The Dilemma of ECOWAS on Niger Coup

The resolve of the Authority of Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of West African States to resort to the use of force to restore constitutional order in the Republic of Niger may be highly desirable, but insufficient to deter future military interventions, Gboyega Akinsanmi writes

This is a truly challenging period for African leaders with the increasing spate of military interventions. Since 2020, armed forces have truncated democratically elected governments in Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, and Sudan without much consequence. And the latest took place in the Republic of Niger on July 26, bringing the number of unconstitutional regimes to six on the continent. 

Four of the affected countries – Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali and Niger Republic – fall within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), an economic and political bloc of 15 sovereign states created in 1975. Comparatively, 26.7 percent of the ECOWAS members are now under the iron rules of military despots. 

The figure could have risen to 33.33 percent last Tuesday provided Sierra Leone’s arrested putschists succeeded in their own plot that could have further weakened democracies within the sub-region. But early detection and apprehension of civilian and military masterminds that attempted the overthrow of Sierra Leone’s constitutional regime prevented further descent into despotism within the sub-region. 

Unlike the previous ones, the latest coup elicited highly critical responses not just from the ECOWAS, but also from the AU, EU, France, Russia, the US and the UK. After the initial mission to convince the putschists to restore Niger’s democratically elected leader, President Mohamed Bazoum failed, ECOWAS conveyed an emergency summit on July 30 under the chairmanship of President Bola Tinubu. 

The summit obviously ended with far-reaching resolutions, which have now been a subject of debates in Nigeria and other countries in the sub-region. Beyond placing a series of grievous commercial, economic and financial sanctions on the Niger Republic, ECOWAS specifically declared: “In the event the Authority’s demands are not met within one week, take measures to restore the constitution in the Republic of Niger. Such measures may include the use of force. To this effect, the Chiefs of Defence Staff of ECOWAS are to meet immediately.” 

This particular resolution has raised diverse questions about the legality of resorting to the use of force without breaching the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs. As stipulated in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, this principle, which precludes member states of international institutions from undue interference in their domestic matters, largely defines inter-state relations at sub-regional, regional or global level.

But this is apparently different in the case of ECOWAS. All its member states agree to certain conditions within which the sub-regional institution can intervene, even militarily in the internal affairs of its member states. First, in the Article 1(c) of the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, all members collectively subscribed to zero tolerance to power obtained or maintained by unconstitutional means, which according to former Minister of External Affairs, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, coup d’etat is not only intolerable, but equally odious and repulsive within the bloc.

The oddity of putsch attests to the resolve of the ECOWAS members to ratify Article 3(h) of the ECOWAS Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peace-keeping and Security. Under this article, the sub-regional institution “can constitute and deploy a civilian and military force to maintain or restore peace with the sub-region, whenever the need arises.”

Under Article 25, lastly, the Protocol unambiguously defines six conditions within which ECOWAS can deploy “either civilian or military force.” The conditions include the event of an overthrow or attempted overthrow of a democratically elected government and the case of internal conflict that threatens to trigger a humanitarian disaster or that poses a serious threat to peace and security in the sub-region.

As a signatory to these Protocols, therefore, Niger Republic had consented that ECOWAS reserved the right to intervene in its domestic affairs under the specified conditions. The conditions, outlined under Article 25, provide indisputable justifications for the ECOWAS to deploy all measures necessary, even the use of force, to restore the democratically elected government in the Niger Republic.

But does the sub-regional institution have the political will to enforce its resolution if the leader of the Niger coup, Gen. Abdourahmane Tchiani fails to comply with the resolutions of the ECOWAS Authority within seven days? Experts in international affairs are divided not just about the political will to deploy force to restore order in Niger Republic, but also about the implication of such an action.

For this reason, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, University of Ibadan, Prof. Bunmi Ayoade advocated cautious optimism rather than rash militarism in response to the Niger crisis. For him, the time is not auspicious for kinetic approach due to its implication not just for West Africa, but also for Africa. Except in the case of Nigeria and Ghana, Ayoade doubted the capacity of the ECOWAS members to successfully carry out such an intervention without wider consequences on African peace and security.

