By Bola A. Akinterinwa
The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) was first established in 1961 as an independent and non-profit making research institution. The NIIA, as an idea, was conceived by Dr. Kenneth Onwuka Dike, who wanted an institute like the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London and like the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. The conception predated Nigeria’s independence on October 1, 1960. As we have noted elsewhere, the cardinal objective of all the founding fathers was self-education and making Nigeria relevant in world affairs, particularly in Africa (vide ”The Problems of the NIIA, ThisDay, 24 May, 1999 and Bola A. Akinterinwa, Nigeria in the World: Issues and Problems for the Sleeping Giant (Lagos: Pumark, 2001, pp. 815-818).
In the strong belief that one cannot give what he does not have or that one must first be informed before seeking to inform others, the founding fathers sought self-education first. This was the basis of seeking an institute that could serve as a laboratory for the exegesis of international affairs. In the words of Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, ‘if Nigeria is to acquaint herself honourably and to take her rightful place in Africa, she requires to be fully informed on the world of today, which is one of the paramount functions of the Institute.’
And perhaps more relevantly, the third and best Director of Library the NIIA ever had, Mr. Gboyega Banjo, also drew attention to the main objectives of the All-Nigerian People’s Conference, held in Lagos on August 19-21, 1961, which was ‘to ascertain and assemble views of all shades of opinion in Nigeria in respect of ways and areas whereby Nigeria can play an effective role in African Affairs.’ In this regard, Mr. Banjo has it that a ‘Research Institute Committee’ was not only created at the 1961 conference, but was also ‘the first in the list of eight working committees set up by the Conference.’
Thus, the importance attached to the need for an institute of international affairs was evident. In fact, in the period from 1961 through 1973, the NIIA was given an annual subvention of £30,000 even before it was taken over by the Federal Government on August 18, 1971 in an Act of Parliament of 1971 (CAP) 311. The 1971 Act sets very clear objectives for the NIIA which the various Management committees have promoted in different ways. Professor Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi is on record to have been the most astounding Director General of the NIIA in terms of development and protection of the NIIA mandate.
Most unfortunately, however, while the Governing Council put in place by Government to assist in the achievement of the Institute’s mandate was very useful in some cases, it was a disaster in some others. The very case of the Governing Council under the chairmanship of Major-General Ike Nwachukwu was the most destructive and disastrous. His Council laid the foundation for the destruction of the NIIA as it is today, in terms of protection of the mandate, discipline and excellence. It is against this background that the efforts at repealing and re-enacting the 1971 NIIA Act should be explained and understood.
The 1971 NIIA Act
The Act established the NIIA with a 3-point mandate and a 5-tactical strategy for achieving the objectives of the Institute. The first mandate is ‘to encourage and facilitate the understanding of international affairs and of the circumstances, conditions and attitudes of foreign countries and their peoples.’ This mandate is not simple as it appears. There are many operational words that should be well understood in their appropriate contexts. Seeking the understanding of international affairs is very consistent with the initial objectives of the founding fathers: self-education of the founding fathers, and particularly of the policy makers, in order to be relevant in the conduct and management of African affairs. And true enough, the notion of self-education necessarily applies to the generality of the Civil and Public Service.
Additionally, the NIIA is to ‘encourage’ and ‘facilitate.’ Encouragement requires an intellectual leadership and direction, as well as ability to sustain an effort or an objective. Facilitation is about implementation of strategic objectives made easy. It requires technical support, managerial skills, commitment and adequate funding. By talking about circumstances, conditions and attitudes of foreign countries, the mandate is simply requiring the NIIA to articulate the dynamics of the attitudinal dispositions of foreign countries to enable the Government and people of Nigeria understand and determine how to respond to them. And perhaps more importantly, the mandate talked about international affairs, not about international relations, not about international studies and not about international law, all of which have different intellectual scopes, dimensions and connotations.
International relations deal essentially with relations between sovereign states at the bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral levels. Relations, in this regard, cover a gamut of sectors: trade; cultural exchanges; cooperation, be it scientific, socio-economic or politico-military; development assistance; etc.
