Only good governance can prevent coups – Gambari

Prof. Ibrahim Agboola Gambari served as Chief of Staff to former President Muhammadu Buhari from 2020 to 2023. Before then, he had served as the Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations from 1990 to 1999 and was Nigeria’s Minister of External Affairs during the military administration of Buhari. Reputed for holding the record […]

Prof. Ibrahim Agboola Gambari served as Chief of Staff to former President Muhammadu Buhari from 2020 to 2023. Before then, he had served as the Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations from 1990 to 1999 and was Nigeria’s Minister of External Affairs during the military administration of Buhari. Reputed for holding the record of the longest serving Nigerian Ambassador to the United Nations under five heads of state and presidents, the renowned diplomat offers insight into how Africa can overcome the problem of regime change, how Nigeria can resolve its diplomatic row with other countries, while reflecting on how similar issues were handled in the past.

 

You were honoured with an award in Angola recently. What does it mean to you?

It means a lot to me, even our country. Here is a country that was celebrating its 50th anniversary of independence and decided to honour three Nigerians – General Murtala Mohammed, Olusegun Obasanjo and myself.

For those following events at that time, Gen Murtala was the one who recognised the MPLA as a government and pushed for their admission into the African Union and made the famous speech, ‘Africa has come of age.’

• Farouk Ahmed, Aisha Buhari, Abaribe, Doguwa, Lai, Amupitan in the spotlight
• Rivers politics of glass houses and ceilings

There were pressures that the MPLA should not be recognised because they had links with Cuba and were communists, and all of that. But he said, ‘Africa has come of age. We’ve come to a situation whereby we must exercise our sovereignty and say this is what we want for Africa.’

Anyway, General Murtala Mohammed was stubborn about it, recognised the MPLA and pushed them to be accepted as a member of the then Organisation of African Unity (OAU). So they honoured him. His son and daughter were there to accept the honour. At the same event presided over by the president of Angola, they also honoured President Olusegun Obasanjo for continuing the policies of Murtala Mohammed and supplying them with the arms with which they helped to defeat the Portuguese and stave off South Africans, who were the legal regime in Namibia; also to consolidate their independence.

My humble self was third on the same occasion from one country because they gave me what they called the Peace and Development Medal, one of the highest honours for foreigners because I was the head of the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission in Angola; and as the head of the SRSG: Special representative of the secretary-general of the United Nations (UN), presided over the joint commission that brought the war between the MPLA and UNITA to a close. And no shot has been fired in violation of the ceasefire over which I presided.

For that, they gave me this national honour – three of us. At the end of it, we went to the longest, widest avenue in Luanda, the capital named after Murtala Mohammed, with the two offspring – the son and the daughter. I saw this, not just as a personal honour but an honour to our country; and in a sense, an honour to the United Nations because it was under its auspices that I presided over this joint commission.

 

With your experience as a political affairs under secretary in the UN, and the various missions you have led across Africa, what do you suggest should be done in the wake of the recent relapses to some of the challenges the continent thought it had overcome, like coups?

Recall that Africa was divided, even in the early period of independence in the 1960s. You had the Monrovia bloc, which was supposed to be more conservative, and the Casablanca bloc. The seed for the African Union (AU) was really sown in Lagos. From Lagos, it went to Addis Ababa, then became the AU.

Now, when the OAU transited into the African Union, it gained a required leadership, a few leaders in the continent. By that time, you had Gaddafi, Bouteflika, Thabo Mbeki, Mubarak, even Wade and Obasanjo, which, for want of a better word, I will call the coalition of the willing. They got together and said we must move. And the experience of Rwanda when, in 1994, one million people were slaughtered, came. That’s the most egregious violation of human rights – the right to life.

The United Nations would not allow interference in the internal affairs of member states. I was representing Nigeria in the Security Council. They would not even permit us to use the word, genocide. Because, if officially we used the word, genocide, according to the International Convention Against Genocide, the big powers were obliged to intervene to stop it. And the Americans, because of the experience in Somalia, where 17 soldiers were killed and dragged, said no American soldier would ever die in any internal African conflict.

