Martin Amidu: I never begged to be A-G; Kobby Fiagbe says he is even unfit for the office

From: Ghana l Malik Abass Daabu/Myjoyonline.com          Last Updated: January 12, 2012, 4:30 pm    Comments (73)  Email  Print          0 inShare Follow Us on Facebook on Twitter RSS Feeds Mobile Podcasts A-G, Martin Amidu Editor of pro-NDC newspaper, the Ghanaian Lens, Mr Kobby Fiagbe, says Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Amidu is unfit for the office of A-G and must thus be sacked with immediate effect. Mr Fiagbe said he and others did not “hound” former A-G Betty Mould Iddrisu out of office for Mr Amidu to come and do worse. The A-G, in a press release Wednesday described sections of the pro-government press as “a partisan and rented NDC press group who perceive that I am not performing the duties of my office in their partisan political interests.” He said “a colleague Minister of State, who perceived that my integrity and professionalism as a lawyer was a threat to the concealment of gargantuan crimes against the people of Ghana…” connived “to unleash the gullible section of the NDC press on me by the leakage of official documents from my ministry through the perverse section of a rented NDC press to the public beginning the 3rd of January 2012.” But those comments have attracted the fury of Mr Fiagbe who says Mr Amidu cannot continue to hold the high office of A-G when he publicly admits, through his own press statement, that he knows criminals walking the streets of Ghana. Mr Fiagbe, told Citi FM Thursday that the A-G was a beneficiary of their agitations that led to the removal of Mrs Iddrisu from office and his appointment as the A-G and he should not call them “criminal NDC press.” He challenged Mr Amidu to arrest and prosecute owners of the press he says are criminal press or forever hold his peace. Mr Amidu, however, appears unperturbed by the calls for his dismissal having said in his press statement that “As for the section of the rented NDC press calling for my removal or dismissal from office, I wish to assure them that I never begged to be appointed Attorney-General: I opposed it on four separate occasions. That criminal section of the NDC press should be assured that I am ready, able and willing for that eventuality. The inescapable fact is that at the end of the day truth will prevail over falsehood in the Republic of Ghana.” Below is the full statement as issued by Mr Martin Amidu: This press release has been necessitated by three telephone calls from Bawku in the Upper East Region, Burma Camp and Tema both in the Greater Accra Region on the 9th January 2012 expressing support and urging caution for my personal safety because of the cowardly, malicious and libelous attacks against my well established reputation and integrity as a lawyer, a politician and the Attorney- General of the Republic of Ghana by a partisan and rented NDC press group who perceive that I am not performing the duties of my office in their partisan political interests. I wish to assure the members and supporters of the National Democratic Congress who are still unequivocally and resolutely committed to the original ideas of the 31st December revolution of “Freedom, Justice, Probity and Accountability:,” enshrined in the preamble of the 1992 constitution that I remain steadfast to those principles, ideals and commitments as the foundation of the fourth republican constitution. I remember the gallant men and women who laid down their lives in diverse ways that this country must live and serve the cause of the majority of the ordinary people whose sweat has consistently been exploited by the elite and elitist politicians in the name of service to the people. I appreciate the privilege and recognition accorded my integrity and honesty over the decades when I was invited on the 4th June 2011 to lay the wreath on behalf of the probity, transparency and accountability in memory of our fallen colleagues and heroes. I have faith and believe in my Ministerial oath of office as a Minister of State and my cabinet oath that requires me to “uphold, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the Republic of the Ghana as by law established…” Consequently, I wish to assure the people of Ghana that I still stand by my promise in spite of the fact that hard core criminals in our society today have made it a habit to hold paid membership cards of major political parties in the republic as an unconstitutional insurance against crime and criminal prosecutions. I wish core members and supporters of the NDC who cherish the principles and ideas upon which the party was founded to know that the attacks against me which started in the Daily Post publications of the 3rd January 2012 were planned by a colleague Minister of State, who perceived that my integrity and professionalism as a lawyer was a threat to the concealment of gargantuan crimes against the people of Ghana in which they might be implicated. An alibi was consequently created on 30th December 2011 to unleash the gullible section of the NDC press on me by the leakage of official documents from my ministry through the perverse section of a rented NDC press to the pubic beginning the 3rd of January 2012. That has back fired because the leaked official documents by the Daily Post; the Informer; the National Democrat; the Ghanaian Lens; etc have rather inadvertently supported my honesty and integrity in public office and my call for the prosecution of criminals regardless of their political party colorations or their social status. I was deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice for upwards of twelve and half years and know it is not proper for an Attorney-General to execute the functions entrusted to him under article 88 of the constitution in the media instead of the courts of justice. I will speak to the media when it is absolutely necessary to do so but I will not discuss people’s rights and cases in the media to prejudice their eventual procedural rights to a fair trial. The ethics of a legal profession and the Bar, of which I am a leader, are more sacred to me than that of young and inexperienced members of a communication team of the NDC who are absolutely ignorant of the functions of an Attorney-General under the Constitution of Ghana. I wish to conclude in this press statement by stating that there is not a single criminal docket against any high political operative of the NPP which has been ready for prosecution in the Director of Public Prosecution’s office that I have failed or refused to prosecute as that Minister of State and the gullible NDC press want the whole world to believe. Fairness requires that NDC criminals be prosecuted by me as well, as an independent and impartial Attorney-General, albeit appointed by the NDC Government. I have sufficient integrity and experience as a Ghanaian and a legal practitioner who has personally conducted several leading cases reported in the Law Reports of Ghana to naively send hearsay and newspaper accusations to the courts of Justice only to lose them as was the practice a few years past. Cool heads are what are needed in the office of the Attorney-General and not emotions, inexperience and crass incompetence in the practice of the law. As for the section of the rented NDC press calling for my removal or dismissal from office, I wish to assure them that I never begged to be appointed Attorney-General: I opposed it on four separate occasions. That criminal section of the NDC press should be assured that I am ready, able and willing for that eventuality. The inescapable fact is that at the end of the day truth will prevail over falsehood in the Republic of Ghana. I do not fear for my personal safety in a cause I have fought for since I was 30 years old. I am now over 60 years and count myself lucky if I pay the ultimate sacrifice which my compatriots paid in 1979 and 1981 belatedly in the regime of the third NDC Government. When you die you never know you never lived. Destiny can never be changed but the good people of Ghana and those who laid down their lives for them will forever live on. Ghana as a nation can never and should never be allowed to be intimidated by charlatans in political disguise.