International Studies deal with the academic approaches to the study of international relations, especially in terms of methodologies, theories, hypotheses, etc. They are about research programmes. International law is about the codification of customs. It is about rules and regulations, about the Law of Nations that regulates the attitudinal disposition of all sovereign States, whether or not they are members of the United Nations Organisation. Essentially, international lawyers are interested not simply in understanding the nature and codification of laws, but particularly in also ensuring and investigating the extent of compliance with international law by States.
All these disciplines are still different from international affairs, which are specifically about international questions. A given bilateral or plurilateral or multilateral issue can fall under international affairs. For examples, climate change, globalisation, terrorism, Covid-19 pandemic, denuclearisation, global peace and security, etc, are international questions that fall within the classification of international affairs which are scientifically studied. Thus, if the first mandate requires the encouragement and facilitation of the understanding of international affairs, the challenge is à priori, the articulation of issues that constitute international affairs, at any given time of research inquiry. The NIIA must, therefore, find out the dynamics of such issues and how they relate to Nigeria’s foreign policy. This is the true meaning of NIIA’s first mandate in this regard.
The second objective is to ‘promote and maintain means of information upon international questions’ and ‘promote the study and investigation of international questions by means of conferences, lectures and discussions, and by the preparation and publication of books, reports, or otherwise as may seem desirable, so as to develop a body of informed opinions on world affairs.’
There are three main instructions in this second objective: the need to investigate international questions through conferences and lectures, etc; need to develop a body of informed opinions on world affairs; and the need to maintain a means of information about research findings on international questions as may be demanded.
What is noteworthy about this second objective is its nexus with the first objective, and that is the emphasis placed on international questions, which are basically synonymous with international affairs. As provided in this second objective, the NIIA is to ‘promote the study and investigation of international questions.’ While the NIIA is required in objective one to facilitate the understanding of international affairs, the second objective requires the provision of means of information on the problematic or questions about international affairs to be discussed in conferences, lectures, etc. It is therefore not surprising that the third objective requires the NIIA ‘to establish contacts with other organisations with similar objectives,’ in addressing the various international questions to be identified. Put differently, the NIIA is required, in this regard, to share its research findings and outcome of its investigative activities with other similar institutions, at home and abroad, for the purposes of better understanding. The founding fathers, simplicita, were much interested in knowledge-sharing.
As regards the 5-tactical strategies, the NIIA is required to provide the outcome of its scientific study, which was then limited to international politics, economics and jurisprudence, to Government and people of Nigeria; provide facilities for the training of Nigerian diplomats and personnel and those of other countries; study all aspects of international affairs; organise international seminars and conferences from time to time; and engage in whatever is deemed necessary in attaining the objects of the Institute.
Thus, the 1971 Act provides for both national and international seminars and conferences on all aspects of international affairs and also for the research outcome to be made known, not only to the Government, but also to the generality of the people of Nigeria. The immediate implication of this provision is that professional journalists and independent researchers need not beg the NIIA Research Fellows before they could be assisted with the provision of information. In fact, it is fundamentally wrong for any Director General of the NIIA, as some of them had done in the past, to refuse to grant interview to journalists or prevent any NIIA Research Fellow from assisting the public, and particularly the journalists, who are constitutionally granted power to monitor political governance on behalf of the people of Nigeria.
In sum, how are the objectives of the Institute to be re-enacted in the bill sponsored by the Chairman of House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rt. Hon (Dr.) Yusuf Buba Yakub? What prompted the bill? When I, as Director General of the NIIA, took the initiative in 2014 to have a bill for the purposes of repeal and re-enactment of the NIIA 1971 Act, why was it frustrated by the Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council? Why was there no interest then and there is now much interest in the bill? This is one of the manifestations of the conscious destruction of the NIIA and the unpatriotic killing of Nigeria softly.
NIIA Destruction and Act Re-enacting
Let me begin with the initiative I took by inviting Honourable Dayo Bush Alebiosu to assist in doing the needful before informing the Governing Council chaired by Major General Ike Nwachukwu. Honourable Alebiosu was the pioneer Chairman of the House Committee on Treaties and Agreements. The NIIA, by law, was and still is, the depository of Nigeria’s international, and particularly ECOWAS, documents. This factor provided an opportunity for me to collaborate with him and to seek the possible repeal and re-enactment of the 1971 NIIA Act.
