The military coup that occurred on July 26, resulting in the removal of President Bazoum of Niger Republic, has elicited significant regional and worldwide apprehension. This unease is further heightened by the recent coups in Mali, Guinea, and Burkina Faso.
Although these concerns are legitimate, what is evident thus far is the notable absence of anarchy as a consequence of the coup. Yet, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) promptly reacted by implementing extensive and far-reaching sanctions and also threatening a militarised intervention to restore democracy.
While the ethical dilemma surrounding the forceful overthrow of foreign leaders is a highly controversial issue within the field of international relations, there exists a well-defined position in international law that explicitly forbids the act of invading a sovereign nation with the intention of ousting its leaders.
This concept of sovereignty implies that every state possesses an inherent right to exercise supreme authority within its own borders. This suggests that the ECOWAS recognition and respect the borders and polity of Niger even if it means acknowledging and deferring to leadership that is deemed unconstitutional and lacking accountability.
What Nigeria and all the other states should be wary of are not far fetched. Not so long-ago in history, the world witnessed how endeavours aimed at deposing such leaders have often yielded unimaginable consequences. Hence, even if the conduct of the coupists is deemed abhorrent, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential danger that may ensue in the aftermath of their overthrow.
Often, a vacuum is created that leads to catastrophic consequences for nations and exacerbates regional instability. Hence, the United Nations Charter, a seminal manuscript of global jurisprudence, underscores the paramountcy of state sovereignty and the proscription of coercive measures directed towards other sovereigns. According to the Charter, the act of military intervention within the domestic affairs of independent nations is forbidden, save for instances of self-defence or upon receiving explicit authorization from the United Nations Security Council.
Similar to the United Nations, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) also advocates the fundamental tenets of state sovereignty and the principle of refraining from interference in the domestic affairs of member states. This implies that the ECOWAS must abstain from endorsing endeavours to forcefully depose leaders, whether elected or a junta. What the ECOWAS Charter does provide as a framework for addressing such crises are measures that include diplomacy, mediation, or the deployment of peacekeeping forces (with the consent of the affected country’s government).
However, one must also consider the counterbalancing argument, which suggests that the international community is responsible for upholding human rights and protecting communities against the worst abuses of rulers. That it should effectively respond to leaders who embody a fundamental threat to global peace and stability. The question is, what has military intervention led to? Notable in recent years was the endeavour to depose the Syrian head of state, Bashar al-Assad, and the ousting of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. All these adventures only resulted in one end; devastating and protracted conflicts, leading to widespread destruction, mass displacement, and global insecurity. And there is still no end in sight.
In the context of Niger, it is pertinent to note that the recent political upheaval is not the first of its kind. Since the military overthrew Hamani Diori in 1974, there have been a total of five military coups in the country. In 1996, for instance, a group of Army officers led by Lieutenant Colonel Ibrahim Bare Mainassara toppled President Mahamane Ousmane and Prime Minister Hama Amadou. In 1999, Bare Mainassara met his untimely demise at the hands of insubordinate soldiers, who ambushed him at the Niamey airport. This tragic event served as a catalyst for a subsequent coup d’état, wherein Dauda Malam Wanke, the commander of the presidential guard, assumed power. In the year 2010, a group of soldiers calling themselves the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy, under General Salou Djibo, ousted Tandja Mamadou. A year later, elections were held, and Mamman Issoufou won in the presidential run-off.
What should also give us hope about Niger is the fact that throughout its post-colonial political history, the armed forces have consistently yielded to international pressure, ‘not war’, and acquiesced to ensuring a return to democratic rule. Nigeria, in its position as a good neighbour and a regional power, has assumed, in many instances, and through diplomacy, the pivotal role of facilitating the restoration of democratic governance.
Based on these realities and the tenets of international law, coupled with the conspicuous instances where endeavours to depose foreign leaders have predominantly culminated in calamitous consequences, it is imperative for Nigeria, alongside the ECOWAS, to only pursue diplomacy prudence and abstain from engaging in armed conflict. If there is war, the stakes are higher for Nigeria than any other country. Let us not forget that the vast majority of Nigerian states sharing a border with Niger are currently grappling with various forms of insecurity. Let ECOWAS follow its principles of diplomacy, dialogue and mediation. This region cannot afford a new wave of guns and grenades.
Mr Kagu is a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Yobe State University
