Unending Mistreatment of Nigerians Abroad: Human Rights Violation or Containment of Indiscipline?

INTERNATIONAL

Bola A. Akinterinwa

Many Nigerians have been indecently brutalised in different countries of the world for various untenable reasons. Most of the reasons bother on the attitude of the brutalised Nigerians. The most recent case was the maltreatment of some Nigerians travelling with Ethiopian Airline coming from the United States and transiting through a Togolese airport on Saturday, 18th December 2021. The brutalisation was the handiwork of Togolese security officials and Togolese Airline, ASkyline who said the brutalised Nigerian had entered the prohibited area of the airport but ignoring that the Nigerian victims had been stranded at the airport because of mishandlings by the ASky Airline, which was to coordinate the transit of the Nigerians from Togo to Nigeria.

Although the Director General of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), Captain Musa Nuhu, said the ASky Airline had already written to the Nigerian authorities to apologise, the damage had already occurred. The House of Representatives mandated the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, House Committee on National Security, and Intelligence to link up with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to investigate the circumstances of the mistreatment. The directive was in response to the motion of urgent national importance sponsored by Hon. Ndudi Elumelu a Minority Leader (PDP, Delta) in the House.

Several questions can be raised at this juncture: why is it that the maltreatment of Nigerians abroad has become recidivist? Is it because of the attitudinal disposition of the Nigerians? Is it that they are undisciplined? At the level of the government, why is it difficult for security agents to arrest people who are not law-abiding without brutality of action? Why are governments always violating human rights in an attempt to contain indiscipline or an infraction? Why is it that the Government of Nigeria is unable to control the attitude of Nigerians travelling abroad or returning to Nigeria? Why is Nigeria’s foreign policy always reactive and not pro-active? Many observers have opined that Nigerians are always brutalised back home and therefore no one should expect better treatment abroad. Why should this be so?

One of the main objectives of the #EndSARS protests in October 2020 was to nip police brutalities in the bud, but this has been to no avail so far. Should this situation be a pretext for manhandling Nigerians outside of Nigeria, and particularly in the ECOWAS region? The maltreatment of Nigerians at the Gnassingbe Eyadema International Airport is one case too many. It is another expression of George Floyd’s most unfortunate brutalisation.

Manifestations of Mistreatment Galore

Cases of mistreatment of Nigerians abroad are intriguing and frequent. Nigerians are frequently made objects of ridicule in many parts of the world. The mistreatments are particularly noteworthy under the President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) administration. In fact, there have been three major cases of mistreatment of Nigerians in 2021 alone, not to mention the xenophobic brutalities against Nigerians in South Africa. Let us revisit the cases of Ghana, Indonesia, and Togo.

The mistreatment of Nigerians in Ghana began in 2007. It is xenophobic in objective and manifestation, and contrary to the spirit of community citizenship espoused by several ECOWAS protocols. For example, Protocol A/P.1/5/79 Relating to Free Movement of Persons, Residence and Establishment, done in Dakar, Senegal on 29th May 1979, has it in its Article 2 that ‘the Community Citizens have the right to enter, reside and establish in the territory of Member States.’ A Community Citizen is any national of a Member State of the ECOWAS.

The right of free movement of persons and residence and establishment is still further regulated by Article 4 which stipulates that ‘notwithstanding the Provisions of Article 3 above, Member States shall reserve the right to refuse admission into their territory and Community citizen who comes within the category of inadmissible immigrants under its laws.’ Explained differently, the enjoyment of any right of free movement, residence and establishment is, at best, left to the whims and caprices of the Member States. This is precisely what obtains in the case of legally resident and established Nigerians in Ghana. In 2020, Ghanaian authorities clamped down on Nigerian traders in their country. They closed hundreds of Nigerian shops mainly because Ghanaians explicitly made it clear that they do not want Nigerians. They do not want the Nigerian traders because they offer cheapest goods and Ghanaians have difficulty in competing with them. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, the Speaker of the House of Representatives went to Ghana to sort out the misunderstanding at the level of Ghanaian lawmakers. The peace efforts were to no avail.

