The Treaty of Lagos, signed on 28th May, 1975, established the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a sub-regional group of West African countries. At the time of its inception, there were sixteen member states: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote D’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Togo. Mauritania, however, withdrew from the Organization in 2000 and has since been a member of the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) of North Africa.
It is worth noting that all these countries, except Liberia, shared a history of having been under colonial rule following the Berlin Conference of 1884/85 that mediated the “Scramble for Africa” by the metropolitan countries of Europe. They were former colonies of either the United Kingdom, France or Portugal. The concern about the negative impact and effects of colonial rule on the unity of the sub region prompted the Heads of State and Government of these countries to establish an organization that would promote the complementary development and economic integration of West Africa. The movement was spearheaded, in its initial phase, by General Yakubu Gowon of Nigeria and General GnassingbeEyadema, his Togolese counterpart. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Headquarters of the Community is located in Abuja, Nigeria while the ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development (EBID) is sited in Lomé, Togo.
Other institutions and specialized agencies of ECOWAS sited in several member states include the Community Court of Justice, Community Parliament, West African Health Organization (WAHO), The Inter-Governmental Action Group against Money Laundering and Terrorism in West Africa (GIABA), West African Monetary Agency (WAMA), West African Monetary Institute (WAMI), the West African Power Pool (WAPP), ECOWAS Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (ECREE), among others.
As already alluded to, the inspiration and motivating urge of the founding fathers of the Community was the rapid promotion of intra-regional economic development and integration. This was not only bold and visionary but many, at the time, thought it overly ambitious. Nonetheless, the leaders have kept faith and over the years, the Organization has played a significant role in the socio-economic growth and political development of member states. As a matter of fact ECOWAS has, in addition to its economic goals, given emphasis and attention to the security and political stability of the subregion, so much so that, today, it has become quite difficult to tell which of its objectives is preeminent: the original economic agenda or the newer political and security agenda that evolved on account of the security challenge that the subregionsubsequently faced.
In the circumstance, ECOWAS has adopted a two track and simultaneous approach to addressing and prosecuting its multifaceted agenda. Thus, it has expended energy and resources whenever the security of member states has been threatened. It has, therefore, from 1990 embarked on numerous peacekeeping operations in member states where security and stability have been compromised by internal conflict situations. These efforts and exertions have been undertaken in the belief that no real development can take place in the absence of peace and stability in member states. In addition, ECOWAS has encouraged member states to improve inadequate healthcare and disease control, act appropriately on issues of migration and citizenship, trade and trans-border crimes, famine and desertification and many other interventions.
ECOWAS is acknowledged as the most successful model of sub-regional integration on the African continent. But it must continue to retool its structures and processes if it is to achieve its set goals in response to changing sub-regional environment. It is in this regard that its Headquarters setup was transformed from an Executive Secretariat to a Commission in 2007. This was in accordance with the decision taken the previous year at the Summit of the Authority of Heads of State and Government in Niamey. The hope was that the change would, among other things, lead to the eventual transformation of “ECOWAS of States” to “ECOWAS of Peoples” in which the citizens of the subregion would be the focus of regional integration efforts and that they would take ownership of the integration project. Furthermore, the intention was to have a region without “borders” thereby facilitating free movement of peoples and goods and enabling them to come together as one people with a common destiny. This change of paradigm was to focus on citizens rather than states.
Unfortunately, member States and some ECOWAS officials often pursue narrower national and sub group interests instead of the larger regional interests in both their decision making and actions. Decisions at the Administrative and Finance Committee (Heads of ECOWAS National Offices) and Council of Ministers are, therefore, arrived at, often with the view of achieving national interests of member states instead of regional interests. The attachment to and prioritization of national and sub group interests over the larger regional interests by member states remains a major obstacle to the rapid implementation of ECOWAS socio-economic and integration agenda. Nothing exemplifies this unfortunate situation more than the current impasse and uncertainty over the Single Currency project where the Francophone and Anglophone member states appear to be on divergent tracks and perhaps even with different objectives.
Funding and financing of the ECOWAS project has always been an issue. Its funding has devolved largely on a single country. During the formative and early years of ECOWAS, Nigeria’s statutory contribution amounted to about 36% of its budget. However, with the introduction of the Community Levy of 0.5% surcharge of the value of imports from non-ECOWAS countries, Nigeria’s contribution shot up to about 90% of its total annual budget. Owing to observed significant wastage and inefficiency in its management system and processes Nigeria decided, with effect from 2004, to release no more than 0.3% of the Levy contribution. The balance of 0.2% has been held back and domiciled in an escrow account at the Central Bank of Nigeria. The position is that the retained funds will not be released until the allegations of mismanagement against the Organization are satisfactorily dealt with or a new levy formula recommended and approved for all member states. It is to be noted that in spite of withholding 0.2% of the levy, Nigeria’s contribution to the operational funding of ECOWAS still amounts to roughly 60%. This is in stark contrast to the 40% accruing from the remaining 14 member countries. Within this group Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire contribute 12% and 10% respectively.