 

So, they were not ready. We were only allowed to say that acts of genocide may be going on in Rwanda. The lesson is that unless we take our own matter seriously in the continent, the rest of the world will not solve it for us.

And so, the African Union, the protocol, the constitutive act of the African Union said there was no such thing as sovereignty and non-interference. When it comes to massive violation of human rights, we have to intervene. We will intervene, but it requires the leadership.

The instrument to have effective intervention, which is the African Stand-by Force, did not exist. It still does not exist. It was supposed to have been operational by 2015.

I was commissioned as an independent researcher to head a team of experts to look at the impediments for the operationalisation of this African Stand-by Force. You recall that there was supposed to be five regional brigades – West African Brigade, North African Brigade, East African, Southern African, Central and North African. It turned out that when we submitted our report, only West Africa had moved in the direction of operationalisation.

That’s why, even now, Nigeria refers to West Africa as a Stand-by Force; we are the most prepared to do so. The next prepared was East African Community, the third was SADC, the fourth Central Africa, the last is North Africa.

What are the issues? Financing; then interoperability of the equipment. And third, authorisation because you see, we had to sort out who could authorise the use of this Stand-by Force because the soldiers still take instruction from their commanders-in-chief at the national level, and transportation.

You will be surprised that only two or three countries in the whole of Africa have the capacity to airlift troops. Even when Nigeria was involved in ECOMOG, we had to use cargo planes to transport. They were not for that; I mean you had to put tanks and soldiers who are battle-ready; who upon landing, go into action.

ECOWAS is a bit more effective. Financing is not based on contributions; they put a percentage of the customs. So sometimes they even have more money they can use.

As a result of the percentage of the customs that goes to ECOWAS, there’s a lot more money it can use. So our president tends to withhold some of them and use for other purposes.

Africa is the richest in terms of mineral resources, natural resources, and we have the most arable land, among the most arable in the world. We are still importing agricultural products. So if we have more sovereignty and value added in terms of what is taken out of our continent, a proportion of that, there will be more revenue available for development in our individual country.

A proportion of that can also be earmarked for strengthening our institutions for defence for other interventions on behalf of peace, stability and progress.

Even now, there are only about six or seven countries that are really paying their dues in the African Union. Nigeria happens to be one of them. I remember that in our time, we used to even pay a year in advance, just to make sure the organisation functioned. But we have to think outside of the box.

 

What’s your perspective on what is going on in Sudan, DR Congo and other countries facing crises?

I was privileged, as you may have known, to be the head of peacekeeping, almost peace enforcement, called UNAMIS, United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur. It is the first of such international peacekeeping mandated by two organisations: the United Nations and the African Union. I was a joint special representative.

When I was there, I was presiding over 30,000 personnel – 19,000 soldiers, 9,000 police – the rest civilians.

It was the most expensive peacekeeping mission – $1.8 billion – the biggest and the only one jointly mandated. And it was for Darfur, which is just a province and region of Sudan. But we were effective in stopping and preventing a bad situation from getting worse. We were at the point where we were beginning to decongest the 19 internally displaced persons camps.

Now, why are people going to displaced persons camps? Their countries, their authorities cannot guarantee their security. They don’t provide social services and means of livelihood.

So, when we were asking that they should go back, we had to make sure that we enhanced security where they were running from, provide minimum social services, education and health, education for their children; and above all, a means of livelihood. I am saying this because that’s how we began to have relative peace in Sudan. But then, the mission was terminated.

Even Darfur that was relatively secure became insecure again. The root causes of the problems were not addressed, such as lack of water. What was available was poorly and unfairly distributed between the pastoralists and farmers – the kind of issues we were facing here in our country.

There’s something called the African Peer Review Mechanism. I was privileged to again be the chairman of the panel of eminent persons that reviewed countries – how they were doing in terms of governance. Not to punish anyone but to have the best practices.