It is important to recall here that, earlier in June 2021, the people and Government of Ghana forcefully entered Nigeria’s High Commission and went to the extent of demolishing diplomatic structures contrary to the 1961 Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which in its Article 22 provides that ‘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.’

In fact, Article 30 of the same Convention has it that ‘the private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission. His papers, correspondence and except as provided in paragraph 3 of Article 31, his property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability.’ Paragraph 3 of Article 31 referred to, prohibits the taking of measures against a diplomatic agent except in the case of privately-owned immovable property, in situations of succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person, and any engagement in professional or commercial activity by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State in his or her private capacity.

Ghana, which acceded to national sovereignty on March 6, 1957, that is, more than three years before Nigeria on October 1st, 1960, is a signatory to the 1961 Vienna Convention. How to explain the flagrant disregard for the treaty obligations remains a mute question. The animosity vis-à-vis Nigeria and Nigerians in Ghana is silent in character but always openly manifested in action. The requirement of payment of US$1million for registration with the Ghana Investment Promotion Council (GIPC) is a bold manifestation of the animosity.

Besides, there was also the case of a Nigerian who took the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PRC) and tested negative in Dubai but arrived in Ghana to be found positive. Another Nigerian tested negative in Nigeria but arrived in Ghana to test positive. How do we explain testing negativity in Dubai and Nigeria only to test positive in Ghana? Additionally, Nigerians have equally been complaining about being compelled to pay N500,000 (five hundred thousand naira) only for one week quarantine while Ghanaians who tested positive were taken to a free facility. Should Community citizens be differently treated in any Member State of the ECOWAS?

The Ghanaian High Commissioner to Nigeria, Rashid Bawa, defended the position of his government in a logical manner: ‘Ghana will not maliciously produce COVID-19 positive test results for visitors, especially Nigerians visiting Ghana.’ Who should we believe in this case: Nigerian complainants or the Ghanaian High Commissioner?

One truth here is that the Ghanaian government asked the Nigerian traders not only to pay one million US dollars cash or equity, but also gave 14 days within which the Nigerian traders must regularise. Besides, the Nigerian traders must employ at least 25 skilled Ghanaian workers and must not trade in goods that the Ghanaian traders deal in. The Ghanaian authorities claimed it had already given one year notice to the Nigerian traders following the closure of the Nigerian shops but the Nigerian traders, who are interested in retail business, argued that they do not have the required one-million-dollar equity operational deposit. Without any whiff of doubt, the Ghanaian policy requiring an equity participation is a neat technique of neutralising and sending the Nigerian traders out of Ghana to find alternatives outside of Ghana. It is another way of declaring them as personae non grata so to say.

What is more thought-provoking is the statement by the EZE Ndigbo Ghana, HRM Ihenetu, who, in his evaluation of the detention of many Nigerians at the Aflao border, following the signing of a presidential executive order closing Ghanaian borders. He said ‘most Nigerians living here in Ghana are seriously violating the laws of the land. Most of us are seriously working on what the government doesn’t want us to do… Thank God that the country as a nation also welcome Nigerians… There are over two million Nigerians in Ghana and the country accommodated us. It is activities of some Judas among the 12 that are causing problem here and making the people to move against some Nigerians here.’ Thus, in the eyes of the Eze Ndigbo, the Ghanaian authority should not be held responsible for the mistreatment of Nigerians. And perhaps most importantly, he said ‘we must also tell ourselves the truth. The problem facing Nigeria today is because we have bad government. Every son and daughter in that country, Nigeria, wants to get out looking for greener pasture somewhere round the world and if we are rejected in our own country, how much more in alien countries, you think they won’t reject us? They would. It is like that name Nigeria has now become (a) time bomb and anything can trigger it to explode.’

