In the last few weeks the media both mainstream and social media have been on a frenzy since the House Committee on Treaties, Protocols and Agreement sold the wild card that the federal government have signed away Nigerian’s sovereignty.
We recall that two weeks ago the House of Representatives had raised the alarm over loan agreements being entered into by the Federal Government specifically with China.
According to the lawmakers, Nigeria will concede its sovereignty if the country defaults in the repayment plan.
The House Committee on Treaties, Protocols and Agreements, which raised the alarm, expressed its resolve to review loan facilities already taken by the country from China and other countries.
Chairman of the committee, Nicholas Ossai, faulted non-involvement of the National Assembly in loan negotiations by the Federal Government and its officials. The committee specifically cited Article 8(1) of the agreement, which states that, ‘the borrower hereby irrevocably waives any immunity on the grounds of sovereign or otherwise for itself or its property in connection with any arbitration proceeding pursuant to Article 8(5), thereof with the enforcement of any arbitral award pursuant thereto, except for the military assets and diplomatic assets.’
Ossai said, “I have also seen from the Ministry of Communications where Nigeria signed off some certain level of its sovereignty if part of the clauses is breached.
“So, when the National Assembly reacts in this manner, to question some level of agreements being entered into by any ministry of this country with any other nation, we have every right to question that; because anything that is going to happen will happen to our generations unborn.”
The media immediately went into overdrive believing that the administration has actually signed away the nation’s sovereignty on its loan agreements especially with China.
But as the dust began to settle down and experts and lawyers on the subject began to weigh in, it became obvious that the House Committee on treaties and protocols led by Hon. Nicholas Ossai only raised a false alarm
Giving clarification on the subject later the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami together with the Minister of Transport, Rotimi Amaechi, faulted the National Assembly’s position that the nation’s sovereignty was at risk following the loan agreement with China.
During a live television programme in Abuja, the pair said the lawmakers were concentrating on the diplomatic immunity as against the commercial immunity of a country, reiterating that there was no concession whatsoever made as it concerns Nigeria’s nationhood
Malami clarified that diplomatic immunity has to do with the nation’s sovereignty and corporate existence while commercial immunity is more of commitment to ensure repayment of loans.
The AGF added that “the clause was a mere guarantee, a commitment that allows an advancing state (the lender) the powers to claim back an asset for the purpose of repayment of a loan and is in no way, connected to the sovereignty of a country”.
On his part, Amaechi stated: “Nobody has signed out anything. A sovereign nation is a sovereign nation. Nobody can recolonise us. We must learn to pay our debts and we are paying”.
Also speaking on the subject, a prominent human rights lawyer and social activist, Femi Falana accused the National Assembly of a deliberate attempt to “confuse and mislead Nigerians”. He noted that nobody has traded up the sovereign rights of Nigeria as the clause is standard in international commercial agreement.
“What the clause is, is a standard one. In other words, every nation has the sovereign immunity not to be dragged to any Court of Arbitration but if you have taken a loan, it is a standard agreement that if you default in the payment of the loan, you cannot invoke your sovereignty to prevent me from going to Court of Arbitration. No more no less, it has nothing to do with trading up the sovereignty of Nigeria” he said.
Evidently, Hon. Nicholas Ossai and his Committee went on a journey of folly which invariably led to an unnecessary public hysteria.
This raises a lot of questions by itself on the preparedness of members of the National Assembly to be able to undertake serious national assignment without trivialisation and making a joke of themselves in the eyes of international observers. That lawmakers in charge of a treaty committee do not understand the difference between diplomatic sovereignty and waiver of sovereignty in a commercial loan agreement amounts to national shame.
Questions should also be asked about the National Assembly itself. Does it have a functional research unit? Does the research unit provides support to Committees of the National Assembly? It stands to reason that if the House Committee had done proper evaluation backed by background research and inputs by experts this national embarrassment would have been avoided.
The business of lawmaking and oversight of the Executive is a serious constitutional duty which the lawmakers should not trivialise by any standard, we expect that as Honourables and lawmakers they should do their homework properly before coming to the public to make pronouncements.