And true enough, efforts were strenuously made to prepare a preliminary report for the NIIA Governing Council for consideration and possible approval. For obvious reasons of conflicting interests – my strong opposition to turning NIIA professorship into a negotiable commodity in the market by the Council; my opposition to ethnic chauvinism in the Institute, etc – not much could be done to make progress. Even when Honourable Alebiosu was succeeded by Honourable Balogun, a former Head of Service in Lagos State, not much could be advanced.
The important point here is that the initiative was basically to translate the mandates of the NIIA into action. My objective was also to make the NIIA the coordinating epicentre of all foreign policy research activities in Africa. Before my appointment as Director General of the NIIA on November 16, 2010, the Institute had six international academic exchange programmes in its many decades of existence. By the time I left the Institute on November 30, 2015 the number was increased to eleven. The NIIA was actively engaged nationally and internationally without iota of gainsaying or scintilla of bragggadocio.
Put differently, the NIIA, as an arm of government and under the supervisory authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, needed to support foreign policy more constructively and beyond the theoretical teachings in the universities. I considered the need for training, particularly in the area of physiognomy, which was not known to be taught in any of the international relations programmes in our universities. How are presidential speeches written? What are note verbales? How are they written and presented as a matter of principle and protocol? Protocols of presentation of Letters of Credence on the basis of country-to-country, national and international orders of precedence, the ethics of professional rapporteurs in international relations, official and working languages of the United Nations, how to write executive reports, interpretation and translation skills for reporting diplomatic news, food and conference diplomacy, complimentary card diplomacy, invitation card diplomacy, dressing diplomacy, how to write post-graduate dissertations, art of diplomatic negotiations, etc, were some of the subjects I believed and listed should be taught by NIIA Research Fellows and invited scholars at the institute.
In essence, the cardinal focus then was to teach diplomacy in practice to complement the theoretical dimensions given in the tertiary institutions, by particularly taking advantage of the ARCAN (Association of Retired Career ambassadors of Nigeria) members as major resource persons. In fact, it was to introduce the Foreign Service Officers to multicultural diplomatic practices of all countries of the world in such a way that any Nigerian diplomat posted abroad would be an epitome of a complete diplomat per excellence.
While the founding fathers also conceived the NIIA as a World Institute in Africa, an African Institute in Nigeria, and a Nigerian Institute in Lagos, I tried to give meaning to this by seeking, not only to make the NIIA a leader and centre of excellence in Africa, but also to ensure that it constituted a school of thought in the global context, in such a way that the history of global research in the field of international relations could never be made complete without reckoning with the NIIA school of thought.
This objective could not be made possible without first repealing the 1971 NIIA Act. This was the dynamic of the preliminary efforts I made for engaging the services of Honourable Dayo Bush Alebiosu. However, my objectives of an NIIA that would be second to none in the world, beginning from Africa, were directly in conflict with those of Major General Ike Nwachukwu and his Council Members, who, at best, were very selfish. Their interest was always money and money, due process and due process, queries upon queries but all to no avail. Most unfortunately, truth is constant. The untold bitter truth was their non-involvement in the construction of a new conference centre, which I carved out from the existing Director General’s building, thanks to the active support of Dr.Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, then Minister of Finance and Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru, then Foreign Minister. I have been waiting patiently since 2015 to be accused of any act of serious misconduct arising from any non-compliance with due process.
Another bitter truth was that there was nothing the Ike Nwachukwu-Council did not do, especially while General Nwachukwu was away for about one year convalescing in the United States and Ambassador Pius I. Ayewoh had to act for him. In fact, the ambassador really bastardised the NIIA ‘ambassadorially’ and with reckless abandon. The whole story is not for now and not yet for this column. Threats were then jokingly given that my tenure would not be renewed, as if my life depended solely on being a Director General. I never gave it a damn.