Global Energy Security and Africa's rising Strategic Importance

Oil and gas are strategic commodities

Thus whether analysed from the perspective of the United States, the European Union or China, there is growing recognition that Africa is on a strategic transition to become a major geostrategic powerhouse for the maintenance of the global economic system. As a matter of fact Africa now features in the international calculus of many of the major global energy importers indicating the growing significance of the continent to maintaining a healthy global economic system.

Africa is emerging as one of the strategic regions with significant contribution for the maintenance of the global energy security architecture. Since 1998, beginning with President Bill Clinton's visit to Africa, a number of high level officials from U.S., China, India, Russia, Turkey, Brazil and the E.U. have visited the continent with most of the visits taking place in oil and gas-rich countries. 

President George W. Bush visited the continent twice before the end of his 8 year term. In 2006 President Hu Jintao of China, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and China's foreign minister together visited 15 countries in Africa. In 2009 President Obama visited both Egypt and Ghana. He was quickly followed by Secretary Hilary Clinton who visited 7 countries including Nigeria and Angola both major oil exporters. These visits are important because oil and gas remain strategic commodities critical to the functioning of the global economic system.

Officially Africa is known to have 10% and 8% share of the proven global oil and gas reserves respectively. According to the 2009 U.S. Energy Information Administration records, Libya is home to Africa's largest oil reserves with about 43.7 billion barrels in total, followed by Nigeria with 36.2 billion barrels, Algeria 12.2 billion barrels and Angola with 9 billion barrels. Other countries like Sudan, Gabon, Cameroon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, Mozambique, Ghana and Uganda have huge deposits of oil and gas which are either being exported or are being developed for export. Moreover, there is growing recognition among energy experts that Africa may be home to unknown quantities of oil and gas reserves making it what experts refer to as the 'New Gulf' in reference to the oil-rich Persia Gulf. Tapping these reserves is very important for the energy dependent economies of U.S., China, India, and the E.U.

