Connect with us

News

FOREIGN POLICY AND THE PATH TO PEACE IN A DANGEROUS NEIGHBOURHOOD

Published

on

FOREIGN POLICY AND THE PATH TO PEACE IN A DANGEROUS NEIGHBOURHOOD

By: Michael
Mike

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 Hon Yusuf Tuggar, 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.

FOREIGN POLICY AND THE PATH TO PEACE IN A DANGEROUS NEIGHBOURHOOD

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Troops foil multiple ISWAP infiltration attempts in Maiduguri, Buratai axis

Published

on

Troops foil multiple ISWAP infiltration attempts in Maiduguri, Buratai axis

By Zagazola Makama

Troops of the Joint Task Force North East, Operation HADIN KAI (OPHK), have foiled coordinated infiltration attempts by suspected ISWAP terrorists targeting parts of Maiduguri and Buratai axis of Borno State, forcing the insurgents to retreat after intense engagements.

The attempted attacks occurred between 12:20 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. on Friday, when the terrorists simultaneously advanced toward Muna Garage, Shuwari Village and the Ajilari Cross area in an apparent bid to gain access into the Maiduguri metropolis.

Military sources told Zagazola Makama that the troops, supported by an effective early warning system, detected the movement of the insurgents and engaged them from multiple directions with heavy and accurate fire, disrupting the coordinated assault before the terrorists could penetrate the city.

The sources said the terrorists, overwhelmed by the troops’ swift tactical response, abandoned their mission and fled in disarray.

In related operations, troops also repelled separate infiltration attempts by the insurgents at Miringa and Dutsen Kura in the Buratai area of Borno State.

During the pursuit of the fleeing terrorists at Miringa, a Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle activated an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). However, no casualty was recorded among the troops, and the operational situation remained stable.

Security sources said clearance and exploitation operations are ongoing across the affected areas to track down the fleeing terrorists, recover possible abandoned equipment and prevent any further threat to nearby communities.

The military reaffirmed that Operation HADIN KAI would continue sustained offensive operations aimed at denying terrorist groups freedom of movement and safeguarding lives and property across the North-East.

Residents were also urged to remain vigilant and continue providing credible and timely intelligence to security agencies to support ongoing counter-terrorism operations.

Troops foil multiple ISWAP infiltration attempts in Maiduguri, Buratai axis

Continue Reading

News

CCS Supports Objective Security Reporting, Rejects Ethnic Double Standards in Addressing Criminality

Published

on

PRESS STATEMENT

CCS Supports Objective Security Reporting, Rejects Ethnic Double Standards in Addressing Criminality

July 8, 2026

The Centre for Contemporary Studies (CCS), Abuja, expresses its support for the position articulated by security analyst and conflict reporter Zagazola Makama on the imperative of objective, fact-based reporting of criminal activities, irrespective of the ethnic, religious, or political identity of those involved.

CCS believes that the fight against insecurity in Nigeria can only succeed when the same standards of accountability are applied to all offenders without exception. Criminality does not become acceptable because it is committed by a member of one’s ethnic group, nor does violence become justifiable because it is wrapped in the language of communal defence.

The controversy generated by the identification of a suspected attacker involved in the attempted assault on the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, highlights a deeper national challenge: the tendency of some individuals and groups to support transparency only when it exposes those they consider opponents, while resisting the same transparency when facts implicate members of their own communities.

CCS maintains that objective reporting is not ethnic profiling. Where credible facts establish the identity, affiliation, or operational background of criminal actors, journalists and security analysts should not be intimidated into suppressing such information merely because it is politically inconvenient or socially uncomfortable. Selective outrage and selective accountability only deepen mistrust and prolong conflict.

For years, Nigerians have demanded that security reports accurately identify perpetrators of violence. That demand must remain consistent. Whether the perpetrators are Fulani bandits, Berom militias, Irigwe militias, Mwaghavul militias, or any other armed criminal group, the truth must be reported and the law must take its course.

The Centre also commends the professionalism and courage of security personnel who successfully repelled the attempted attack on NIPSS and continue to defend strategic national institutions under difficult circumstances. Their sacrifices deserve public recognition and support.

CCS wishes to emphasize that no community in Nigeria possesses a monopoly on either victimhood or criminality. Across the country, millions of law-abiding citizens from every ethnic and religious background desire peace, security, and justice. Equally, criminal elements exist across communities and must be confronted without bias or sentiment.

Nigeria cannot defeat insecurity if citizens judge crimes based on the identity of the perpetrator rather than the nature of the offence. A criminal remains a criminal regardless of ethnicity. An armed attacker remains an armed attacker regardless of religion. A murderer does not become a hero because he belongs to a particular community.

The Centre therefore calls on the media, civil society organisations, community leaders, and the general public to uphold a single standard of justice and accountability. The protection of criminals through ethnic, religious, or political narratives undermines national security and weakens efforts to build lasting peace.

CCS stands firmly for truth, accountability, and equal justice under the law. We support all responsible efforts to expose criminality wherever it exists and reject every attempt to shield offenders from scrutiny because of their identity.

There must be no sacred cows in the fight against insecurity. There must be no shielding of criminals. Justice must remain blind to ethnicity, religion, and politics.