Notwithstanding the huge financial burden shouldered by Nigeria, other member states and the Commission itself have continued to put pressure on her to quickly reverse the decision taken in the group interest and remit, in full, the 0.5% levy. So far, the Commission has not engaged in any serious introspection on the grave issues that Nigeria has raised, especially pertaining to the wasteful management of scarce resources. It would seem Nigeria is taken for granted, hence the reluctance and unwillingness or what may be termed the wilful failure to take any concrete steps to remedy and address her concerns and interests. Rather, all that one has noticed is the persistent call for the country to remove the embargo. In the circumstance many, therefore, are of the strong view that Nigeria should continue to withhold the 0.2% of the levy until there is considerable improvement by the Commission in the management of the Community resources and also there is evidence that other members actually remit their own contributions, limited as they might be.
It is doubtful that ECOWAS, on the basis of available evidence and actions taken, is inclined to bring down the high level of mismanagement of resources, especially in the Commission. A few examples to illustrate the point and its magnitude include the following:
In the circumstance and in order to reduce duplication and cut down on waste, many people are of the considered view that there is need to review Host Agreements with countries hosting ECOWAS institutions with the view to ensure that uniform conditions apply in all member countries hosting ECOWAS Commissions, Institutions and Specialized Agencies, which seems not to be the case currently.
It seems obvious that it would be extremely difficult, as presently constituted and administered, for the Commission to provide the anchor for the expected transition from “ECOWAS of States” to “ECOWAS of People”. The current administrative management practices and the system of appointment of key officials of the Commission fail to take into consideration the financial contributions and demography of member states. For instance, Nigeria that contributes about 60% of the revenue of the Organization and has about 60 % of the community population (ECOWAS population is over 349 million and Nigeria’s is 200 million), should have a presence commensurate with its contribution.
This is, unfortunately, not the case. The country, for quite some time, has not exercised any real influence in the administration and general direction of the Organization. This would be intolerable and unacceptable in many international and intergovernmental institutions. It would neither be out of place nor unusual for Nigeria to seek and exert significant influence within ECOWAS as other major countries have done elsewhere. This would not be reinvention of the wheel, given the practice in many International Organizations where certain strategic positions are even reserved for major countries and financiers. At the World Bank (IBRD), for instance, nobody questions the tradition that its President is always an American while at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the Managing Director comes from Europe. In our continent and within the Southern African Development Community (SADC), South Africa, because she is the major financial contributor, can and often override or shape its decisions and also has significant input in the management of the finances of this regional economic community.
Nearer home in our subregion in the West African Monetary Union (UEOMA) – a Francophone grouping where Côte D’Ivoire, with a contribution over 30%, is the biggest financial provider and, not surprisingly, is a permanent Governor of the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) and also controls and influences the Administration and Financial decisions of the Organization. It is believed that there is need to redefine the principle of equitable and just distribution of the “cost and benefits” of economic cooperation and integration as contained in Article 4 of the ECOWAS revised Treaty, with a view to changing the appointment pattern of key officials to reflect the level of financial contributions and demography of member states.
The present structure of the ECOWAS Commission seems to be modelled after the European Union Commission but, unfortunately, without the vision and resources of the latter. The additional financial burden for the 15-member Commission has been enormous (about US $10 million). This already has a negative impact on the scarce resources of the Community. It has also created a top heavy structure for the Commission with a high amount of resources deployed to administrative costs. With reduced and smaller investment in programmes and capital projects, ECOWAS’ impact on citizens of the sub region has become impossible or, at best, only minimal. If ECOWAS must continue with the current 15-member Commission, it should give consideration to the EU practice where each member state pays most, if not all, of the expenses of its own Commissioner.
ECOWAS needs to pay greater attention and concentrate on infrastructure development, harmonization of laws, procedures and policies that would encourage the economic growth of member states and facilitate faster and smoother sub-regional integration. This is necessary and urgent as most of the laws and procedures in member states are modelled after those of their former colonial masters.
Member countries also need to step up interaction among themselves using tools such as diplomatic engagement, dialogue and consultations to advance the overall interests of the Community as against the narrow national interests of individual member or group of states referred to earlier. A clear strategy should be developed to address the issue of the protection of Community citizens from being discriminated against by governments and citizens of other member states. Discrimination and unfair trade practices against Community citizens, unfortunately, have become commonplace. This is totally unhelpful and a complete negation of the ECOWAS purpose and agenda.
