Demolition of Nigeria’s High Commission in Ghana: Diplomatic Obligation versus Diplomatic Rascality

By Bola A. Akinterinwa

Demolishing the fence surrounding the official residence of Nigeria’s High Commissioner to Ghana, in order to gain further access to the land behind it and destroying the new residential building under construction by the Nigeria High Commission, which is still within the residential diplomatic premises of Nigeria’s High Commissioner, is not simply a violation of diplomatic convention. It is even more than a crime. And true enough, it raises the fundamental issue of political governance in Africa, which has to be more constructively addressed if regional and continental integration is to be meaningful.

The mania of political governance in Africa is largely responsible for its development setbacks, and particularly why the quest for both regional and continental integration cannot but remain a recidivist dream in the long run, in spite of the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing an African Economic Community. Political governance in Africa cares little about public complaints. In Nigeria, for example, public complaints always fall on the deaf ears of public servants. Public Service is only efficient when instructions are given from above. Civil and public officers, in most cases, do not freely and responsibly work. This situation is what obtains in many African countries.

This, without any jot of doubt, appears to be one of the reasons for the very reckless destruction of Nigeria’s High Commissioner’s residence in Accra, Ghana, on Friday, 19th June, 2020 at about 10.45pm. The destruction was very reckless because it was consciously carried out. Besides the Government of Ghana cannot rightly claim not to know about the construction and existence of the mission house. It cannot also claim not to know about complaints by one Ghanaian businessman who is also laying claim to the ownership of the land on which the Nigerian Mission residence is being constructed.

Put differently, there is a public complaint to the Government of Ghana. The Government has not promptly responded. The complainant simply took the law into his hand by simply taking a bulldozer to the Nigerian Mission in desperate anger and in violation of the diplomatic obligations prohibiting the violation of any diplomatic premise in whatever circumstance.

It is important to have a clear understanding of what is meant by a diplomatic mission at this juncture. A diplomatic mission answers different names in different settings. Missions exchanged between and among Commonwealth countries are called High Commissions and their Principal Representatives are addressed as High Commissioners. In the Francophone setting, they are called Hauts Représentants (High Representatives). In the context of the Vatican or the Holy See, they are referred to as Apostolic Nuncio or Papal Nuncio, in short, as Nuncios. But, in general diplomatic tradition, they are all ambassadors, but naming also varies according to ranking. If Nigeria exchanges a diplomatic mission with a non-Commonwealth country, Nigeria’s Principal Representative is called an Ambassador.

More important, in the context of the current demolition of Nigeria’s Mission in Accra, it is also useful not to confuse the international meaning of a Diplomatic Mission which is also popularly called an embassy. A normal embassy is composed of three structures: the Chancery, the Residence, and all the operational instruments or means at the disposal of the Mission to function.’ The Chancery is the office for general administration. the Residence refers to the quarters officially recognised by the receiving State as living place of accredited diplomats. Operational means and instruments include vehicles, communications equipment, furnishing, etc.

What is particularly noteworthy here is that they are all subsumed under the designation of an embassy to which the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations applies. Consequently, when we talk about demolition of Nigeria’s Embassy in Accra, it is not the chancery that is affected, but the Residence. With this clarification, we can now discuss the very reckless destruction of Nigeria’s diplomatic residence within the general context of Nigeria-Ghana relations to begin with.

Unfriendly Ties as Background
Nigeria’s relationship with Ghana is defined by bilateral constraints, plurilateral obligations and multilateral suspicions. At the bilateral level, the constraints are largely derived from their common colonial inheritance: English as common lingua franca, common educational system, some common cultural affinities, etc. The factor of common lingua franca and educational backgrounds make it possible for Ghanaians to teach in many schools in Nigeria which used to have more and better employment opportunities.

Besides, there are the factors of highlife music and football competition matches for which both countries were and are still well known. They are factors for improving ties and also straining the relationship. However, rivalry, though a healthy one, has not prevented the many strains and constraints in the relationship, especially under the administration of Alhaji Shehu Shagari in 1983 when the ‘Ghana Must Go’ saga was in vogue. By that time, Ghanaians residing in Nigeria were held responsible for Nigeria’s societal ills, particularly armed robberies and they were declared persona non grata.

Perhaps more interestingly at the bilateral level is the issue of assaults on commercial shops owned by Nigerians in Ghana. In August 2018 and June 2019, shops belonging to Nigerian businessmen were attacked and destructively looted. In every attack and looting, the Government of Ghana never failed to announce that the culprits would be brought to justice, but such announcement or punishment, if any, has not in any way prevented subsequent attacks and reckless looting.