Yusuf Musa
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Centre for Contemporary Studies (CCS), Abuja &

Capt. Kabir Aminu (Rtd.)
Director, Security and Strategic Studies
Centre for Contemporary Studies (CCS), Abuja

CCS Supports Objective Security Reporting, Rejects Ethnic Double Standards in Addressing Criminality

Continue Reading

News

The Kano Model Comes of Age: Faith Leaders Become Africa’s Firewall Against Disinformation

Published

on

The Kano Model Comes of Age: Faith Leaders Become Africa’s Firewall Against Disinformation

By Senator Iroegbu

Months ago, these pages made an argument that ran counter to conventional wisdom. Nigeria’s most effective answer to disinformation may not be found inside government ministries or technology companies, but in an unlikely place: the mosque, the church and the traditional palace. That idea was named the Kano Model, a simple but powerful proposition that places religious and traditional leaders at the centre of the fight to build public resilience against misinformation, disinformation and information manipulation.

Today, that idea has taken a decisive step forward. In Abuja, between 24 and 25 June 2026, Alkalanci, the Hausa language verification platform, convened the largest edition yet of its fact-checking and media literacy training. Supported by the MacArthur Foundation and in collaboration with the Centre for Democracy and Development, the workshop gathered Islamic clerics and scholars from across Northern Nigeria under a single roof for the first time. It followed earlier sessions in Kano, Sokoto, Gombe, Kaduna and Maradi in neighbouring Niger Republic. More than 120 clerics and teachers have now passed through the programme, across six cities and two countries. What began as a modest experiment in one emirate has matured into a movement.

The timing could hardly be more consequential. Nigeria is moving steadily towards the 2027 general elections, a season when domestic misinformation predictably surges. Across the Sahel, military governments battle violent extremism while geopolitical rivalries intensify and foreign powers compete for influence through information operations as much as through diplomacy or arms. Artificial intelligence now allows fabricated videos, cloned voices and manipulated images to circulate at alarming speed. This is no longer merely a media challenge. It is a national security challenge.

The significance of Abuja lies not only in scale but in institutional weight. The two most authoritative bodies in Nigerian Islam lent their voices to the cause. The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), led by the Sultan of Sokoto, and Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI) both charged clerics with becoming guardians of truth. Speaking through its Secretary-General, Professor Is-haq Oloyede, the NSCIA grounded the appeal in scripture, recalling that Surah Al-Hujurat instructs believers to verify information before acting upon it. Verification, the Council argued, is not an import but a divine injunction.

That moral framing changes the conversation entirely. For decades, governments have tried to combat disinformation through regulation, censorship and technology. Each has a role, yet none reaches the deeper question of trust. People do not always believe institutions. They believe people they know. Across Northern Nigeria and much of Africa, few voices command greater trust than religious leaders and traditional rulers. Every Friday, every Sunday, and at countless community gatherings, millions receive guidance from imams, pastors, scholars, and emirs. When those trusted voices urge citizens to pause before forwarding a message, verify a viral clip or question an inflammatory rumour, they build a social firewall no algorithm can match.

This is precisely where traditional institutions become decisive. The programme has drawn consistent endorsement from the emirates. The Emir of Kano was represented at the pioneering session, the Sultan of Sokoto at another, the Emirate of Gombe at a third. When a Sarkin Alkali speaks for the Sultan, or a royal envoy addresses assembled imams, the message carries an authority no government circular can rival. As the Emir of Gombe’s representative reminded an earlier gathering, truthfulness is not merely an ethical duty. It is an act of faith.

The threats, meanwhile, are evolving. Alkalanci’s Editor, Alhassan Bala, warned that the coming election season will bring a surge of misinformation from domestic actors, alongside foreign information manipulation and interference. Deepfakes, the synthetic speeches, videos and audio, are now cheap enough to flood any campaign, adding a dangerous new layer. The JNI’s Secretary-General, Professor Khalid Abubakar Aliyu, went further still, urging clerics to remain resolutely apolitical, to verify before they speak, and cautioning politicians against enticing religious leaders into partisan corners. In a country where a single doctored clip can inflame a community overnight, a clergy trained to pause and verify is a national security asset.

The Sahel makes the stakes plainer. In Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, disinformation has become an instrument of war, deployed to justify coups, discredit democratic institutions and turn populations against their neighbours and regional bodies. Much of it is amplified by networks tied to external powers seeking leverage on African soil. That the Alkalanci training has already crossed into Maradi is therefore no small detail. It carries the model into the very theatre where information warfare is fiercest, and through the one channel foreign propagandists struggle to capture: the trusted local voice speaking a local language.

Equally telling is what this reveals about civil society. The programme is not a state project. It is a local organisation building long-term societal resilience, empowering trusted leaders to become educators, validators and defenders of truth. Every such effort is, in plain terms, an investment in peace.

The lesson from Kano and now Abuja is remarkably simple. The fight against disinformation cannot be won by governments alone, nor outsourced entirely to journalists, fact-checkers or technology companies. It must become a societal responsibility, one that reaches beyond the North and beyond a single faith, drawing in Christian clergy, women and youth networks and traditional rulers nationwide.

At a time when falsehood travels faster than truth, Africa’s greatest advantage may not lie in more sophisticated technology, but in its enduring institutions of faith and tradition. The warriors for truth are multiplying. The task before Nigeria, the Sahel and Africa is to keep their ranks growing.

Senator Iroegbu is a security, geopolitics and development analyst. Email: senator.iroegbu@yahoo.co.uk

The Kano Model Comes of Age: Faith Leaders Become Africa’s Firewall Against Disinformation

Continue Reading

Trending

Verified by MonsterInsights