Oyo State Governor and Allied Peoples Movement (APM) presidential candidate, Seyi Makinde, has ignited fresh debate over national sovereignty following his call for a United Nations (UN)-backed investigation into the mass abduction of schoolchildren in the state. Beyond concerns about insecurity, the demand raises questions about patriotism, citizenship and the limits of international intervention in domestic affairs, LEO SOBECHI reports.

It seems to have become a major opposition strategy: the proclivity of opposition political leaders to seek foreign intervention in Nigeria’s domestic governance affairs.

But while the practice of seeking external assistance gives the impression of nostalgia for the colonial era, it also demonstrates disillusionment and a loss of confidence in the country’s governance institutions.

Penultimate Monday, when Governor Seyi Makinde urged the UN to lead international human rights bodies in probing the mass abduction and subsequent release of schoolchildren and their teachers in his state, he argued that such an investigation would not “undermine our institutions; rather, it is intended to reinforce confidence, establish the truth, and ensure that every person found to bear responsibility, regardless of office, influence or affiliation, is held accountable.”

However, despite the governor’s attempt to moderate the implications of his call, the mere pronouncement sparked debate over his motivation for inviting the world body to investigate and intervene in what many regard as a domestic challenge.

For the most part, the question that rankled many was whether a truly patriotic citizen, much less one aspiring to lead the country, should call for foreign intervention in his nation’s socio-political affairs. Among the voices for and against, public intellectuals and institutions argued that Makinde’s invitation to the UN should be examined against the backdrop of his motives, the nature of the intervention sought and its likely consequences.

While stressing that a patriotic citizen’s primary loyalty is anchored in the well-being of his or her country and its people, experts in international relations contend that “patriotism encourages solving national problems through constitutional processes, democratic institutions and domestic civic action rather than inviting outside powers into internal politics.”

Against that premise, however, Makinde’s supporters, including members of the Oyo State House of Assembly and the Lagos State chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), argued that his call for international intervention is consistent with patriotism.

They further alleged that the Federal Government appeared either helpless or complicit in the grave human rights abuses committed in the name of banditry and mass abductions, maintaining that domestic institutions have failed to provide any peaceful or lawful remedy.

The Oyo lawmakers explained that Makinde’s call for international intervention is aimed at protecting civilians and restoring constitutional order, rather than advancing the interests of any foreign power.

However, both the Presidency and the National Assembly disagreed, arguing that, as an aspirant for the nation’s highest office, Makinde’s action is inconsistent with patriotism because it could undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty, foster dependence on external powers, escalate instability and provide foreign governments with an avenue to pursue their own interests rather than those of Nigeria.

Yet, as the debate shifted to ethical and political considerations, the opposition, which Makinde represents, recalled that the current ruling party adopted a similar approach when it petitioned the United States over what it described as the excesses of the Goodluck Jonathan administration and its inability to rein in insurgency and worsening insecurity.
Dated pastime

Although the prevailing impression is that the opposition acts unpatriotically while the ruling party invokes sovereignty to justify its advantages, the opposition’s resort to foreign intervention is not recent.

For instance, at the height of the defunct National Party of Nigeria’s (NPN) dominance of the country’s politics during the Second Republic, the then Governor of Imo State, Dr Sam Iheonukara Mbakwe, one of the three governors elected on the platform of the Nigeria Peoples Party (NPP) in the 1979 general election, called on Britain to resume its colonial oversight of Nigeria.

Mbakwe, who was branded the “Crying Governor”, argued that the ruling NPN’s intolerance of dissent and poor governance, characterised by pervasive corruption, made it imperative for Britain to return, insisting that Nigerians enjoyed a greater measure of citizenship under colonial rule.

Perhaps taking a cue from Mbakwe, senior lawyer Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, who emerged as PDP national chairman from the disputed elective convention held in Ibadan, Oyo State, publicly called on United States President Donald Trump to save not only Nigeria but also its democracy.

Turaki declared: “I want to call on President Trump to come to Nigeria’s rescue. What is at stake is not just genocide against Christians; he should come and save democracy in Nigeria. Democracy is under threat. I am calling on all other developed nations, all advanced democracies, to come and save Nigeria, come and save democracy.”