This perspective cannot but be a major reason for imposing the payment of US $1 million working capital on Nigerian traders before they can operate in Ghana. This can also explain in part why the Nigerian traders asked the Government of Nigeria to evacuate them back to Nigeria. But is returning to Nigeria a long-term solution? In which way is the Ghanaian policy consistent with the spirit of ECOWAS objective of regional integration and Community citizenship? Can there be a sub-regional, regional, and continental integration in Africa?

The Indonesian case involved a consular official, Mr. Abdulrahman Ibrahim, in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Saturday, 7th August 2021. He was held down in a moving vehicle by immigration officials who forcefully pushed his head against the backseat so hard to the extent that he faintly cried out ‘I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe… my neck, my neck.’ In the eyes of Nigeria, it was ‘an egregious act of international delinquency by the Indonesian State.’ Is this international delinquency a violation of human rights? Is it a resultant of attitudinal indiscipline of the Nigerian consul? We observe here that it is more about human rights violation than of attitudinal indiscipline of the Nigerian consul.

Rights Violation or Attitudinal Indiscipline?

Mr. Ibnu Chuldun, the Head of the Jakarta branch of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, which handles the issues of immigration, the Nigerian consul refused to present his documents for identification purposes when he was confronted in the lobby of an apartment building. This explanation is very ridiculous. It raises Indonesia’s international responsibility.

In an interview with Adelani Adepegba of The Punch, former Nigerian ambassador to Mexico, Mr. Amedu-Ode, pointed out some loopholes in the defence arguments of the Indonesian ambassador to Nigeria. First, there is nothing to gain from any refusal to identify oneself, especially as a consular or diplomatic agent. Indonesia has simply ‘goofed big time.’ Secondly, on alleged attack by Mr. Ibrahim, Ambassador Amedu-Ode has it that ‘the Indonesians videoed the humiliation of our diplomat and put it in the public space via social media. The question then is: did they not film our officer’s violence against one of them? And will any sane man initiate physical fight seeing that he is outnumbered?

Thirdly, and perhaps more relevantly here, Ambassador Amedu-Ode gave an account of how Nigerians engaged in immigration malpractices in China and how Nigerian Embassy officials were always thoroughly embarrassed while attempting to protect Nigerians (The Punch, 17 August 2021). The account clearly showed unfortunate cases of how Nigerians engage in fraudulent immigration practices that could not but prompt a reactive police brutality. Consequently, the revelations of Ambassador Amedu-Ode and Eze Ndigbo Ghana necessarily raise the question as to why Nigerians are mistreated abroad. Is the attitude of the Nigerian, which is apparently that of indiscipline, not a rationale for their mistreatment? In the very case of the Nigerian consul in Indonesia, why was he not in possession of an identity card at the time he was accosted by Indonesian immigration officials? There was no disputing the fact that the Indonesian authorities were on the heels of Nigerians because of their involvement in drug trafficking. Many of them were in jail before the incident. Many of them were awaiting trial. Many of them had also been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Some were given capital punishment. Against this background, the mere sight of any Nigerian, regardless of his or her status, cannot but raise eyebrows in Indonesia.

It is quite possible to have left one’s identity at home or in the office. If the Nigerian consul explained that his identity card was not with him and he accepted to follow them to the Immigration office, he could not have done better. It was good and befitting, but when the Indonesian immigration officers drove beyond the entry point to their office, the Nigerian consul began to cry out. He had the right to begin to suspect likely foul play. This is the juncture from which the hullaballoo began. The Nigerian consul was not armed. He voluntarily offered to go with the immigration officers to their office. There is no way he would have launched any attack if it had not been in the context of a threat to his life. Indeed, they manhandled him and videoed the manhandling to the delight of social media fans, but myopically ignoring the implications.