Available information indicate that Africa has overtaken the Middle East as a major oil supplier to the U.S. Data from U.S. Energy Information Administration indicate that in 2010 U.S. total oil import from Africa amounted to 21.7% of U.S. total global oil import. In the same period U.S. oil import from the Middle East was 18.5% of US total global oil import. It is projected that U.S. oil import from Africa will reach 25% in 2015 and will grow even further as Ghana begins to export some of its oil to the country.

Europe's dependence on Africa energy is also growing. Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Libya and Nigeria in particular have become very important energy suppliers to the European Union. France for instance is the single largest EU importer of Angolan oil. The 27 EU members together buy three-fifths of Algerian Liquefied Natural Gas exports.

Nigeria with its 3% share of global gas reserves, exports nearly two-thirds of its gas to the EU making her the EU's fourth largest major natural gas supplier. A $10 billion Trans-Sahara Pipeline from Nigeria through Niger and to Algeria is expected to boost gas export from Nigeria to the European market and solidify the continent as a major gas exporter to the EU. Similarly the EU is expected to secure about 15% of its power needs from the planed $550 billion solar power project in North Africa dubbed the DESERTEC Project.

New comers in the global energy consumption league including China and India have also focused their attention on Africa. Angola, Nigeria, Sudan, and the Republic of Congo have become China's major oil suppliers providing China with 30% of its annual oil imports. According to Jeffrey Henderson, in 2003 about 41 per cent of Sudan's exports and 23 per cent of Angola's mostly oil went to China. Vivian Foster of the World Bank notes that since 2006 two Chinese companies: China National Oil Corporation and China National Petroleum Corporation have committed to invest about $5 billion in Nigeria, $3 billion in Angola and $1.5 billion in Sudan. Jeffrey Henderson notes that in 2005, China's Export–Import Bank had investment portfolio of US$15 billion in Africa mostly in the energy, mining and construction sectors.

Thus whether analysed from the perspective of the United States, the European Union or China, there is growing recognition that Africa is on a strategic transition to become a major geostrategic powerhouse for the maintenance of the global economic system. As a matter of fact Africa now features in the international calculus of many of the major global energy importers indicating the growing significance of the continent to maintaining a healthy global economic system.

Several other factors also buttress Africa's rising strategic importance to the global energy security architecture. They include among other things higher oil prices; the peaking of energy production in the North Sea; the unpredictability of Russia as energy supplier to the EU; climate change; rising energy consumption in China and India and the ensuing competition with U.S. and the EU for the remaining 1,114 trillion barrels of global oil reserves; and the arms race, conflicts and instability in the Middle East which together controls 60% and 41% of global oil and gas reserves respectively.

For example for the United States, due to the arms race, conflicts and instability in the Middle East, now appear to favour energy imports from Africa more than the Middle East. Part of the reason is that there is stability in Africa now than it was in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. The internal civil wars that ravaged Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mozambique and Congo Brazzaville in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s have been resolved and democratic governance is taking shape in a number of the countries, making security of production and transportation less a problem than they used to be.

Additionally, the prospect of major inter-state conflict in Africa involving the use of deadly weapons that could destabilise oil and gas supply looks relatively distant. Few African countries possess the destructive war machines that Middle Eastern countries have acquired over the last 10 to 20 years. In 2010 for example Saudi Arabia purchased $60 billion worth of U.S. military hardware which experts believe is geared towards countering Iran's arms build up. Again most of Africa's oil is located offshore and could be exploited and transported relatively easily with very little contact with the local population. By way of distance the parts of Africa where most of the oil and gas are located is relatively closer to the U.S. making cost of transportation and the security associated with it relatively less expensive. These factors make oil and gas from Africa more reliable than say the Middle East and remain some of the main reasons why Africa's strategic importance is growing among oil and gas importers.

