Special Interests and Nigeria’s Development: The Lessons from Femi Badejo @ 70 Symposium
Bola A. Akinterinwa
The word, ‘interest,’ is a critical definiendum of political sovereignty in international relations. It is the most important dynamic in foreign policy making and implementation within the framework of which one talks about ‘National Interest.’ But what is national interest? What makes an interest national? People, grosso modo, talk about political, socio-cultural, economic, partisan, etc. interests. When are they of national character? And perhaps more interestingly, the mentees of Professor Babafemi A. Badejo, astute scholar and international functionary, played host to a symposium in his honour. It is entitled ‘Professor Babafemi A. Badejo at 70 Symposium.’ ‘Politics is Interests: Interrogating the Role of Special Interests in Nigeria’s Development’ was the theme. The Symposium took place on Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at the Tayo Aderinokun Lecture Hall, University of Lagos.
At the Symposium, the concern was not basically ‘national interest’ but ‘special interest.’ Again, what makes an interest special? Is an interest special when the powerful men in any given stratum of society are involved? Is it special or extraordinary when members of the Legislature or the Executive are involved? And true, both the notion and concept of national interest are, at best, controversial and ambiguous as it is variously defined by the Power, Behavioural, and Marxist, Schools of Thought.
In Nigeria, can it be rightly argued that sovereign Nigeria has any national interest or interests? Has Nigeria any concrete foreign policy objective? Bola A. Akinterinwa has edited a three-volume book on Nigeria’s National Interests in a Globalising World: Further Reflections on Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism (Ibadan: Bolytag International Publishers (BIP), 2007). The first volume is on “Contending Issues in Nation-building,” which underscores the domestic questions. Volumes 2 and 3 explicated some identified national interests in the second, third and fourth foreign policy concentric circles. The interests as identified by the various contributors, were not special apart from seeing some of them as core national interest. What is a special interest other than being a selfish interest?
Politics of Special Interests
Politics of special interests cannot be clearly understood without firstly explicating the concept of interest and national interest because the notion of national interest is, at best, ambiguous and that of ‘special interest’ cannot but also be so. Ordinarily speaking, an interest is about a purpose and its fulfilment.
Etymologically, interest was essentially about self-preservation and the State, as conceived by Thomas Hobbes. After him, in the 19th century, interest was equated with individuals and collective actors, like the social classes and fractions, in such a way ‘as to apply to any group with identifiable common, economic or social advantages to protect,’ to borrow the words of Professor Assis Asobie of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (Humphrey Assis Asobie, “Nigeria’s National Interests in a Globalising World: A Theoretical Perspective,” in Bola A. Akinterinwa, ed., Nigeria’s National Interests in a Globalising World: Further Reflections on Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism, Volume 1, Contending Issues in Nation-building (Ibadan: Bolytag International Publishers (BIP), 2007, p. 3 et s.).
Put differently, national interest used to be associated with the State and self-preservation before the concept was used to refer to the social classes in the 19th Century.
Quoting Marshall, Professor Asobie has it that ‘a sense of individual or social or national identity must be developed before the person or the social group or the nation can have a conception of his/her, or its, self-interest. In this sense, interest can “only be defined subjectively rather than objectively.” Additionally, and more importantly, Hans J. Morgenthau says the ‘objectives of foreign policy must be defined in terms of national interest and must be supported with adequate power.’ In this regard, the national interest of any given state ‘can only be defined in terms of national security and national security must be defined as integrity of the national territory and its institutions.’
George Kennan, who is also of the same realist or power school of thought like Hans Morgenthau, agreed with him that it is national interest, and not moral principle, that essentially should guide a nation’s foreign policy and external relations. However, as regards what the relationship between national interest and moral principle should be, every nation should conduct its foreign policy in accordance with both its national interest and the moral or ethical principles inherent in the spirit of its civilisation, but, at the same time, a nation should not try to impose its moral principle on other nations.