The sponsoring of members of staff to protest and taint my name was to no avail because I won the four cases I brought against them in the law court. In all cases, I stood my ground in love for my country and in loyalty to the Government. By that time, however, I never knew, in spite of my educational background that it was wrong to be patriotic, to be honest and hard working in Nigeria. I still maintain these values of patriotism and honesty of purpose simply because of biblical injunctions. This is why I still have the courage to come out and give the original background to the efforts being made to repeal and re-enact the 1971 NIIA Act.
The Ike Nwachukwu-led Council cannot deny my claim. In my report to Mr. President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari, the matter was also noted. If the matter is raised here now, it is first of all to set the record straight by providing the genesis of initial efforts to have the bill and to prevent the distortion of history in the near future. And most importantly, it is also to note that repealing and re-enacting of the 1971 Act may not be enough, unless efforts are first made to remove the foundations of destruction laid by Major General Ike Nwachukwu’s Council. The new Act, though very commendable and inspiring, cannot but be a new wine in an old bottle with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs still remaining the mother of all NIIA’s problems. The Foreign Ministry is the old bottle.
The New Bill
The new Bill is entitled, ‘An Act to Amend the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs Act, CAP.N113 of the Federation of Nigeria, to Broaden the Scope and Functions or Responsibilities of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs to Add More Value to the Foreign Mission and for Related Matters, 2021.’ The notion of Foreign Mission can be ambiguous: consideration of the NIIA as a foreign mission? NIIA as a research institution with foreign mission? Nigeria’s accredited mission abroad?
If, as conceived by the founding fathers, the NIIA is a global institute in Africa, an African institute in Nigeria and a Nigerian Institute in Lagos, the NIIA can be rightly, but technically, considered a foreign mission. The problem, however, is that a foreign mission is necessarily accredited by a sovereign State to another sovereign State. Such a mission also necessarily falls under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The NIIA does not, and cannot, fall under this category. As a research institute with foreign mission responsibilities, the NIIA fits in well into this classification.
As told by Nkem Anyata-Lafia, the Special Adviser to Rt. Hon. Yusuf Buba Yakub, the bill ‘seeks to add more value to Nigeria’s foreign missions and service and to also provide for the power to conduct courses of instruction and learning by creating an Academic Board to award higher degrees and diplomas in both international relations and diplomatic studies.’ More important, ‘when fully passed into law, the new Act… will broaden the functions and objectives of establishing the Institute, which, among other noble objectives, is charged with the training, re-training and standardisation of Nigeria’s Foreign Service and offering qualitative education to scholars of other sister African countries in international affairs, including those from other parts of the world.’
I cannot agree more with Honourable Yakub, in this regard, that ‘the way the NIIA is structured at present… is grossly under-utilised. We cannot therefore waste the inherent capacity in a great place of academic resource like that, I believe that, despite its present state, we can turn it around and make it function optimally.” True, I do agree that the NIIA can be made to function optimally, but subject to changes in the environmental conditionings. It is not the inadequacy of objects of the NIIA in the existing 1971 Act that is the problem. It is the conscious misrepresentation of the Act, the conscious destruction of the culture of discipline and research ethics at the NIIA under Major General Ike Nwachukwu, as Chairman of Governing Council, that constitutes potentially a major threat to any meaningful implementation of the would-be new Act. If under very notable scholars, like Professor Akin Oyebode, or under a nationalist of the calibre of Alhaji Tanko Yakassai, a Governing Council could afford the luxury of seeking to influence academic assessors of professorial candidates, NIIA can never be a Centre of Excellence. At best, repealing and re-enacting the 1971 Act can only be a smokescreen, because professorial candidates and Governing Council members should not know the identity of assessors. With the Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council factor, there are now two categories of professors at the NIIA: NIIA’s legitimate professors and Governing Council-sponsored professors. If the NIIA is to be a centre of academic excellence, which it used to be, it must first be removed from its state of destruction by specifically placing it directly under the Presidency or Vice Presidency and no longer under the supervisory authority of the Foreign Ministry. This should be the first genuine step in seeking value addition.