Even though he believes Nigeria has the onus to get rid of unconstitutional regimes that threaten other democratically elected governments within the sub-region, Ayoade identified Nigeria’s internal fragility, which he ascribed to grievous economic and fiscal distortion that threaten citizens’ livelihoods, as a major constraint. With these highly contentious issues, he contended, the resolve of the Authority of the ECOWAS Heads of State and Government to resort to the use of force may be desirable, but not advisable at this time.  

Contrarily, Akinyemi trod an entirely different path from Ayoade’s argument. Rather, he justified the use of force, especially at a time when four of the 15 ECOWAS members have already fallen to unconstitutional regimes. Every policy, Akinyemi argued, comes at a cost as much as with benefits. But Nigeria has to weigh the cost of living with an unconstitutional government as a neighbour or employing all means – diplomatic, economic, political and even military – to save West Africa’s budding democracies. 

He acknowledged the significance of confronting vagaries of intractable challenges undermining its internal stability and national cohesion. He, however, contended that Nigeria had to re-assert its leadership in the sub-region through the explicit enforcement of ECOWAS Protocols anchored to the doctrine of the responsibility to protect.  

Nigeria, obviously with the support of its counterparts in the sub-region, is rapidly ramping up strategic responses that tilt towards kinetic measures. This became obvious after the ECOWAS Chiefs of Defence Staff met between Wednesday and Thursday and briefed its Authority about the necessity of fragile democracies within the bloc.

Now that a seven-day ultimatum has elapsed and the despots yet to embrace its resolutions, ECOWAS has intensified diplomatic interventions obviously to work out political solutions rather than military actions. It first deployed a high-level delegation to Niamey under the leadership of former Head of State, Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar to persuade the despotic regime against holding unconstitutionally to power.

The ECOWAS Authority, also, deployed another delegation to Libya and Algeria under the chairmanship of Amb. Babagana Kingibe to further discuss options before its members if the Niger despotic regime refused to embrace diplomatic solutions. While diplomatic interventions are being intensified within the bloc, President Tinubu has already communicated with the Senate about Nigeria’s resolve to intervene in Niger consistent with its commitment to the ECOWAS Protocols and Treaty.

With all these assertive responses being perfected at the sub-regional level, perhaps in collaboration with the international community, especially the AU and EU, despotic regimes in Niger, even in Burkina Faso, Guinea and Mali, will have to weigh options before them, especially at a time when the world condemned the Niger coup in absolute terms.   

If the ECOWAS Authority intervenes successfully, will this intervention be an end to future military interference within the sub-region? This question probes deeper into the roots of the return of the coup d’etat in Africa. Under democracies, as some experts have argued, people have not been able to meet their aspirations, hence the quest for an alternative system. 

Like its West African counterparts, for instance, hunger is a fundamental challenge in Nigeria Republic. In 2022, Global Hunger Index ranked it 115th of the 122 countries afflicted with chronic hunger. Besides, as shown in the 2022 Corruption Perception Index, Niger is classified with the world’s fantastically corrupt nations. 

The country’s infectious corruption syndrome has aggressively driven the poverty index to as high as 77.2 percent of its 24.2 million population, most of whom daily live on humanitarian assistance. It has equally infected the country’s transition process, which Ayoade argued, was most times violently hijacked by the ruling elite and its outcomes often predetermined against the will of the people.

Coupled with its gravely debilitating internal security dynamics, all these grievous conditions are not peculiar to Niger Republic alone. They are disturbingly enduring trends in nearly all countries in West Africa, especially those now under the control of unconstitutional regimes. They are also commonplace in most African states including Cameroun, Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Somalia and Sudan  

As justifiable as the use of force may be right now, Ayoade cautioned against a situation whereby military intervention might degenerate into military interference, thus leading to the violation of the sovereignty of Niger Republic. Nevertheless, according to most experts, such an action will not eventually be a deterrence to future military interference as envisaged if the roots of social injustice, economic doldrums and political prejudice are not decisively addressed.