to do that: it’s harder to understand the motives of apologists closer to home.
On my part, since assuming the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs on 21st August 2023, I have engaged diplomatically without pause, proposing personal visits and inviting senior government officials and representatives. Response has been akin to a diplomatic cold shoulder. We constituted a ministerial advisory committee that visited Niger and Mali and facilitated the visit of the Nigerian CDS to meet with his counterpart in Niamey. I regret that a proposed return visit was suspended by Niger after a date had been set. But let there be no doubt: we will continue to pursue diplomatic efforts assiduously, with a Ministry of Foreign Affairs that has existed for 67 years.
Nigeria’s principle of strategic autonomy is one that abhors the presence of foreign forces and private military companies in our region, whether from east or west. Nigeria presently has troops on peace keeping operations in Guinea Bissau and Gambia, with Sierra Leone on the way, where it is also supporting the setting up of a logistics base in Lungi. Nigeria is also leading the actualisation of the ECOWAS standby force, all in an effort to fight terrorism and instability within our region under the rule of law. We work closely with our partners on sharing of intelligence in order to guarantee the same rights and freedoms are enjoyed by all the people of the region.
As several of my colleagues in the region remind me, we are the hegemon, whether we admit it or not. And global politics works almost like physics, with polarity, ordering principles, distribution of power, balancing, etc. Nigeria has never had expansionist tendencies, never been threatening towards our neighbours and always chosen the path of peace and conciliation. This in part may have to do with the makeup of our polity and social fabric. Being such a huge country, we are used to the virtues of principled compromise. It is not by accident that we are the only country on the continent with six former leaders living in peace and harmony within our borders. Diversity, not division, is our strength. This is as true for Nigeria as it is for the smallest of countries – and collectively for all of our region.

News

NCDC Raises Red Flag Over Proposed Health Institute, Cautions Lawmakers on Overlapping Roles

Published

on

ADVERTISEMENT
Zoom Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Zoom Ad

By Gloria Ikibah

The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC) has expressed strong reservations about a proposed bill seeking to establish a National Institute for Public Health and Infectious Diseases, warning that the move could create institutional overlap and undermine the country’s disease control system.

The agency’s concerns were presented during a public hearing on the National Institute for Public Health and Infectious Diseases (Establishment) Bill, 2025 (HB 2629), organised by the House of Representatives Committee on Infectious Diseases at the National Assembly in Abuja on Thursday.

In its submission to lawmakers, the Director-General of NCDC, Dr. Jide Idris acknowledged the need to continually strengthen Nigeria’s health security architecture, including disease surveillance, epidemic preparedness and outbreak response. However, it maintained that the proposed institute will replicate responsibilities already assigned to the agency under existing legislation.

Advertisement

According to him, establishing another body with similar mandates risks creating administrative conflicts, duplicating public resources and blurring lines of authority during public health emergencies.

The NCDC boss argued that Nigeria already has a statutory institution responsible for coordinating infectious disease surveillance, prevention and emergency response, and that efforts should focus on strengthening existing structures rather than creating parallel agencies with potentially competing functions.

The development comes as lawmakers consider measures aimed at reinforcing the country’s capacity to prevent, detect and respond to emerging health threats. Supporters of the bill believe a dedicated public health institute could enhance research, coordination and preparedness for future disease outbreaks.

However, Idris insists that any reform intended to improve Nigeria’s public health system must avoid weakening existing institutions or creating uncertainty over leadership and accountability during health crises.

Advertisement

He urged lawmakers to carefully review the provisions of the bill to ensure that any new framework complements, rather than duplicates, the functions currently performed by the nation’s foremost disease control authority.

“The core responsibilities proposed for the new institute are substantially the same as those currently assigned to the NCDC,” Idris said, warning that the Bill raises serious concerns over duplication of mandates, institutional overlap, governance conflicts and fiscal sustainability.

He argued that public health emergencies require a single, clearly recognised national authority, stressing that creating another federal institution with overlapping responsibilities would generate uncertainty over leadership, accountability and operational command during disease outbreaks.

The NCDC further noted that the Bill designates the proposed institute as Nigeria’s National Focal Point for the International Health Regulations (IHR) and empowers it to coordinate national responses to infectious disease outbreaks functions that are already assigned to the NCDC under the NCDC Act and recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Advertisement

According to the agency, such overlapping mandates could create confusion among state governments, development partners and international organisations that currently work through the NCDC as Nigeria’s official public health authority.

Drawing lessons from Nigeria’s successful response to Ebola, COVID-19, Lassa fever, cholera, meningitis, diphtheria, Mpox and other disease outbreaks, Idris maintained that the country’s public health system has evolved around a unified command structure, warning that introducing parallel institutions could fragment emergency response efforts when coordination is most critical.

The Director-General also questioned the financial implications of establishing a new federal institution with headquarters, zonal offices, state structures, governing councils and extensive staffing requirements at a time of competing national priorities.