In fact, the Inter-governmental Task Force, comprising representatives from the National Security, Immigration, the Ministry for Interior, Ghana’s Standard Authority, Ministry for Trade and Industry, Ghana Police Service and Ghana Union of Traders Association, arrested 37 Nigerians and closed down ten shops allegedly for paper irregularities in the Tip-Toe Lane, which is the biggest sales point for telephones and computer accessories in Ghana. As reported in The Punch of July 18, 2019, Honourable Abike Dabiri-Erewa had it that 994 Nigerians had been deported from Ghana to Nigeria in the previous eighteen months, that is, between January 2018 and June 2019.

And most importantly, there is the 1994 Ghanaian law enacted to protect Ghanaian traders to the detriment of foreigners. The law provides that only capital-intensive foreign businesses, with the minimum of $300,000 capital outlay and having the capacity to employ not less than ten Ghanaians, should be allowed to open shops or remain in business. In light of this law, several Ghanaians have been pressurising their Government to implement the law. In fact, Ghanaians want the shops of all foreign petty traders completely shut. This clearly shows that the relationship at the bilateral level has been frosty in various ways.

At the plurilateral level, the ECOWAS, there is the influence rivalry. Ghana acceded to national sovereignty on March 6, 1957, at least, three years before Nigeria did on October 1, 1960. As such, Ghana had been playing active parts, and well known, in international relations before Nigeria began to do so. When Nigeria began to engage in influence politics, the foreign policy interests of the two countries also began to conflict. The first case in point was the Casablanca school of thought, which was championed by Ghana and which advocated a political approach to the making of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in the early 1960s.

In opposition to this Casablanca school of thought is that of the Nigeria-led functionalist school, which underscored the need to have African leaders, first of all, lay the foundations for political unity. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana argued that there should be political unity first, that is, United States of Africa, and all other things shall follow. The Nigerian school, also referred to as the Monrovia school, did consider that many African countries had just gained their flag independence and therefore needed time to, first of all, stabilise before anything else. In all, the Monrovia school eventually prevailed, but the underlying animosity between Nigeria and Ghana has not been easily thrown away into the dustbin of history.

At the multilateral level, the nature of the relationship is not far-fetched to understand. It is predicated largely on suspicions and friendly enmity. We can conveniently discuss the current saga of demolition of Nigeria’s Mission in Accra from the perspective of the multilateral diplomatic agreement done in Vienna, Austria in 1961.

Vienna Convention’s Obligations
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was adopted on 14 April 1961 by the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities which took place at the Neue Hofburg in Vienna, Austria. The Convention entered into force on 24 April 1964. The quick ratifications and entry into force of the agreement are explainable by the importance attached to the Convention and the need to quickly have it in operation. Currently, not less than 192 countries are party to the Convention. Ghana signed the Convention on 18 April 1961 and ratified it on 28 June 1962. Nigeria signed the agreement on 31 March 1962 and ratified it on 19 June, 1967.

The immediate implication of the foregoing is that the Vienna agreement creates obligations for all its adherents. But what are these obligations in the context of the reckless destruction of Nigeria’s diplomatic mission in Accra? It is against these obligations that the international responsibility of Ghana shall be explicated hereafter.
Article 21 paragraph 1 requires Ghana to ‘either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State, of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way.’ Paragraph 2 of the same article requires Ghana to ‘also, where necessary, assist missions in obtaining suitable accommodation for their members.’

What should be noted here is the need to differentiate between an existing and yet-to- exist accommodation. Article 21 is about a yet-to-exist accommodation in which case the Government of Ghana is still obligated to facilitate the acquisition of it and also ensure its protection.

The protection is more emphatic in Article 22 of the Convention. As noted in its paragraph 1, ‘the premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the Head of the Mission.’ A receiving State is one that hosts an accredited mission from a sending State. In this regard, Nigeria is the sending State while Ghana is the receiving State. Thus, Ghana is prohibited from entering Nigeria’s mission unless with the express permission of Nigeria’s High Commissioner to Accra. And perhaps more interestingly, if the agents of the Ghanaian authority are not enabled by international law to enter into Nigeria’s diplomatic mission without express permission, therefore forcefully entering it and engaging in the destruction of an internationally protected premise cannot but be very bizarre.

According to paragraph 2 of the Article, ‘the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the Mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the Mission or impairment of its dignity.’ What is again noteworthy here is the ‘special duty’ of Ghana to protect Nigeria’s Mission against any intrusion, prevent its damage and disturbance of it.

Apart from the physical structures, paragraph 3 of the Article also has it that ‘the premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the Mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.’ This simply means that the protection of a diplomatic mission is holistic in character. What is particularly quite gladdening is that the Government of Ghana has not denied these obligations and has even come into the open to condemn the atrocities of its own citizens.

As recognised in a press release issued by the Government of Ghana on Saturday, 20th June, 2020, ‘it has come to the attention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration that unidentified Individuals had allegedly breached the premises of the Nigeria High Commission in Accra and demolished its property under construction around 10.30 pm on Friday, 19th June, 2020.’ More important, the Ministry views, with concern, this development which is a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.’ Accordingly, investigations are ongoing to unravel the facts of the matter and bring the perpetrators to book. Meanwhile, the Government of Ghana has beefed up security at the said facility and the situation is under control.’