Ultimately, when countries fail to provide this minimum data, you have problems, particularly in a continent with 70 per cent of the population under 30 years.

Take our country Nigeria for example; it is estimated that by 2050, we would be the third most populous country in the world. In my view, we should be having sleepless nights, worrying about the absence of plan in place.  How would we feed these people? How are we going to educate the children? Health services, food security, power, centralisation, employment, youth employment. As you and I know, our politicians are having sleepless nights, but only about who is going to be the next president in 2027, or maybe 2031. That’s what is preoccupying them.

We require planning and discipline. African peer review mechanism must become mandatory on every member state of the organisation. Thirdly, peace and security architecture must be reformed; and the African standby force must become operational as soon as possible.

The African continental free trade area is not off the ground, you know; and we must strengthen African institutions for peace, security and development. So, let’s at least start.

I am still looking forward to this coalition of willing on Africa as we had in the 1960s when we wanted to establish the OAU, as we had in the 2001, 2002 to transform OAU to the African Union. Now, we need a new wave of coalition of willing leaders to move us forward. And for Nigeria to become credible, we must also do at home what we are projecting abroad because foreign policy, as you know, is an internal projection of your values, strengths and priorities. Otherwise, you will not be credible. You cannot be preaching what you don’t practise at home. That’s my field.

 

Some countries have pulled out ECOWAS. When you look at how the whole thing started, would you say you are satisfied by the way it was handled by the body?

Well, first of all, I think we could have done better. Of course, it is easier said when you are outside than inside; but clearly, in foreign affairs, as a strategy you don’t use the last instrument first. And your last instrument must be credible.

I don’t believe we have exhausted all the processes of diplomacy; and I will be very frank with you. You had Buhari, the immediate past president who lived in Daura. Nobody ever approached him to ask what we were going to do about Niger. He was respected there. He had backed the strengthening of ECOWAS as an institution. If you remember, he supported President Jonathan as a special envoy in Mali. You have to use people who have the respect, who have the competencies, whose voice will be listened to. I don’t believe we exhausted all of that. Anyway, that is history. Three countries have left. In my view, they can leave ECOWAS but can they leave West Africa? I have said it openly.They are part of West Africa, and it is clear that the challenges of West Africa can only be addressed collectively. The progress we made with Boko Haram depended on the multinational task force.

It is a question of time. I believe they will return, but diplomacy must be employed because countries don’t like to lose face, particularly leaders whose legitimacy is not that yet consolidated. You know, they appeal to sentiment sometimes, but you have to approach that. And I believe it will be a question of time. We have to encourage them to come to the conclusion that the best way is to return to the family fold. You can choose your friends but you cannot choose your family. And those challenges can only be met effectively through collaboration and cooperation, just like the antidote to coup is more democracy, not less; global challenges, more multilateralism. This is my humble opinion – from many years of teaching this, studying this matter, practising it at the national and at the international level.

 

Nigeria moved swiftly to avert the coup in Benin. What is your view about the operation in another country?

First of all, it is not new. You would recall that ECOMOG was essentially a Nigerian thing. We had to disguise it by having the Ghanaians along. It was essentially under Nigerian leadership. But two things must always be recognised. First, whatever we do has to be in the context of ECOWAS. You see, if every country just decides on their own to intervene in the way we have done, not only now but in Sierra Leone and Liberia, it is going to be a chaotic world. You must have the legitimacy. You must legitimise your action. First, get a clear ECOWAS endorsement. And there’s a second dimension: The United Nations Security Council. According to the charter of the Security Council, it has the primary responsibility for international peace and security. So, their endorsement is very important.

We cannot just act as if we were the policemen and in isolation. So I am glad that they found some ways to obtain the endorsement, not only of the country concerned but also of ECOWAS. I don’t know whether the endorsement of the Security Council was obtained. They may not even think it was necessary, but it is important to legitimise it.