What is noteworthy in the discussion about the relationship between national interest and foreign policy is that they are both governed by the principles expounded by the power, behavioural, and Marxist, schools of thought. Thus the power school is most relevant in our discussion of special interests and the Babafemi Badejo @ 70 Symposium and the reasons are not at all far-fetched. Morgenthau’s position is largely predicated on Hobbes’ theory of the State which is about absolutism of the State, the need for absolute respect for discipline, law and order. On the contrary, Kennan’s position is based on the liberal theory of the State as explicated by John Locke who is a constitutionalist, advocating a limited government defending individual liberty.
With the overview of the relationship between foreign policy and national interest, it should also be noted that the current imbroglio between the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, is not simply a critical issue in Nigeria’s development but a clear manifestation of the position of the realist power school. It raises how Nigeria is governed by special interests, without due regard for implications for foreign policy and national interest. It is largely a selfish and special interest that is detrimental to the national interest. In fact, it does not include the people’s interests. The cases of Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan versus the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, on the one hand, and the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election Results by former military President of Nigeria, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, on the other hand, are good illustrations of our observations here. The place of special interest in the foreign policy administration of US President Donald Trump is another relevant good example.
At the level of the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan, it is a case of competing special interests that apparently undermine the national interest under the pretext of Senate Rules. Godswill Akpabio belongs to the power school and he uses the power to get whatever he desires with reckless abandon. Akpoti-Uduaghan belongs to the behavioural school, placing emphasis on moral principles. She levied allegations of sexual harassment against the Senate President which he denied but which raises more questions than answers.
The senatorial wisdom is that such allegation should not have been raised by any Senator in the Senate. One Senator ridiculed the allegation by submitting that Akpoti-Uduaghan had six children from six different men. Even the amiable First Lady of Nigeria, Remi Tinubu, indirectly indict Akpoti Uduaghan, in her solidarity message with other women on their international day, by advising that women should not dress in such a way as to attract men and that women should stop sexual harassment by any one by stopping harassers at their first attempt. Most unfortunately, the nature of the special interests involved has not enabled the Senators and others to go beyond their myopia and selfishness.
Under a normal circumstance, an accused, even if presumed innocent, cannot sit over his or her own case to judge. It is like a case of a mediator, having well known partisan interests but still seeking to mediate a dispute in which he or she is involved. The Senate President, if he has any integrity to protect, ought to have stepped aside to allow for objective investigation. If he comes out clean, then the accuser can then be appropriately sanctioned. Akpoti-Uduaghan claimed the conscious disregard for her entitlement to the right provided under Order Ten of the Senate Privileges. She asked for the application of the Order but was not listened to.
Senators argued that she violated the rules of the Senate but the same Senate President refused to comply with Order Ten. In essence, Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan was sanctioned and suspended for six months in a manu militari fashion. No one was interested in her allegations. No one listened to the fact that her bill on the Ajakuota steel industry was rejected five times before the Senate President was appealed to, to let go. No one was interested in finding out why Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan opted to sit on her newly allocated seat? No one was interested in her not standing up when the Senate President was entering the Chamber. Even some women came out to suggest that men have promiscuous character, and therefore saying that sexual harassment is not a big deal. What about the NDDC woman who said she once slapped the same Senate President when he harassed her? The Senate President and his followers cannot but have special interests in accepting to undermine Order Ten on privileges of Senators.
Our point here is that the use of brute power by the Senate President Akpabio falls under the category of special interests. Akpabio did not act in the national interest, but on the basis of selective rules. And true enough, the suspension of Akpoti-Uduaghan is also the suspension of the entire people represented. In this case, is the suspension in the national interest? These questions and observations largely explain why the Professor Babafemi Badejo @ 70 Symposium is of essence and from which lessons should be drawn.