Even though the Ministry regrets the incident and assures the diplomatic corps, and particularly Nigeria, of Ghana’s strong belief in the rule of pacta sunt servanda, the press release is still most unfortunate. First, the obligation created by the Vienna Convention is to prevent, or act before intrusion, which is more important than acting after intrusion or seeking to punish. In other words, application of wisdom should be before, and not after, action.

The demolishers came with armed security men. They also threatened the Mission’s security men, as well as the embassy personnel on ground. For the many hours of demolition, the Ghanaian security post nearby reportedly feigned ignorance of the incident, in spite of the heavy noise of the bulldozer. Even when the Ghanaian security people came to the premises, they only exchanged pleasantries with the demolishers and left. Consequently, the position of the Ghanaian authority is more criminally, it is, in fact, serious than claiming diplomatic illness as an excuse.

Secondly, there are official documents relating to Nigeria’s acquisition of the land through the official due process. The land on which the mission house is being built was duly paid for. Required charges were duly paid for and government stamps are on them. It is therefore very difficult for any governmental authority to claim that it is not aware about the crisis, especially that the demolisher said he had complained to the Government of Ghana but his complaints had been to no avail.

It is useful to also recall here that many have been the cases of government’s allocation of land belonging to private citizens who would not only come to protest against it but would also go to the extent of vandalising whatever structure was put on the land. It has always been the rule of the jungle by the citizens, but Government has not addressed this mania of public protest generated by its allocation policy.

It is, indeed, the remissness of the Government of Ghana that prompted the demolisher to take the law into his hands and seek the forceful possession of his purported land. In other words, the demolition is a resultant from complaints by a Ghanaian citizen to the Government, but without response, that is responsible for the hullaballoo and this is how and why the international responsibility of Ghana has to be raised for special scrutiny and attention.

Ghana and International Responsibility
Ghana has officially apologised, ordered an investigation, arrested two suspects and has pledged to give justice a chance. In a press statement issued on 19th June, 2020 by the Honourable Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Mr. Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey, revealed, after investigation of events that led to the demolition, that ‘The High Commission of Nigeria truly has a genuinely issued letter number SCR/CS/74/v 2/5 of 7th August, 2000 which granted the Nigeria High Commission allocation and right of access to ‘a 4-acre parcel of land in the Accra Osu Mantse layout.’ The High Commission duly paid for the allocation but the ‘Land Title Certificate had not been issued to the High Commission.’

More important, the Ghanaian Minister also made it clear that a letter number AC14826 of 4th July, 2019 written by the Regional Lands Officer was sent to the Nigerian High Commission informing that the Osu Stool, which owns the land and which is being managed by the Regional Lands Officer, wanted to grant a lease in respect of a part of the said land to a third party. However, the Nigeria High Commission never responded to the letter up till now. As a result, ‘based on the silence of the High Commission of Nigeria, the Lands Commission went ahead and issued a Land Title Certificate covering the said parcel of land to a third party. This is the first background against which the analysis of the international responsibility should be carried out.

The other background, which is more important, is the pledged undertaking by the Government of Ghana, according to which it will make a redress: inform the Osu Traditional Council about the genuineness of the allocation of the land in 2000 to the High Commission; issue a Land Title Certificate to the Commission; expedite action on further investigations regarding the demolishers; and request the Commission to make quick efforts to obtain a building permit since it never had one before it began construction of the demolished building. And most interestingly, Ghana has indicated preparedness to make repairs and restore the building to its status quo ante.

Put differently, the Ghanaian government has recognised that it is internationally liable for the wrongful act of its citizens and has completely doused the tension at the level of crisis by preventing the escalation of the problem and apologising to Nigeria. However, and without any whiff of doubt, the demolition of the fence of the diplomatic residence of Nigeria’s High Commissioner in Ghana is not a crime per se, but a derelict, for which the state and international responsibility of the Ghanaian government cannot but be raised. Destroying the fence to gain access to the backyard and also demolishing another residential building under construction raises the issue of Ghana’s administrative lapses, remissness and irresponsibility. And most unfortunately too, it points to Nigeria’s diplomatic myopia and rascality: how can a piece of land be purchased in 2000, well receipted for, and in 2020, more than 19 years after, no title has been given? What prevented a reminder from the Mission? When the High Commission was informed that the land already paid for would be resold to a third party and the High Commission was required to present the documents at its disposal, what prevented a response? And true enough, what civil servants do in Nigeria is what they export to Ghana: diplomatic rascality and braggadocio, always rhetorically reacting to foreign threats without a programmatic foreign policy in place. Most unfortunate! Lessons from the Ghana saga must be learnt, especially in terms of foreign policy making and implementation. The culture of prompt response to public enquiry must be developed.