Regional and global legitimisation is very important. Having said that, the action itself is a deterrent to coups, but ultimately, the best deterrent is good governance in every country; otherwise you will be addressing the symptoms, not the cause of the disease because there can be a relapse.

And as you know, coup is a terrible thing. Once it is attempted, there is no guarantee that there would not be another attempt. The antidote to coup is more democracy in terms of good governance, not the abstract principle of Western model of democracy, but where people feel that this is their government, and there’s a process to change government, as well as respect for the constitution and the civil society.

You didn’t ask me this question but I am volunteering an answer. It is about the fear of one-party system in Nigeria. I am not afraid of one-party system because it has never worked, and it will not work in Nigeria, for two reasons. First, even with all the challenges of Nigeria, we are an open society because we are very diverse. You cannot silence different opinions in the country. It is impossible. Secondly, there are too many ambitious people whose ambitions cannot be accommodated in one party. But we must remember that if you don’t look at history, you continue to, as somebody said, be repeating history’s mistakes.

There was a time the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) was the dominant party. No, go back to First Republic and the NPC. There was a time they wanted to become the dominant party in Nigeria, made an alliance with a group in the South-West, but what was the end of that? The NPN boasted to be the superpower. The PDP said they would rule for 60 years. Where are they now? So, for me, globally, there was a time, you recall, that one party state was the in thing in Africa. So, there’s no future in one-party states in Africa or in Nigeria. What we should be worried about more is the political parties.

Our political parties need a lot of reform. They are not political parties, even in the old sense. The NPC, Action Group and the likes had membership cards. Members paid dues. There’s a process of selection of candidates to contest elections. We have to restore democracy within our political parties.

Right now, what we have is that you can be APC in the morning, PDP in the afternoon, then return to the APC in the evening and there’s no consequence, no eyebrows raised. Now, to me, we really need to pay more attention to our political parties because they are the vehicles under our constitution as you cannot run as an independent candidate.

We have to reform those vehicles for gaining power. In Ghana, for example, if you are elected under a platform and you change, you declare your seat vacant. So, there has to be consequences for people elected under one platform just going to another. When there is no consequence there is impunity; and it doesn’t make the exercise worthwhile.

 

The US president threatened to send troops to Nigeria over allegation of genocide, and Nigeria has sent delegations to explain. Do you think that in this particular case, Nigeria has utilised some of the resources it has in order to clear that issue?

The Hausa say Sarki goma, zamani goma that is, 10 different kings and 10 different ways of doing things. But one thing is clear: when you have issues you use the best of your talents and resources to address them.

Now, let me also tell you something that is not well known because it has been under the radar. President Buhari had two issues with the Americans by the time, I joined up as chief of staff. There was a hold on our attack helicopters. We paid money, but they would not give to us. Under their system, they put a hold onto whom American military equipment would be sold, added to all these human right violations.

Secondly, we were put on the list of Countries of Particular Concern. Buhari sent me as chief of staff and the NSA, Monguno, quietly to engage with the Americans. We went to the Congress, the State Department and the White House, under the radar quietly.

Well, the end result is that we got hold on the helicopters lifted, and we got removed from the list. Now, the circumstances, of course, are different, but at least the outcome is what we got. We are still on that list of Country of Particular Concern. And of course, the action taken to set up a working group involving the Americans and Nigerians is a good step, but it is not enough because as long as you are on that list, certain consequences follow. That’s what many people don’t realise. Certain consequences follow when you are on that list. Now, don’t forget also that this is an election cycle year.

I am a student of American politics, I studied there, I taught there. There’s a mid-term election coming. And it is usually issue-based. And the constituency of the current president includes the far-right, the Christian right.

Not to mention, of course, that there are still some elements in the Nigerian Diaspora feeding all kinds of things. Also, there are elements in our country feeding the narrative about genocide against Christians. But this is election period.

