Except a last-minute reconciliation takes place, the exit of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) would be effective on January 28, 2025.
 
By then, it would be one year since the three countries that fell into military rule officially indicated their interest to quit the regional bloc. Considering the socio-political and economic implications that the exit holds, the leadership of ECOWAS has continually engaged in diplomatic reconciliatory moves to persuade the trio to retrace their steps.
  
On January 28 this year, the three countries jointly announced plans to exit ECOWAS over its alleged drift from the ideals of its founding fathers, and the spirit of Pan-Africanism. In the joint statement that was issued, they accused ECOWAS of betraying its founding principles.

“It goes on to say that ECOWAS under the influence of foreign powers, has betrayed its founding principles, and has become a threat to member states and peoples.”

As relationships between the military-led countries and ECOWAS depreciated, they also hinged their decision to take their destinies into their hands on the failure of the regional body to help them tackle terrorism.  
 
Military coups that took place in Niger in July 2023, Burkina Faso in 2022, and Mali in 2020 badly smeared the relationship between the bloc and the three countries.

While reconciliatory efforts were ongoing, the peeved countries went ahead to form an umbrella body – the Alliance for Sahel States as a mutual defense pact.  Only recently, Burkina Faso further solidified its break from the regional bloc by introducing a new biometric passport without the ECOWAS logo on it.

The country’s Security Minister, Mahamadou Sana, said: “This passport does not feature the ECOWAS logo or any mention of ECOWAS. Since January, Burkina Faso has decided to withdraw from this body, and this is simply a realisation of the action already taken by Burkina Faso.”

With these and other unfolding scenarios, opinions are varied on how the eventual disintegration of the ECOWAS sub-region may encroach on the effective implementation of the five-year-old African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), or the consequential effect on the economy of the ECOWAS region.

For starters, the yearly contributions of member states to ECOWAS are based on the community levy, which is a percentage of its total budget and calculated based on the Gross National Income (GNI) of each member state.

For instance, in 2022, Niger Republic’s contribution to the ECOWAS community levy was approximately 2.5 per cent of the ECOWAS yearly budget of $432 million, which was about $10.8 million.

While Nigeria contributed 32 per cent of the budget the same year, Mali and Burkina Faso contributed four per cent and three per cent of the ECOWAS yearly budget respectively.

Despite the countries’ low contribution, it is crucial to the running of the body. They are also bound by the provisions of regional and continental treaties, including that of AfCFTA, and their decision to quit may pose certain complications to the implementation of the agreements.

Established in 2018 by the African Continental Free Trade Agreement with 43 parties, AfCFTA is a free trade area encompassing most African countries. It primarily creates a single continental market for goods and services to reduce trading problems such as different regulations from one African country to the other. It is also aimed at eliminating tariffs and creating an open and competitive international marketplace.

Consequently, withdrawal from ECOWAS automatically affects membership in the trade area since AfCFTA recognises regional blocs. It will also affect intra-African trade by reducing market size and disrupting supply chains, especially about trade relationships with neighboring countries.

It is also envisaged to weaken regional integration. Considering that ECOWAS is a building block for AfCFTA, their exit may frustrate regional integration efforts as well as cause delays in the implementation of the agreements as member states will have to review commitments.

For AfCFTA to succeed, stakeholders insist that member-States must comply with specific protocols and standards and that the exit of these countries might create inconsistencies in compliance, complicating the overall enforcement of its regulations.
 
Furthermore, many supply chains in West Africa have, over the years, relied on cooperation among ECOWAS members, thus disintegration could disrupt the supply chains, thereby affecting production and distribution networks that are crucial for broader continental trade.
 
A Professor of Accounting and Financial Development, at Lead City University, Ibadan, Godwin Oyedokun, fears that the trio’s exit from the bloc could have significant implications on the effective implementation of AfCFTA Agreements, including a decrease in trade integration.
 
Considering that ECOWAS plays a crucial role in facilitating trade among its member-states, Oyedokun added that the departure of these countries could disrupt existing trade agreements and inhibit the flow of goods and services, which are essential for the success of AfCFTA.
  
Since AfCFTA is aimed at creating a single continental market for goods and services, such exit may lead to a “fragmentation of markets” making it more challenging to establish uniform tariffs and regulations across the continent.