Maintaining that the nation and its democracy were under threat from unscrupulous elements, Turaki was clearly expressing frustration over the PDP crisis, which his camp believed was fuelled by external interests. Although he was due to chair the first National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting, it had to be postponed due to confusion caused by rival claimants to the party structure.

Throwing his weight behind Trump’s warning that the United States might be compelled to send its military to “wipe out the radical Islamic terrorists” threatening religious harmony in the country, the PDP chieftain broadened the argument by referring to what he described as attacks on democracy.

Six months later, the Oyo State governor, who moved his faction of the PDP into an alliance with the APM, echoed a similar position when he received the rescued pupils and their teachers at the Government House, Ibadan.

While raising suspicions about the possible involvement of his political detractors in the abduction of the schoolchildren and their teachers, the outgoing governor argued that the circumstances surrounding the incident were “sufficiently grave and unusual to warrant independent scrutiny beyond our domestic institutions.”

Clarifying his position, Makinde declared: “I, therefore, with a full sense of responsibility as the executive governor of Oyo State, call on the appropriate international human rights organisations and accountability mechanisms, including those within the United Nations system, to closely examine the facts surrounding this abduction and the circumstances of its resolution.

“Such scrutiny is not intended to undermine our institutions; rather, it is intended to reinforce confidence, establish the truth, and ensure that every person found to bear responsibility, regardless of office, influence or affiliation, is held accountable.”

However, while acknowledging that national security falls within the remit of the Nigerian Government and its security agencies, Makinde argued that Nigerians deserve a full account of what transpired and those responsible.

He stated that a transparent account of the incident should establish who was responsible, whether there were institutional failures, negligence or collusion at any level, and the measures being taken to prevent a recurrence. For emphasis, the governor maintained that “this is not about politics but about justice for the victims, reassurance for our people and restoring public confidence that every Nigerian child can go to school without fear.”

Differing slants
NO sooner had the Oyo State governor made those remarks than the Presidency described them as unpatriotic. The Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said that although the Federal Government had no reason to stop the international body from examining the abduction if Makinde believed there were grey areas, his request “suggested a lack of confidence in Nigeria’s security institutions.”

Questioning the governor’s motivation for inviting the UN, Onanuga maintained that the nation’s security agencies, which suffered casualties during the rescue operation, had no reason to abandon the victims, particularly the children, in prolonged captivity.

Recall that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, on May 10, while reacting to the successful rescue of the abductees, commended the Nigerian military and the Department of State Services for working “round the clock in the last 56 days to secure the release of the abducted children and their teachers without any collateral damage” and for arresting eight abductors while neutralising others.

Interestingly, Onanuga also quoted the President as commending Governor Makinde for collaborating with the Federal Government throughout the rescue operation, saying: “I am profoundly happy that our security forces successfully rescued the abducted pupils and teachers from Oriire, Ogbomosho, in Oyo State today after a military, police and intelligence-driven operation that neutralised some of the terrorists who perpetrated the evil act and led to the arrest of eight of them.”

However, the matter took on a partisan dimension when the Senate debated a substantive motion sponsored by the Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, along with other senators.

Following the adoption of an amendment moved by Adams Oshiomhole (APC, Edo North), the Senate resolved to ask Governor Makinde to withdraw his call for the UN to lead an international investigation into the abduction and rescue of the schoolchildren and teachers in Ogbomosho.

Oshiomhole argued that Makinde should desist from politicising the rescue operation by demanding an international investigation, saying the governor’s action was neither statesmanlike nor appropriate.

Angered by the Senate’s resolution, the Oyo State House of Assembly, in a statement issued by the Office of the Speaker, Adebo Ogundoyin, backed Makinde, insisting that such an investigation would strengthen, rather than undermine, Nigeria’s security architecture.

In their motion, the lawmakers noted that repeated attacks on schools across Nigeria had become a disturbing trend requiring fresh approaches beyond conventional security responses.

Consequently, they declared: “If our collective efforts as a country have not been sufficient to end this menace, it is only appropriate to invite the relevant agency of the United Nations to investigate the unusual circumstances surrounding the Oyo State case and make recommendations that will help prevent a recurrence. Enough is enough.”