I was caught unawares by the news that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), at its strategic and Extra-ordinary Summit on the Political Situation in Niger Republic, has resolved to besiege the neighbouring Niger with a military force.

In fact, I was in the league of the many Nigerians who had the courage to quickly scorch the supposed fake news so it does not fester and become a reality. The meeting, which reportedly convened under the auspices of Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, was attended by eight leaders of member countries and foreign ministers of Liberia and the Gambia. 

While Tinubu should be credited for his audacious leadership and fearless disposition in the face of the glaring threat to democracy in the annals of our African history, he should be informed of the limits to his powers, especially as it relates to his romance with the local legislature which had been constitutionally empowered to regulate his executive in delicate and critical periods as we currently are in Nigeria.

There is no gainsaying the fact that Tinubu is occupying a critical position of responsibility in the comity of our many African nations. In fact, his current position is a reason for an average Nigerian citizen to reclaim his lost pride as a subset of the most populous, giant and indefatigable West African country. 

Tinubu’s recognition as the leader of ECOWAS remains a blunt reinstatement of Nigeria as the spirit machine in the robotic African continent. We must continue to pray that he gets the maximum recognition due to Nigeria in the course of his leadership.

However, it must be put straight that Tinubu had the uncommon privilege of becoming the chairman of ECOWAS by virtue of his position as Nigeria’s president. The Nigerian presidency is a constitutional position. The occupier of a constitutional position should not behave in a way that tampers the entire body of laws recognising its validy. It is also worthy of special note that Tinubu’s loyalty to ECOWAS does not in any way override his loyalty to Nigeria.

I am not shocked at this critical step taken by ECOWAS. I also don’t think Tinubu should be directly or individually responsible for a consensus reached among the members of the Economic Community of West African States. As the chairman of ECOWAS, he could barely mask the responsibilities of a referee in a football match and not a dictator who calls the shots. While anybody would have expected him to preach peace by facilitating a diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Niger, the entire body of the international organisation is not under the burden to follow his path, even as the Chairman.

Tinubu has attempted to broker peace by initiating dialogues with the recalcitrant junta in Niger. The desperate junta, which appears to have been shielding its leader, Abdourahmane Tiani, from the reach of several delegations, will not also back down until it has instigated Nigeriens to defend their homeland in a bloody combat. Just yesterday, Nigerien youth were said to have formed a cluster of Vigilante groups. This was in a bid to fight any aggression from any of the opposing African countries.

ECOWAS, via its many delegations, has diplomatically engaged Niger. From Patrice Talon of Benin and Mahamat Deby of Chad to the delegation ably led by a former Nigerian Head of State, Abdusalami Abubakar, including Muhammad Sanusi. The stubborn military junta has refused to hearken to peace. The Abdusalami Abubakar’s delegation was reportedly prevented from entering Niamey, the capital of Niger. This was despite having as part of it a renowned Nigerian monarch, the Sultan of Sokoto. From the foregoing, it can be reasonably understood why ECOWAS had chosen the path of warfare.

But Tinubu cannot physically commit himself to this war. His hands are tied; his tongue is also twisted. Both cannot speak the same language at this critical time. While his tongue can utter a go-ahead, his hands cannot set a squadron in the field of bloody battle. He can only “siddon look.”

He has taken the path of honour by intimating to the National Assembly about the development in Niger. In his addressed information, he disclosed his intention to commit the Nigerian military to this collective West African battle. He requested “military build-up and deployment of personnel for military intervention to enforce compliance of the military junta in Niger should they remain recalcitrant.”

The Nigerian Senate was set on fire by the controversial request of President Bola Tinubu. There was an informed protest by representatives from the states bordering neighbouring Niger, which felt a war against Niger was capable of inviting trouble for their people. The war against Niger has also been predicted by thinkers to be one against Mali and other military-controlled countries. The recent visit of Vladimir Putin to Mali has attracted attention. Meanwhile, his favour had been curried by Nigeriens, who gloried on touting his name on the streets. 

The Senate invoked its powers under section 5 (4) of the Constitution by expressly resisting the suggested military intervention but diplomatic relations between both countries. The said legislative resolution was communicated to President Bola Tinubu. 

Section 5(4) of the Constitution says: “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section:-

(a) the President shall not declare a state of war between the Federation and another country except with the sanction of a resolution of both Houses of the National Assembly, sitting in a joint session; and

(b) except with the prior approval of the Senate, no member of the armed forces

of the Federation shall be deployed on combat duty outside Nigeria.”

While building upon the foundation of the earlier stated provision, subsection 5 states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, the president, in consultation with the National Defence Council, may deploy members of the armed forces of the federation on limited combat duty outside Nigeria if he is satisfied that the national security is under imminent threat or danger:

“Provided that the President shall, within seven days of actual combat engagement, seek the consent of the Senate and the Senate shall thereafter give or refuse the said consent within 14 days.”

In this situation, Nigeria cannot be said to be under any real or imminent threat, much less one that could warrant the jumping of the gun. A request had been addressed and had been turned down. President Tinubu cannot close his eyes to this glaring provision of the Constitution, which bars him from initiating any intervention in solidarity with ECOWAS. He can merely give his blessings to the declared military combat with Niger coupists. He is also permitted to support the move in his capacity as the president of ECOWAS and not as the Nigerian President. A mutiny against any further executive order in this regard is absolutely legal.

President Tinubu must always remember that he was elected in a democracy, not as a military administrator. He cannot initiate unconstitutional orders in a constitutional era and creation. The drafters of the Constitution are aware that matters of war are beyond what the Commander in Chief could think around alone; he is under the burden of brainstorming with the representatives of the people in the legislature. He should not overlook this clause, not even when he has shown himself to be aware of this provision by writing the Senate.

Tunde Akingbondere, an intern at the Falana & Falana Chambers, wrote in from Lagos