Lessons from the Symposium
Before learning lessons from the symposium, let us first provide an exegesis of the symposium and the annulment of the June 12 1993 election results which constitutes a good manifestation of special interest and not national interest. First, we contend here that, as much as Nigeria’s development setbacks are ascribable to leadership and followership, as well as to bad governance, the truth remains that the so-called national interest and special interests, which are nothing more than individual selfishness, are the very apparent bane of the Nigerian society. Professor J. S. Cookey noted in his Political Bureau’s Report in 1987 that corruption and indiscipline began to be the bane of the Nigerian society as from 1967. In other words, from 1967 through 2025, there are 58 years. How do we explain that Nigerian leaders and their followers have not been able to nip corruption in the bud since 1967? This is one major root cause of Nigeria’s political chicanery, socio-economic instability, and institutional corruption.
In the words of Badamasi Babangida, at the public presentation of his autobiography, A Journey in Service ‘as the leader of the military administration, I accept full responsibility for all decisions taken under my watch and June 12 happened under my watch. More important, he added, ‘mistakes, oversight, and missteps happened in quick successions, but as I state in my book, in all matters, we acted in the supreme national interest so that Nigeria could survive.’
In this regard, General Babangida talked about ‘supreme national interest,’ clearly suggesting that Nigeria has different layers of national interest. In the continuum of national interests, ‘supreme national interest’ cannot but be at the crescendo. Explained differently and interrogatively, the election of Chief M.K.O. Abiola is a reflection of the people’s interest. There is also the interest of the military regime which acted on behalf of the people but contrarily and arguably in the name of a higher national interest. General Babangida did not give any impression that the annulment of the June 12 presidential elections was in the interest of the military regime but in the exclusive name of the ‘supreme national interest’ to enable the survival of Nigeria. This supreme national interest appear to fall under ‘special interests’ talked about at the symposium. But is it true that the annulment was to enable Nigeria’s survival?
On the issue of the Symposium, it was quite noteworthy for three main reasons: quality attendance, the structure of the celebration, and the place of national and special interests in political governance. As regards quality attendance, the incumbent President of the Republic of Timor-Leste, His Excellency, Mr José Ramos-Horta, gave the first and most encouraging speech through the virtual media. Professor Adele Jinadu, a renowned Political Scientist, was also there. He gave the keynote address. General Ike Omar Sanda Nwachukwu, a special Nigerian not only by ius sanguinis, ius soli, and parental and marriage connectivity, but particularly by Nigeriano-multi-linguistic personality. He too was there. And perhaps most interestingly, several notable scholars were there. It was a meeting of very serious scholars who met in an oxygenated, air-conditioned lecture hall named after Tayo Aderinokun.
Secondly, the quality attendance was taken further with the style of celebration. After the symposium, a public lecture was still scheduled to take place on March 15, which will still be followed with an academic visit to a museum. Without whiff of doubt, celebrating birthdays can be done in many ways: special thanksgiving to God in the church or mosques, extravagant merry-making with others, placement of advertorials, charity donations to schools, awards of scholarship, restricted self-enjoyment at home, and other manifestations of means of self-enjoyment, especially if the age is that of a landmark. Age 21, 40, 50 60, 70, 80 and every decade thereafter are generally considered landmark ages by people. It was Professor Ayo Rafiu Akindele, Professor of International Relations and former Acting Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), who once argued that if you are not rich at 40, and you are not wise at 50, it is better to forget life. In other words, birthday marking and celebrating is also about general interest and also more of self-interest.
Put differently, what informed the choice of celebrating Professor Babafemi A. Badejo with the organization of a symposium, a lecture, museum visit, etc.? What also informed the choice of the topic: “Politics is Interests: Interrogating the Role of Special Interests in Nigeria’s Development”? What do we mean by politics of Interest? What is the interest of politics? In which way is politics of interest different from interest of politics? More importantly, what makes an interest special or extraordinary? And perhaps most importantly, is development in Nigeria driven by interest and particularly by national interest or what is considered at this symposium as special interest? If yes, what are the definienda? Who are the agents? These are some of the many issues addressed at the symposium.