Needless to say, there is also the need for ECOWAS to clearly distinguish and separate political leadership and technical leadership within it. Failure to do so has led to flawed governance and inappropriate institutional models currently in place at the Commission. The main concern of ECOWAS and its institutions should be to ensure that the decisions of the Authority of Heads of State and Government are translated into implementable programmes in a most effective and efficient manner. These functions should be carried out by the technical leadership under the supervision of the political leadership. The tendency of creating unnecessary layers of administration and offices within ECOWAS should be resisted. First and foremost, the Community was established as an institution to promote and accelerate sub-regional development and integration. The situation where member states use it as a platform to create employment opportunities for their citizens is totally unacceptable and therefore should not be tolerated under the guise of political correctness. Political consideration should not override technical competence and capability in recruitment within ECOWAS and its institutions.
ECOWAS should also, as a matter of policy, continue to raise awareness about its activities, especially those of its many institutions so that the outcomes of their work could be brought to the attention of Community citizens. The opportunities and benefits derivable from ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development (EBID), for example, are not known to Community citizens. In this regard it would be very helpful if member states could share information and carry out sensitization programmes on ECOWAS projects among their citizens. The Commission should work for the full implementation by member states of the Protocol on the Free Movement of Persons, Goods, Services and Right of Establishment. Sanctions should be imposed on member states that undermine the full implementation of the Protocol, especially movement of goods that are imported from third countries and attack on business premises of other community citizens. It is also time for the ECOWAS Court of Justice to be given additional jurisdiction to entertain disputes on economic and trade issues in the Community. The situation where the Court entertains mostly political and human rights issues should be looked into.
In concluding this retrospection on Nigeria in ECOWAS during these past 45 years, the questions that immediately come to mind are: has the country achieved its set goals within the body? What has it done or failed to do during this period that yielded less than the expected results? What could have been done differently and what is the way forward?
It is a little troubling that Nigeria appears not to be exerting itself robustly and with its usual confidence and authority within ECOWAS. This reticence may very well be on account of patent domestic challenges, declining resources and even policy obtuseness. Whatever is responsible, the situation is, nonetheless, frustrating. One recalls with pride her significant interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone, which in conjunction with the efforts of other likeminded countries, helped to restore peace, security and stability to those member states when they were in grave distress. One is fully aware that our upbeat exertions were aided and made easier by greater state capacity at the time. Nonetheless, it is one’s earnest hope that Nigeria will, within available resources, continue to act with vigour and vision within ECOWAS.
Several commentators have suggested that Nigeria, even though it has been generally selfless and made enormous sacrifices, has not been able to drive ECOWAS to the realization of its set goals during this period. Such analysts ascribed it to lack of trust within the Organization. They posited that, more often than not, Nigeria was dealing with a group of states, some of which are suspicious of her intentions. In fact, some of the Community members are made to believe that all Nigeria wants in ECOWAS is to dominate them. Nothing can be further from the truth on the basis of personal knowledge of the operations of the Organization. Our participation in it has always been non-threatening. We only seek to lead and energize its activities. We do not seek to dominate or usurp.
Notwithstanding the climate of suspicion about its intentions, fostered by its detractors, Nigeria should continue to conduct, as it has always done, itself in a manner that furthers both its national, as well as the overall regional interests of the Community.
All that is required of Nigeria is to be proactive by engaging and discussing with other member countries, even before ECOWAS meetings, so that its positions would be clearer and better understood. The way forward is for the country to engage more and this engagement should be more strategic. It should be represented in ECOWAS and its various institutions by its very best who cannot be faulted on the basis of their competence. And, of course, there is absolute need for the country’s delegation to always prepare adequately before any ECOWAS meeting. This would allow full articulation of the issues and ensure familiarity by all concerned with our positions on them to facilitate effective negotiation with our interlocutors and partners. In this regard, ECOWAS meetings must be attended, at all times, by appropriate Government departments and officials that are responsible and who are fully seized with the issues at stake. The situation in 2014 where Nigeria was not represented at a crucial meeting to review the Community levy in Cape Verde should not be allowed to repeat itself.
Finally, it is believed that the time is long overdue for Nigeria to assess, review and critically interrogate its presence and role within ECOWAS, in effect, what it means to be Nigeria in ECOWAS. The assessment of the journey undertaken so far should also indicate the path to the future of the ECOWAS that the country wants and what its role in it should be. Nigeria, with all its assets, will have to make up its mind, whether it wishes to be a leader or simply just any other member. It will have to make that determination and demonstrate fidelity to it. That is the choice and the way forward.
H.E. AMB. Ali Ocheni, Nigeria Former Consul-General, People’s Republic of China.
