In Nigeria, it has been a consistent fight for domination and cry of subjugation. Right from her Independence in 1960, the country has been sandwiched between ethnocentrism and corruption. The former has dealt a devastation blow to the Country’s developmental strides. However, there is a palpable feeling that Nigeria has never been so divided as is currently the case under President Buhari.
President Buhari in his utterances, actions and inactions has deepened this division. On July 22nd at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Dr. Pauline Baker, the President Emeritus of The Fund for Peace, asked about security in the Niger Delta area. President Buhari revealed what would become a major signpost to his nation-building approach. His answer was “I hope you have a copy of the election results. The constituents, for example, (that) gave me 97% ( of total votes] cannot in all honesty be treated on some issues with constituencies that gave me 5% (votes).” The President is accused of populating his government, especially sensitive positions that would facilitate rapid response and contribution to the development, with personnel from the North. He is also accused of not effectively responding to the marauding Fulani Militants (herdsmen) who became the 4th World’s deadliest terrorist group in 2015. President Buhari is Fulani.
About a fortnight ago, at a press briefing on the sidelines of the World Bank-IMF annual meetings in Washington D.C, the World Bank’s President, Mr. Kim revealed that President Buhari in his first meeting with him specifically asked the Bank to shift focus to the northern regions of Nigeria. As usual, both the presidency and allies have been struggling to defend such a nepotistic, parochial and un-presidential directive. I am not bothered much about a Constant, which President Buhari inadvertently personifies; I am much concerned about the Banks admittance and complicity in this deceit. The North East of Nigeria no doubt demands attention as result of the activities of Boko Haram, so do the South East and South-South of Nigeria who have been threatening secession as a result of long years of neglect, infrastructural decadence and poverty.
The World Bank Group Country Engagement Directives, inter alia, stipulates that:
- Availability of Country Partnership Framework, or CPF: a document setting out its country partnership framework with a particular country; The CPF identifies the key objectives and development results through which the WBG intends to support a member country in its efforts to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity in a sustainable manner. It is the central tool that guides the WBG’s support for the member country’s development program.
- In limited circumstances, the WBG may prepare a CEN instead of a CPF. CENs are
appropriate for countries where the World Bank Group is unable to define detailed objectives, develop a program, or engage at significant scale in the medium term. A CEN may be appropriate in countries where the WBG is re-engaging after a long absence, in countries affected by conflict or fragility, or other situations that prevent the development of a medium-term program.
The above two World Bank intervention strategies are certainly devised to engage in a robust programming that will not only be sustainable but effective. The Country Partnership Framework is not only a product of research and analysis; it also lends itself to a varied national stakeholder input. However short a CEN is, it is still based on sufficient analysis to support the preparation of the proposed engagement. It is absolutely clear that the Banks intervention in the North East, as revealed by Jim Yong Kim, did not follow the CPF route. Let us assume it falls under the CEN platform, it then means the Bank went into the North East without any strategy and objectives. Probably, that was why it failed.
It raises three salient questions:
One, at what point does the World Bank ceases to be an international agency that engages in country’s based on empirical evidence and need. Why did the World Bank President relax the Banks intervention framework to oblige President Buhari?
Two, how many of World Banks projects in Nigeria were the products of presidential directives on concentration and concession?
Three, I am aware that countries always pay counterpart funding to the Banks grants. Would it not amount to the Banks aiding sectionalism and ethnocentrism in Nigeria, when it is the commonwealth of Nigeria that the counterpart funds are drawn from?
Jim Yong Kim deserves to provide Nigerians answers to these questions. It does not show any strength of character that the President of the World Bank would fall for such a cheap and divisive plea. An unintended outcome of World Banks country interventions is the promotion of peace within countries and the World at large. This can never be achieved applying sentiment and favoritism in interventions. Nigerians deserve an unreserved apology from Jim Yong Kim.
Written by Unico-Iregbu K Uduka, a Public Policy Analyst, Abuja.
08174393432
unicouduka@yahoo.com