President Ramos-Horta, a Nobel Laureat, made three points that were quite thought-provoking. First, he said his country, Timor-Leste, ‘contributed with at least $8 million for the 2014 elections in Guinea-Bissau, much more than any single West African country, and more than the EU.’ Was that a challenge to Nigeria, the regional influential? Secondly, he noted that ‘we live in an era where special interests dictate the direction of global affairs, often at the expense of justice, equity, and the collective good. The challenge before us is to interrogate these interests and work towards governance frameworks that prioritize the well-being of the people… [T]he world at large cannot continue on this path. We must urgently engineer a new architecture for global and national governance, based on justice, equity, and equal responsibility.’ Has Nigeria any agenda as a regional and continental power in ‘Africa to respond to Ramos-Horta concerns?
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, President Ramos-Horta observed that ‘Badejo’s works challenge us to rethink the very nature and utility of political power. Leaders must rise beyond the immediate gratification of elite interests and work towards a politics of collective progress as popular needs are reasonably met.’ The foregoing three points capture the relationships between those in power and the governed, between elite and regime interest, and between national interest and special interest to which different stratum of leaders can lay claim. These are some of the lessons to be learnt and addressed by Nigeria’s leaders.
On President Ramos-Horta’s suggestion about the need to rethink the utility of political power, Professor Tunde Babawale considered national interest ‘as a determinant of the content, character and nature of relationships among nations,’ and that interests determine the relationship among people or individuals. And consequently, considering that the inherited types of government at the time of independence were products of alien cultures and therefore Africa has been faced with several development setbacks, he advocated giving greater attention to the development of culture. In this regard, he argued that ‘if we are determined to pursue our national interest effectively, culture has to be factored into the equation’ especially that culture ‘can enhance Nigeria’s capacity to exercise soft power.’
Apart from culture, many other issues in national and special interests were also raised. While Dr Mike Egboh discussed the question of the civil society and national interest, Dr Nicholas Erameh addressed Nigeria’s interests in the global arena. The civil society and national interests was the focus of Mr Kayode Samuel while Dr Florence Falaye provided an exegesis of law and national interest. Mr Ayodele Aderinwale’s paper investigated the private sector and national interests. And perhaps more interestingly, Dr Adebajo looked at gender issues in national interests while Dr Festus Adedayo analysed the media and national interests.
All in all, Professor Laja Odukoya, the Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lagos, presented Professor Badejo as one of the Faculty, as a befitting gentleman, altruistic good Samaritan. In fact, one presenter used the word, sadist, in a very positive, jovial, manner by asking all participants to see how Professor Badejo, a sadist, always came out to help everyone. In other words, can a sadist be helpful to anyone? This is why the whole essence of the symposium was to invite Nigerians to think, to engage in more critical thinking because Nigeria is making one step forwards and ten steps backward. This should not be so. Lessons should be learnt.
Nigeria’s political system and its laws unnecessarily protect special interests to the detriment of the National Interest. For us, special interests specifically refer to the elite or powerful people’s interests. Christians in Nigeria openly complain about the 1999 Constitution in which the words Muslim and Sharia are mentioned several times but without mentioning anything about Christianity for once. A system that makes equity inaccessible cannot expect to have justice. It is a barbaric unfairness and unacceptable injustice for the representatives of some electoral constituencies to be made superior to the representatives of other constituencies. No representative of any given constituency should normally have the right to suspend another entire community. Any House or Senate rules that enable the suspension of any Representative or Senator should be promptly revisited and expunged. Any suspended constituency should have the right of rejection of such a suspension. A decent Senate must learn to be truly distinguished by letting the people of Nigeria know the truth and extent of dignity of their leaders and not by using unnecessary technical arguments of manu militari to intimidate anyone. The suspension was enabled by the existence of special interests. Special interests should not be superior to national interest in the mania of General Babangida whose presumed supreme national interest suppressed the overall interest of the people.