Two things are worth mentioning here about Africa's rising strategic importance. The first is that the growing strategic importance may help Africa to enjoy economic growth, gain diplomatic respect, and secure influence on the global stage. Currently the increased investment from China, India, US and European Union is fuelling growth in energy export economies such as Angola, Ghana and Nigeria. The Economist magazine has predicted that between 2011 and 2015 seven of the top 10 fastest growing economies in the world will be found in Africa. This economic growth if well managed may help lift millions of people from poverty i.e. if the growth and the revenue are redistributed.

The growing demand for Africa's energy resources could also increase the bargaining capacity of the governments in Africa vis-à-vis energy buyers. The demand could mean more revenue to the governments which in theory could be used to reduce their dependence on aid and loans from the World Bank and IMF and hence correct the power imbalance between them. In other words the rise in demand for Africa's energy resources if better managed could alter the balance of power between Africans and their international creditors.

The second point is that as African countries become major oil and gas suppliers and as U.S. China, France, Britain, India, Russia, and Brazil increasingly compete with each other for the continent's energy resources, there are fears that the region is becoming a cockpit of superpower rivalry. Observers have indicated that rivalry is slowly leading to militarization of policies by energy importers towards the continent. It is believed that Libya became the first casualty of this rivalry in 2011. Critics of the war argue that the US-EU-NATO invasion was a strategy to scare away their rivals and competitors particularly China. As evidence, they point to the more than 35,000 Chinese oil and construction workers who were forced out of Libya during the invasion.

In 2008 during a meeting with oil and gas multinationals in London, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, then NATO Secretary General announced that NATO would use its air, land and sea capabilities to police and protect the energy security interest of its members. That policy, it is argued, was implemented in Libya where NATO played a key role in overthrowing the Gaddafi government. As another sign of the growing militarisation of the continent, in 2007 President Bush Jr and the Pentagon, launched what they call Africa Command (AFRICOM) a military project which (although denied by U.S. officials) is intended to protect U.S. energy and other interest in Africa. The invasion of Ivory Coast (a small but significant oil exporter) by France in 2011 after the Ivorian electoral dispute also shows the increasing use of the military by foreign powers to achieve their national interest objectives in Africa.

African governments and their peoples need to guide against the superpower competition and the associated rivalries and ensure that the attention the continent is receiving does not lead to exploitation, instabilities and proxy wars but rather opportunities for the masses. Therefore African countries should take a unified and coordinated approach vis-à-vis the major buyers to ensure that Africa's political and economic stability, long term security and prosperity of its citizens are not jeopardised.

Secondly, while African countries deepen partnership with energy multinationals they should formulate and implement policies to influence negotiation outcomes, and get the best commercial deals for their resources, so as to ensure that the people of Africa become the ultimate beneficiaries of their resources .

Finally, there is perception particularly in Europe and America that Africa is both economic and political dwarf that can be manipulated to suit their interests. That perception ought to be corrected. Therefore, Africa should use its revenue to build economic and political power to influence and shape the current world order to its advantage. In other words Africa should harness its growing strategic importance to pursue agenda relevant to its interest.

The governments in Africa, the oil and gas industry, the academia, the media, civil society, and the think tanks all have a role to play in making Africa benefit from its growing strategic importance.

By Lord Aikins Adusei. politicalthinker1@yahoo.com

Oil and Gas at Ghana-Ivorian border: conflict or cooperation?

Oil and gas resources at Ghana-Ivorian border: conflict or cooperation?

However, if both countries choose to war-war instead of jaw-jaw then it is important to point out to them the ramifications of having to engage in a dangerously competitive and ruthlessly conflictual exercise. For example such conflictual exercise has potential to send West Africa back to the days of low investment, low economic growth, high inflation, huge external debts, human displacements and poverty.

By Lord Aikins Adusei

The West African sub region and indeed the African continent is no stranger to conflicts and disputes over natural resources. The diamond conflict in Sierra Leone in the 1990s and the recent Niger Delta oil and gas conflicts in Nigeria are few examples of how resources have fuelled conflicts in the sub-region.

