By Iliyasu Gadu, Ilgad2009@gmail.com
08035355706 (Texts only)
One of the highlights of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent official visit to France was the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Nigeria and France to develop projects to promote and diversify the critical minerals value chain in the solid minerals sector.
In the MOU, both countries agreed to collaborate on research, training and Franco-Nigerian students exchange and the promotion of sustainable mining activities by executing projects and programmes that reduces the impact of mining on the environment. The MOU also includes opportunities for the remediation and rehabilitation of over 2,000 abandoned mining pits all over the country.
This sounds and looks good on paper. But the devil is in the details as the saying goes. And if both President Tinubu and Mineral Development Minister Dele Alake who signed the MOU on behalf of Nigeria are questioned by Nigerians over this deal, they should not be surprised.
The main question will be centred on France, a country that has an unsavoury history of relations indelibly etched in the consciousness African states including Nigeria. For good measure, as Presidents Tinubu of Nigeria and Emmanuel Macron of France were clinking glasses and proclaiming ‘’Vive la France et Nigeria’’ in the ‘’ Elysee,’’ the French Presidential Palace, and while Alake and his French counterpart were inking the deal, Chad one of the former colonies of France was also announcing its termination of long standing defence pact with it’s the latter. Chad became the latest former French colony to take this step joining the likes of Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali Guinea and Senegal in this respect.
As the years roll on, there is a great possibility that many of the former French African colonies would follow suit in due course. Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have not only revoked the presence of French forces stationed in their countries, they have terminated diplomatic and commercial relations with France. Included in this mass severance are the long standing agreements on mineral extraction concession with France, similar to the one signed just recently by Presidents Tinubu and Macron.
Against the background of these developments, the question to ask is: Did President Tinubu seek and get the strategic/security implication of the MOU with the French from the relevant national security/military agencies (NSA, Military Intelligence, NIA, and DSS)? Another question to ask is on the nature of the MOU? Does it include concessions to French companies and on what terms? Are there hidden provisions in the protocols that require the French to provide ‘’security’’ to the premises of the mining fields which could be used as cover to insert French military outfits like the ‘’Legionnaires’’ who will certainly pose challenges to our security forces?
Chief of Defence Staff, General Chris Musa, has sought to douse some of the concerns raised by Nigerians on the possible hidden military implications of the MOU. But reading carefully through his statement, one gets the impression that even the Nigerian military are nervy about this issue. The CDS’s statement on the issue said: ‘’No foreign body will establish any foreign military base in Nigeria, not in the north, not in the south, not anywhere.” This was both an emphatic assurance to Nigerians and the military which he heads, as well as a veiled warning to whom it concern on allowing such to surreptitiously happen. This time around, the CDS needed to talk like the military commander he is sworn to the constitution and not the pussyfooting military politician that people have made him out to be. He would most likely have been called to attention that this is a very sensitive issue with the Nigerian military and that the men and women under him would not take kindly to any agreement whatsoever that would by any stretch of imagination allow any foreign military to operate under any guise in Nigeria.
This has been the consistent position since 1963 when the military out rightly rejected proposals for a defence pact with Britain and the relatively recent attempts by the United States of America to get Nigeria to allow the stationing of its AFRICOM headquarters in the country. If the top military chief in the country could talk in such manner, it clearly indicates the necessary due diligence was not made with the military on the MOU. And it is a matter of certainty that every Nigeria man and woman of arms from the CDS down to the last private in rank would readily tell you justifiably that the number one foreign bête noire of the Nigerian military is the French.
This feeling is shared on a wider context in Nigeria. Many Nigerians will not forget in a hurry the role played by France before and during the Nigerian civil war in which millions lost their lives on both sides. They will also not forget that France has been consistently undermining Nigeria in the ECOWAS using its influence with the French speaking countries. Indeed the clearest example was when France scuttled the establishment of a common ECOWAS currency the ‘’Eco’’ by setting up another parallel currency with the French speaking countries.
Here in Nigeria especially in the Northern States, one will be hard put to convince the folks that France is not behind the intractable insurgency of Boko Haram and related terrorist activities that had ravaged the lives and livelihood of millions of the inhabitants of the area.
The signing of the MOU with France is viewed here with great suspicion because President Tinubu had a little over a year ago almost committed Nigeria to a war to an armed intervention to restore democracy in neighbouring Niger following the ouster of civilian President Mohammed Bazoum by the Niger Military. The feeling in the seven contiguous States in the Northern part of Nigeria which shares cultural and linguistic ties – from Kebbi to Borno – is that the MOU is a surreptitious move to allow France a military base to engage in destabilizing the Northern States and Niger.
Although The Presidency had absolutely debunked and rejected these allegations, many point out that where foreign mining activities take place, it is the norm that boots will be on ground to secure the sites. And these ‘’boots’’ will almost likely be either regular French soldiers or Legionnaires or some groups of military ‘’contractors’’ (read, mercenaries) linked with dotted reporting lines to the French military.
If Nigerians are suspicious about the MOU with France, it will be mainly because of the President’s proclivity to embark on policies of national import without proper consultation and due diligence. We have seen this on his economic policies which he did without thinking through the implications on the people and the country. The MOU, like other policies of the administration, looks like it was done for the purpose of achieving personal business interests at the expense of overarching national interest. Such is the level of distrust by Nigerians that the Tinubu administration is not given the benefit of the doubt on the just signed MOU.
Another dimension which was not probably taken into account in inking the MOU is the foreign dimension. The Anglo-Saxon nations of America and Britain would not likely look with favour upon the MOU. On the part of both, especially Britain, the MOU will be looked upon as an intrusion into the territory of Britain’s largest former colony by its old enemy France. I can hazard that in the coming months and years, the two nations would be working to scuttle the MOU or to pressure the president for their own separate deal. Accordingly, President Tinubu is hereby advised to brace up for the ripple effect of the possible fierce competition between the three on his administration going forward.
Iliyasu Gadu, a former Foreign Service Officer who served at the Nigerian Missions in Germany and the United Kingdom (UK), is a columnist with Daily Trust