He expressed concern over proposals to allocate part of the Basic Health Care Provision Fund to the proposed institute, warning that such a move would further stretch an already limited funding mechanism and reduce resources available for existing health priorities.

Advertisement

Idris noted that the Federal Government has invested significantly over the years in building the NCDC’s laboratory network, surveillance systems, emergency operations centres, genomic sequencing capacity, workforce development programmes and outbreak response infrastructure.

According to him, creating another institution with similar responsibilities would duplicate existing investments and undermine the Federal Government’s ongoing policy of streamlining public institutions.

He added that international best practice supports the existence of a single national public health institute responsible for disease surveillance, preparedness and emergency response, noting that Nigeria adopted the same model through the establishment of the NCDC.

The agency therefore urged the National Assembly to strengthen existing public health structures instead of creating parallel institutions.

Advertisement

While reiterating its support for upgrading the National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Training Centre, Saye, Zaria, into a tertiary institution dedicated to teaching, clinical services and research, the NCDC urged lawmakers to review provisions of the Bill that establish what it described as a parallel public health command structure.

The Director-General disclosed that the agency had submitted a detailed clause-by-clause analysis identifying areas of conflict between the proposed legislation and the NCDC Act, 2018, noting that several provisions of the Bill appeared to have been reproduced almost verbatim from the existing law.

He concluded that the issue before lawmakers was not whether Nigeria should strengthen its public health capacity, but whether that objective would be better achieved by strengthening the National Public Health Institute already established by law or by creating another institution with substantially overlapping responsibilities.

Earlier, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Tajudeen Abbas, described the proposed institute as a strategic investment in Nigeria’s health security and preparedness against future disease outbreaks.

Advertisement

Represented by Hon. Bashir Zubair, the Speaker said Nigeria’s experiences with Ebola, COVID-19, Lassa fever and other infectious disease outbreaks exposed significant vulnerabilities within the country’s health system and demonstrated the urgent need for stronger institutions capable of anticipating, preventing and responding effectively to emerging public health threats.

He stressed that a country of Nigeria’s population and strategic importance could no longer afford a reactive approach to disease outbreaks but must invest in scientific innovation, research, surveillance and sustainable preparedness.

According to Abbas, the proposed institute would provide a comprehensive framework for integrating disease prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, research, control and management within a coordinated national system while empowering Nigerian scientists to develop home-grown solutions to infectious diseases.

He maintained that the objective of the legislation was not simply to establish another government institution but to build a functional, agile and world-class institute capable of delivering measurable health outcomes for Nigerians and contributing to global public health.

Advertisement

In his opening remarks, Chairman of the House Committee on Infectious Diseases, Rep. Amobi Godwin Ogah, represented by Hon. Mark Esset, said the public hearing was organised to gather views and recommendations from stakeholders on two key pieces of legislation currently before the Committee — the National Institute for Public Health and Infectious Diseases (Establishment) Bill and the Tuberculosis Anti-Discrimination Bill.

Ogah explained that the proposal to establish a national public health institute was informed by findings from an oversight visit by members of the Committee to the National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Training Centre in Saye, Zaria, in October 2025. During the visit, lawmakers observed what he described as vast but underutilised human and infrastructural resources within the facility.

According to him, the discovery prompted the Committee to recommend the transformation of the centre into a national public health institute. It also influenced the decision to expand the Committee’s scope of responsibilities, leading to its renaming from the House Committee on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Control to the House Committee on Infectious Diseases.

The lawmaker disclosed that the Presidency had already granted approval for the upgrade of the Zaria-based training centre into a public health institute, expressing confidence that the proposed legislation would enhance Nigeria’s ability to prevent, detect, diagnose, treat and manage infectious diseases more effectively.

Advertisement

Speaking on the Tuberculosis Anti-Discrimination Bill, Ogah said the proposed law is designed to safeguard the rights and dignity of people living with or affected by tuberculosis. He noted that the legislation seeks to tackle stigma and discrimination, while promoting early testing, prompt diagnosis and access to treatment as part of broader efforts to reduce the burden of the disease across the country.

The hearing also featured submissions from representatives of the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, development partners, civil society groups, professional associations and public health institutions, as lawmakers continue deliberations on the two proposed laws.

Continue Reading

News

Wike Slams David Mark Over ADC Claims On FCT Roads Construction, Defends Tinubu’s Development Agenda

Published

on

ADVERTISEMENT
Zoom Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Zoom Ad

Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Barr. Nyesom Wike, on Thursday took a swipe at former Senate President David Mark over what he described as his poor infrastructure record while in office, arguing that the achievements of President Bola Tinubu’s administration in road infrastructure within three years had surpassed what was accomplished during Mark’s tenure in leadership positions.

Wike spoke at the commissioning of the Interchange at Arterial Road N16–Ring Road II Junction linking Jahi and Gwarimpa districts in Abuja, where President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was represented by Senate President Godswill Akpabio.