In the 1980s and 1990s Nigeria and Cameroon clashed several times over oil and gas resources in the Bakassi Peninsula. The conflict was later settled by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, but not after several people have been killed. The conflict over gas and oil resources emanated from among other things the need by both countries to keep their territorial sovereignty intact, ensure energy and human security, economic survival including the need to benefit financially from the sale of the resources.

Recently in Ghana the media have reported that Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast), which shares maritime border with Ghana, is making claims to parts of the sea where Ghana has recently discovered oil. The report saw Ghanaians pouring in on online chat rooms and radio discussions in solidarity of their country. They condemned the Ivorian claims as opportunistic.

Mr. Collins Dauda, Ghana's Lands and Natural Resources Minister buttressing the point that Ivorians are being opportunistic argued that there was no maritime dispute between Ghana and Ivory Coast, and that both countries had always respected the median line until oil and gas was found in the Ghana part of the maritime border. “All of a sudden, with the oil find, Ivory Coast is making a claim that is disrespecting this median line we have all respected. In which case we would be affected or the oil find will be affected” the Minister claimed.

Mr. Dauda was right about his 'no maritime dispute' statement. Ghana and Ivory Coast have been good neighbours ever since both countries gained independence. Both nations are trading partners. There is no memory of a major armed confrontation between the two sister nations. In 2011 Ghana even torpedoed efforts by regional bloc ECOWAS to invade Ivory Coast after the disputed elections. The government of Ghana argued at that time that war was not necessary and that dialogue should be used to settle the electoral dispute. When conflict finally erupted after France and UN joined the Alassan Quattara forces, Ghana became home to Ivorians who fled the conflict. Recently when I visited Sekondi-Takoradi, I was told stories of Ghanaians and Ivorians refugees dining and drinking together, confirming that both countries are like one big family.

Yet the recent discovery of oil and gas (both vital strategic commodities essential for the well-being of the global economy) is raising voices in both countries. Some of the hawkish voices are encouraging their governments to protect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the national interest of their countries using every possible means including the use of the armed forces.

However, I believe that those with moderate voices should let their voices be heard. Of course moderation does not mean that Ivory Coast and Ghana should ignore their national interests. Far from that, however, I believe that such national interests can be pursued democratically and diplomatically without agonising the populations in both countries and endangering the fragile peace in the sub-region.

Fortunately, both Ivory Coast and Ghana are leading and respected members of ECOWAS as well as the Africa Union and could use these regional institutions to peacefully settle any disputes they may have.

Additionally there is international framework of rules, regulations, conventions, laws and institutions which determine who is entitled to which asset on land and on the sea bed. Such regulations and framework also provide clear rules and guidelines as to how disputes could be determined or settled in international courts. I am sure both Ivory Coast and Ghana are signatory to some of these international conventions and should use them to address their concerns.

Aside using diplomacy and international legal system, both countries can choose cooperation: joint exploration, joint development and joint management of the disputed area(s) for the benefit of their countries. There are many examples of such cooperation and joint management around the world including that of China and Japan, and the European Union.

In fact the current European Union was born out of the need to cooperate in pooling and sharing energy and other resources together. In May 1950 Robert Schuman, as French Foreign Minister, proposed that to perpetually eliminate devastating wars from Europe, archrivals France and Germany should pool their coal and steel production together and place it under one High Authority for the benefit of both countries and the rest of Europe. That proposal and its adoption have brought 60 years of political stability and economic prosperity to members of the European Union. Prior to the formation of EU, European countries fought several wars over resources including two world wars which were partly fought over access to resources.

The West Africa Power Pool and the West Africa Gas Pipeline coming from Nigeria to Togo, to Benin and to Ghana also serve as good examples on how the countries can share resources for their common good. There is nothing that prevents Ghana and Ivory Coast to follow these examples of cooperating to share resources for their own good.

In other words no matter the scale of the maritime boundary dispute, it can be settled by means of arbitration, negotiation or cooperation.

Besides, Ivory Coast and Ghana live in an interdependent region with common non-traditional security threats including militancy, piracy, drug and human trafficking, terrorist attacks, poverty, food and health insecurity, environmental pollution, climate change, and deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS. These problems demand a common, unified response and should make war between the two countries undesirable.