There is therefore no disputing the fact that the mistreatment was more of human rights abuse and violation for which the international responsibility of the Indonesian State must be called to question. Even if Mr Ibrahim were not to be consular or diplomatic agent, the mere fact that he is human is enough reason to be decently accosted. The bias that the Government of Indonesia already had for Nigerians in their country largely explains the brutalisation by the Indonesian immigration officials.

But how has the Government of Nigeria responded to the matter? Expectedly, the response is the classical diplomatic way: recalling the Nigerian ambassador to Jakarta and the brutalised consul for consultations. Consultations are generally followed by expressions of mutual solidarity and apology. Then everyone returns to his or her base for job continuation. Nothing happens thereafter. The injured or mistreated Nigerian is silenced, and nobody even bothers again to remember the happenings to guide future policy making. It is always most unfortunate because the consultations do not in any serious manner put an end to the maltreatments. They do not deter future occurrences.

And true enough, the mistreatment of a Nigerian diplomat in Beijing in 2020 has been forgotten in the garbage of history. The damage to Nigeria’s diplomatic mission in Ghana is still another forgotten critical issue. The Ghanaian government accepted responsibility to reconstruct the affected building that was bulldozed but no one is talking about it again.

The specific case of Togo is more interesting. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, organised a chartered flight to take the stranded Nigerians back to Nigeria. This effort was quite commendable, especially that he was still in Turkey for national assignment with PMB when he took the decision. However, the charter of an aircraft to bring home the stranded Nigerians is non-solution to the unending mistreatment of Nigerians in many parts of the world. Put interrogatively, why is there no deliberate foreign policy of protection and sanction for Nigerians that are mistreated with impunity? What really is the so-called overall national interest that does not include the protection of mistreated Nigerians abroad? Why is the protection of national interests selective and not holistic? Whatever is the protection of the national interest that ignores the safety and survival of the Nigerian as a human being and as the first beneficiary of any protection efforts put together is, at best, good for nothing. Therefore, Nigeria’s foreign policy must shift from being reactive to becoming more proactive and anticipatory. Nigeria’s foreign policy must be defined by rules of reciprocity in both its sense as a retorsion and as a reprisal. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must be more accountable to the people of Nigeria by always informing and educating the Nigerian public about the outcomes of every inquiry into mistreatments of Nigerians abroad. In the same vein, when mistreatment is because of undisciplined behaviour of the Nigerian, there must be sanctionary measures and public records on them must also be sustainably kept. There is no goodness in having a big population in which most people are undisciplined. A small population of very disciplined society is quite better than an unruly big society. Nigeria should be a giant in what is good and not a glorified giant in acts of indiscipline.

If, in the context of the Togolese mistreatment, there is a notice saying ‘no trespassing’ why should the Nigerian passengers ignore the notice? Lawlessness in Nigeria is not a big deal, but it is in countries where there is good governance, where patriotism is underscored and where infractions are indiscriminately sanctioned without fear or favour. If the Togolese authorities accost the trespassing passengers, why shouldn’t the immigration officials compel them to accept legal arrest, especially if the passengers remain intransigent?

The bottom line is Africa’s very bad governance in safety and security of lives and property. Business organisations in Africa always buy more than they can chew. ASky Airline is on record to always have overbooking of passengers, and by so doing, creating unnecessary discomfort for passengers when their flights are cancelled and rescheduled. Passengers returning from the United States and scheduled to transit through Togo to Nigeria cannot be told at the last minute that their aircraft is fully booked and occupied, and that they must wait for the next available flight the following day. Didn’t the ASky Airline, as a connecting partner of the Ethiopian Airlines, know about the overbooking? This is how people put in positions of responsibility underdeveloped their country and the people wrongly hold foreign countries responsible for the problems created by their leaders. The Government of Nigeria must learn how to be wise before, and not after, events. Any country that allows the mistreatment of Nigerians under its watch must be given the same treatment. The life every human being, regardless of his or her colour matters.