Oyedokun added that the political climate in the exiting countries may also affect regional stability and cooperation. “If these nations are facing internal conflicts or governance issues, it could undermine collaborative efforts needed for AfCFTA’s implementation. The exiting countries may also experience economic isolation, which could lead to reduced foreign investment and hinder their economic growth. This isolation may also limit their ability to engage in trade negotiations effectively within the AfCFTA framework.”

While the exit may have a negative effect on the harmonious working of the bloc, others have equally opined that the three exiting countries stand to lose more from their actions than the region.

A former consultant to the ECOWAS Commission and a member of the Advisory Council, Nigerian Economic Summit Group, Professor Jonathan Aremu, insisted that breaking away from the three French-speaking countries would hurt them more than it would hurt the rest of West Africa.
 
According to him, decisions at AfCFTA are taken at the bloc levels and the African Union (AU) is not ready to recognise any new bloc. “So, which bloc will they now belong to?” he asked, adding that their final exit would make them look like an island, which cannot operate on its own.

“In other words, they have removed themselves from AfCFTA. The only way ECOWAS member-States may be affected is in the implementation of some of the trade agreements within the sub-region, such as trades across borders and other economic relationships, which they also signed before these countries pulled out. But as far as AfCFTA is concerned, they will be the losers,” he said.

Sharing the same thought with Aremu is the Director General of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Prof. Muhammed Tawfiq Ladan, who considers their notice of withdrawal as a mere boast, especially as they were yet to relinquish their positions as ECOWAS commissioners and their citizens still serve as staff of the Commission, ECOWAS Court of Justice, and ECOWAS Parliament.

“So, for me, it is not going to affect the trade. They can remain obstinate because geographically, they are still within the ECOWAS sub-region and trade will continue.
  
“It was a political decision that they took, but they have not exited in terms of the trade relationship, and they cannot because unfortunately, they are landlocked states. So, they cannot survive in terms of any economic development without their sisters.

“It was a decision they had to take politically but they are cautious. They have not disengaged from economic integration.” Ladan also played down the introduction of a new passport without the ECOWAS logo by Burkina Faso. According to him, it has nothing to do with trade.

“They cannot survive on their own because they are landlocked states. You can imagine Niger Republic, for instance, they have no river, no sea, no ocean. So, all their goods have to travel by road? They are the ones who will pay more for their goods.
  
“That is the practical reality of it because everything you do is dependent on your economic power. If you lose it, then you are in trouble, and no economy is an island on its own. Even the United States is not an island on its own; it depends on other countries. And that is the reason economic integration is key. Politicians can take that decision, but they don’t understand the implications of the economic integration,” Ladan added.

For Awaji-Inombek Abiante, it is exigent for the Authorities of Heads of State and members of the ECOWAS parliament to deepen the process of engagement and persuade the departing countries not to quit the bloc.

“Let us see how we can prove to them that we are better together. Let us emphasise the things that bind us together while still working on the political angle.

“Every avenue should be explored to get them back. They have only declared their intention to leave. They will not leave until after one year of that notice. So, we should do whatever we can to stop them from exiting. However, there is another problem. Remember, there are ECOWAS institutions in those countries.

What becomes of them?
“Legally speaking, if these three countries carry out their threat of leaving, it would be difficult to host an institution belonging to a group of persons of which you are not a member. We don’t pray we get to that point because if we do, those institutions cannot continue to remain in territories that are not part of the governance system,” he said.

A global affairs analyst, Mr Paul Ejime, in his opinion noted that informal trade by itinerant traders would be affected, adding that as much as it was difficult to place a figure to the volume due to lack of accurate data, such trade nevertheless, boosts economic development.

On the wider implications of the exit, Ejime feared that without a regional bloc that would project a common front, it might be difficult for them to benefit from global bodies such as the European Union (EU), or Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) as many of them would prefer to deal with African regional blocs.

“If you notice, when they have their representatives or ambassadors or high commissioners in Nigeria, they give them concurrent accreditation to ECOWAS. The idea is that instead of dealing individually with 15 ECOWAS member-states, they come under one umbrella, which is easier.

“So, their exit will reduce ECOWAS projection in terms of trade and exchanges. Although their contributions might not be huge compared to Nigeria, it will further diminish what comes from the region, especially when compared with other seven regional blocs within the continent,” Ejime said.

.