Ivorians and Ghanaians must remember that resources do not necessary bring conflict, people do and the people who advocate for conflict do so because of their interests. Much of the effort to solve the dispute will depend on the political and the military leadership as well as other groups (companies and individuals) with interest in the oil and gas resources in the area.

Therefore the leadership of both countries must demonstrate mutual political trust. They must show their commitment to dialogue and respect for international law and political structures within their countries and the sub-region; and they must discard any realist zero-sum perceptions they may have and approach the border dispute with openness, fairness and mutual respect.

One critical element vital to avoiding any conflict or preventing conflict from escalating is communication. Ghana and Ivory Coast must establish communication at the ministerial and possibly at the presidential level. Similar communication and hotlines should be established at the military level and between the military chiefs of both countries so that should any skirmishes accidentally happen between the armies at the border the confidence could quickly be restored.

The citizens in Ghana and Ivory Coast also have a major role to play. While they may be the ultimate beneficiary of the resources, they may also be victims should the dispute become confrontational. Therefore the citizens must encourage their political leaders to use the available international laws, conventions and channels to resolve the differences peacefully. In short both countries need not waste vital human and material resources to engage in conflicts that can be resolved diplomatically or through arbitration and cooperation.

However, if both countries choose to war-war instead of to jaw-jaw then it is important to point out to them the ramifications of having to engage in a dangerously competitive and ruthlessly conflictual exercise. For example such conflictual exercise has potential to send West Africa back to the days of low investment, low economic growth, high inflation, huge external debts, human displacements and poverty.

Unnecessary military adventure will not only lead to human casualties, but also lead to huge military expenditure which will be a drain on the economy and may lead to huge external debts whose payment will have negative impact on the performance of both economies.

From a regional perspective a war between the two countries will have a strong adverse effect on economic performance of the entire sub-region, particularly the neighbouring landlocked countries of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, which rely on the transportation systems of Ghana and Ivory Coast for most of their export and imports. In other words regional trade, economic growth and stability could be disrupted and might take the region decades to recover.

This is why dialogue, diplomacy, arbitration and cooperation should be seriously considered.

By Lord Aikins Adusei

Africa's Strategic Interest in the 21st Century. What is it?

President Mills and Africa Strategic Interest

There is a black hole in Nigeria and other African countries' economy because for decades the leadership in these countries have deferred their countries' interest to entities such as multinational corporations and foreign governments as is in the case of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

By Lord Aikins Adusei

There are many strategic thinkers who believe that Africa's underdog position in the world stems from the fact majority if not all the countries do not pursue policies that put the interest of their countries and people first. That is each of the countries in Africa does not work for the interest of its people by putting the interest of the nation and its people ahead of all other interests.

There is a consensus among policymakers that if each African country should work for its own interest while coordinating with other countries in the continent on issues such as free trade, energy and human security, and political stability among others there will be more successful economies in Africa than we have seen over the past 50 years. The lack of 'Africa first' as both an ideology and as a strategy has been one major factor that has delayed the continent's development.

Every country in the world works for the interest of its people. US, China, Russia, Britain, Germany, Korea all work to develop their economies for their citizens to benefit and these countries do not care what means they use to achieve those interests. But here in Africa governments sell resources and don't account to the people. Politicians only campaign for votes but not for development. There is complete lack of policies that articulate the concerns and interests of the countries and their citizens. In the 1980s and 1990s many national assets were sold under Structural Adjustment Program to foreign entities without considering the interest of the countries and their citizens. Today there are countries in Africa where multinational corporations have major shares in mining, oil, and timber, firms while the nations and their peoples who own the natural resources get very little.

Africans are quick to sell raw materials to countries in Europe, North America and Asia without asking what they could do with those natural resources themselves. It looks as if African governments do not have any specific interest in the world. They have not projected themselves as nations that matter in any sectors of the world affairs. It is not that these countries do not know what they must do; the problem is that the leaders have often tended to serve the interest of other nations rather than their own.