I don’t see us being removed from that list until after the mid-term elections. But be that as it may, I am just suggesting that you use various means of engagement so that you change the narrative and get us removed from that list. It is very important. What is on ground is not sufficient to get us removed.  But as I said, every administration has its own way of doing things and their own preferred people with whom to do it. Our national interest requires that we use all talents, all avenues, all means to get the objective.

 

How come Nigeria keeps helping other countries but doesn’t reciprocate the gesture? Should we continue in that direction?

We have to be concerned. The other dimension of your question is that it is not as if we are doing favours to these countries. We believe it is in our national interest. The second aspect is: What have we asked of those countries to which we have even made those contributions? I take the case of Liberia. Somebody challenged one of the presidents of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Serliff  Salif,  that “Nigeria did so much for you but the Americans and others are reaping the benefits.” She replied: “Did you ask? What did you ask us?” We didn’t ask. And you don’t get what you don’t ask for.

You have to put structures on ground that will take advantage of some of these things. It is like making a big investment and you go home and sleep. The investment will not give you dividends by itself; you have to follow it up.

There’s a separation between our political involvement and the promotion of our economic interest. That’s number one.

Number two, we are not doing that as a favour, we are doing it because we believe, and I still believe it is an international interest because you know we are a power in West Africa. Many of your domestic issues cannot be resolved except in cooperation and collaboration with them.

 

With your experience at the UN, what do you make of the current trend where, instead of multilateralism we are experiencing what looks like unilateralism, where countries are going into their shells?

The pendulum is swinging. You remember that at the end of World War II, the victorious powers, the pressure from the civil society and the international community was: Never again. Looking at the destruction of World War II and the Holocaust and the displacement of people, they came together to organise the United Nations based on the principle of unity – that the big powers would unite and establish this organisation based on multilateral cooperation – that no country, however big, rich or powerful, could address the issue of war and peace alone.

I must remind us that the United Nations was established to prevent war. If you look at the preamble of the United Nations, two things are significant: We the people of the United Nations, even though it is an intergovernmental organisation, but the charter talks about we, the people determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in the lifetime of the founding fathers, brought untold sorrows to mankind.

They also recognised that preventing wars is not enough to guarantee lasting peace; and therefore, in the spirit of multilateralism, established institutions, development institutions, the Bretton Woods Institution, IMF, World Bank, later on UNDP because they realised that to have durable peace, you also need sustainable development.

The third leg of multilateral cooperation symbolised in the UN was the issue of democratisation and respect for human rights. Democratisation in the sense that legitimacy comes from representativeness and free and fair elections so that the people decide under whose auspices they shall govern. Unfortunately, the Cold War followed and the world was divided into two major blocks – NATO Alliance and the Warsaw Pact.

Our prime minister, the late Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa said this brilliantly when we were admitted as the 99th member of the United Nations. In his address he said we would exercise our foreign sovereign rights to decide issues on merit in pursuit of our own interests, but also the common interests. But we should not automatically be expected to align with any of the power blocs.

Now, the Cold War ended in 1989 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, and there was the expectation that there would be a new world order, where the rules would be followed, a rule-based international system that would be best for all.

Following that, on the economic front, there is globalisation to integrate global economy for the benefit of all. Unfortunately, globalisation did not bring prosperity evenly within and between countries.

Then the rise of nationalism with leaders who say their countries first. The most extreme illustration of that was the MAGA in the United States, where President Trump popularises America first. Now, my own belief is that many of the problems and challenges the world is facing, there’s no way in which they can be solved without multilateral cooperation.

My expectation is that we should still hold fast to the importance and values of multilateralism and support strengthening multilateral institutions. But coming back home, it has to be reformed. The United Nations has to be reformed.

The IMF and World Bank have to be reformed because it was established in 1945 for a different circumstance. We cannot reform multilateral institutions if we don’t reform ourselves. That is why we have to reform the African Union. We have to reform ECOWAS. We have to reform our own internal situations, particularly our economy, our political system so as to be able to better address the challenges facing us as a country, as West Africa, Africans, and of course, the world.