The minister’s remarks came in response to recent criticisms from the African Democratic Congress (ADC), which he said had nonetheless acknowledged the administration’s achievements in road infrastructure.

“ADC has conceded that in terms of road infrastructure, Mr. President has done very, very well,” Wike said. “Without roads, you cannot go to hospital, you cannot go to school, and you cannot go to farm. Roads are the bedrock of development in any society.”

Advertisement

Turning his attention to David Mark, whom he identified as chairman of a faction of a ADC, Wike questioned the former Senate President’s record on infrastructure delivery during his eight years in office.

According to him, the Akwanga-Makurdi road remained in deplorable condition despite being awarded during Mark’s tenure as Senate President under a ruling party’s government.

“The poor people could not afford to travel to Makurdi because there was no road. But David Mark, as Senate President then was flying helicopters,” Wike said.

“Today, because of the intervention of this administration, people can drive freely to Makurdi and Otukpo. The same David Mark, who once relied on helicopters can now travel by road too.”

Advertisement

The minister argued that the Tinubu administration had demonstrated what could be achieved through political will and commitment to continuity in governance.

He noted that the Jahi-Gwarimpa interchange project, commissioned on Thursday, was awarded before the current administration took office but had received no mobilisation or significant progress until the present government intervened.

“One of the problems of development in Nigeria is that new administrations often abandon projects initiated by their predecessors.

“But President Tinubu has shown that government is a continuum. What matters is completing projects for the benefit of the people, regardless of who awarded them,” he said.

Advertisement

Wike disclosed that residents of the area had long doubted the project would ever be completed, describing its delivery as a significant milestone in the ongoing transformation of the Federal Capital Territory.

He also rejected claims that the administration’s development efforts were limited to road construction, citing investments in water infrastructure across satellite towns.

The minister recalled the recent commissioning of water projects in Karu and announced that a similar project in Bwari would be inaugurated on July 14.

“It is not correct to say we are only doing roads,” he said.

Advertisement

“In Karu, we commissioned water supply infrastructure, and by July 14 we will commission another major water project in Bwari. These are projects designed to improve the lives of ordinary people.”

Wike challenged critics to point to comparable investments in satellite towns during previous administrations, insisting that the Renewed Hope Agenda was delivering tangible benefits across the FCT.

Continue Reading

News

FG ready to review N70k Minimum Wage-Gbajabiamila reveals

Published

on

ADVERTISEMENT
Zoom Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Zoom Ad

 

The presidency has officially confirmed that plans are underway to alter the current national minimum wage configuration because the current economic situation has made the baseline salary unsustainable.

Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, made this disclosure while speaking in Abuja on Thursday during an event organized by a group called Working People United.

According to the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, the present N70,000 threshold established under President Bola Tinubu’s administration in 2024 is no longer capable of meeting the practical economic demands faced by citizens across the nation.

Advertisement

Addressing the gathering, the president’s representative pointed out that the current fiscal environment necessitates a thorough re-evaluation of what constitutes a living baseline for Nigerian workers.

He noted that the “N70,000 wage, which was a milestone in 2024 must be honestly reassessed against today’s realities,” signaling a strong commitment from the executive arm to reopen discussions surrounding statutory labor compensation.

Gbajabiamila assured organized labor groups that the administration does not view workers as adversaries but rather as key contributors to the progress of the country.

He emphasized that the government plans to approach the upcoming negotiations with a high level of empathy and cooperation.

Advertisement

“I can confirm to you that when the time comes to begin the process of reviewing the national minimum wage, this administration will approach that endeavor not as an adversary of Labour, but as a partner,” he said.

He further re-iterated the commitment of the president to human capital development and fair treatment of the workforce.

“President Tinubu has said time and again that the custodians of the nation’s machinery deserve a fair and commensurate wage, and as you all well know by now, this is the president who means precisely what he says and does exactly what he means,” Gbajabiamila stated, defending the president’s record on labor issues.

While urging trade unions and workers to maintain a peaceful posture, the Chief of Staff maintained that sustainable national growth requires an ongoing collaboration rather than perpetual conflict.

Advertisement

He mentioned that “It must be said that good governance is not a performance stage by government for the benefit of a passive audience, it’s a partnership between those who govern and those who are governed.”

He also emphasized that the relationship between the ruling political class and the working population remains the most crucial foundation for industrial harmony.

“No where is that partnership more vital than the relationship between government and the working people of Nigeria,” he added.

Concluding his address, the former lawmaker appealed directly to union leaders to choose the path of dialogue over strikes and industrial actions, which often cripple the national economy.

Advertisement

“It is with this understanding in mind that I ask the leaders of organized labour and the members of working people united to remain what you have so often been at your finest, partners in progress rather than antagonist in perpetuity, let us choose to dialog over disruption, because as we have proved again and again, we achieve far more when we visit together than when we retreat, retreat to our separate corners,” Gbajabiamila remarked.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News