The governments always give their support to countries trying to get a platform in the world and seeking their interest in Africa and some have done so even to the detriment of their own countries. One clear example is the announcement by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Nobel Peace Prize Winner and President of Liberia that her country is willing to host AFRICOM even though she has not consulted her people or the countries in the West African sub-region.

In her article published by allAfrica.com titled “AFRICOM Can Help Governments Willing To Help Themselves,” Ellen Johnson Sirleaf horned AFRICOM as a Marshall plan for Africa's development and encouraged African nations to 'work with Africom to achieve their own development and security goals'. This attitude is part of the reason why nations like Liberia and Nigeria have not developed. There is no collective national interest, neither is there any effort to do so rather they tend to support others whose interest is to exploit the continent to benefit their citizens.

The Guardian newspaper in Nigeria quoted Sanusi Lamido, the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria as saying: “As an economist, I have done and looked at the input and output content of the Nigerian economy, and I have never seen an economy with a kind of black hole like that of Nigeria. We produced cotton, yet our textile plants are not working; we produce crude oil, we import petroleum products; we produce gas and export, yet we don't have power plant. We have iron ore, we don't have steel plant; and we have hide and skin, we don't have leader products”.

There is a black hole in Nigeria and other African countries' economy because for decades the leadership in these countries have deferred their countries' interest to entities such as multinational corporations and foreign governments as is in the case of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

In 2009, US, China, Russia, France, Britain, Iran, and Israel all sent presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and other powerful government officials to Africa to pursue their interests. United States has been urged by the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies and Africa Oil Policy Initiative Group to declare the Gulf of Guinea a strategic interest and US under AFRICOM is seriously lobbying African governments to allow her to establish military bases so as to achieve her strategic goals.

A declassified document of the US Defence Department regarding the strategic importance of West Africa states that: 'West Africa is a swing production region that allows oil companies to leverage production capabilities to meet the fluctuating world demands.. . .West African oil is of high quality, is easily accessed offshore, and is well positioned to supply the North American market. Production in two major oil producing states (Nigeria and Angola) is expected to double or triple in the next 5-10 years. Already Nigeria and Angola provide as much oil to the U.S. as Venezuela or Mexico, making it of strategic importance.

Walter Kansteiner, the US assistant secretary of State for Africa speaking about what Africa oil means to his country said: “African oil is of national strategic interest to us, and it will increase and become more important as we go forward.”

The United States is not hiding her strategic ambition in Africa, however, I am yet to see Nigeria or Ghana or Senegal, Angola, and Namibia saying wait a minute what is our strategic interest in the Gulf of Guinea, how do we want to see the oil wealth in the Gulf of Guinea exploited and utilised to benefit our peoples and how do we contain the powers that are seeking to exploit the region's vast mineral wealth.

How do we coordinate to ensure that our peoples get the lion share from the oil deals; or how do we work together to strengthen security and prevent terrorists from getting foothold in West Africa? Such issues as the economy, energy security, political stability and infrastructure do not appear on the radars of the countries in Africa. There are few role model countries in Africa where the rest can learn from. The kind of competition that we saw in Asia that led to the industrialisation of countries like Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, which has given them a sense of national pride has not occurred in Africa. I am yet to see the foreign policy of Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, DRC, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Kenya that put the interest of their people first. To me it looks as if each of these countries does not have interest that has to be articulated through their foreign policies.

Nations around the world are launching satellites to strengthen their economies, boost their communication capabilities and to police their countries, others are building a new generation of technologies to help propel and give their nations good footing in the increasingly competitive global economy. You don't see such aggressive efforts in Africa. Nigeria is sleeping, Angola is still reeling from decades of war, DRC lacks a strong central government to formulate and implement any policy at all. The end result is that a vacuum has been created which is being filled strategically by the United States as in the case of her military base Djibouti.

The lack of strategic interest on the part of African nations means that they will have to rely on countries like US, Britain, France, and China for their security and economic needs, but for how long? How will they win the fight against poverty, hunger, diseases and illiteracy if they do not champion their own interest and how are they expected to be taken serious if they continue to champion the strategic interest of others rather than their own?