 

Given the situation where member countries cannot pay basic obligations, can we call for a reform? 

Well, first of all, I think the financial crisis of the UN is nothing new. It may be a bit more extreme. The international community should not have a situation where one member contributes 22 per cent of the regular budget or 25 per cent of the budget for a peacekeeping operation.

Well, that’s very dangerous because that means that if that one country withholds its contribution, it threatens the whole. The expectation is that maybe close to 20 per cent to 40 per cent of the staff may have to go because the United States under President Trump has withheld its contribution. In fact, it is even worse because you see, when members contribute money, let’s say for 2025 and the money has not been exhausted by the organisation, what the UN does is to apply the unspent funds to dues for the next year. But President Trump said all those monies that have not been spent should be returned to the treasury.

So, in my view, the solution is to reexamine the whole structure of financial contribution such that one country should not be expected to pay that much. But member that states’ contribution is a fraction to the kind of things the UN does. We don’t do prevention as well as we should, but even peacekeeping, you know, is small. Last year at the General Assembly, the organisation adopted what they call a pact for the future. They are looking at the future of the United Nations. The UN itself, however, needs a lot of reform. The permanent members of the Security Council were those who won the last war.

By the time the UN was established, Africa had, I think, three members, you had the then-apartheid South Africa, Liberia, and I believe Ethiopia.

Now, Africa has the largest single regional bloc. We have about 54 members of the organisation, and yet our continent is the only continent with no permanent seat in the Security Council. So, the Security Council has to be reformed. The membership has to be expanded, both permanent membership and non-permanent categories. And Africa, because of the historic injustice of non-representation in one category, has to be addressed. To take advantage of this, the African Union itself needs to be reformed. Don’t forget that it was initially an Organisation of African Unity, where the major preoccupation was: end colonialism, end apartheid, promote unity.

Now, we have pretty much accomplished that, with the exception of only one colony left, which is Western Sahara. But otherwise, apartheid has ended, colonialism has ended.

The challenges are now more horrendous- terrorism, marginalisation in an era of globalisation, economic retardation, external debts. Now, all of these require that we have to be better organised. Fortunately, I am privileged to be one of the five so-called eminent independent experts appointed by the heads of states through the African Union Commission to look at the structure of the African Union and propose reform, which we have done. I was appointed from West Africa, Ambry Moussa, the former foreign minister of Egypt, former secretary general of the Arab League, and my former colleague as ambassador to the UN, representing North Africa. There was Mutessa, who was a former foreign minister of Uganda, representing Central Africa. You had the former deputy president of South Africa under Mbeki for Southern Africa. And the immediate past foreign minister of Chad, who was representing Central Africa. We have submitted our report, and the champion of the reform has been agreed upon by the leaders – President Ruto of Kenya. He is now going to take this recommendation with his own, of course, other refinements, to an extraordinary summit of the African Union, which was supposed to have happened last month, but it is been postponed.

ECOWAS itself has to be reformed because again, it is an economic community. It was supposed to be the pillar upon which an eventual African economic union or unity would be based. But then, because of the security threat, ECOWAS became synonymous with ECOMOG. But still, without ECOMOG and ECOWAS, there would probably be no Liberia today, probably no Sierra Leone as we know it today. It has achieved its purpose.

Now, the threat is about terrorism, unconstitutional change of government, environment. We have to see how ECOWAS would move from being just an alliance of presidents into a community of people.

We have to be proactive in terms of promoting good governance and as an antidote to coup d’etat and unconstitutional change of government, which undermines our countries. Before, West Africa was ahead of other regional economic communities in Africa.

We did peacekeeping and peace enforcement successfully. We had a protocol on good governance. We have to return and strengthen them. Right now, the contribution of African trade to our gross domestic products is minimum, to the percentage of our total trade with the world. The one we trade internally among ourselves is a very small percentage. That has to change.