 U.S. lawmakers stopped the sale of arms over $875 million to Nigeria and are going to use protest the deplorable state of roads in Elame River states. This is plus politics and I am Mary Annaclone. The United States lawmakers are delaying a proposed sale of attack helicopters to Nigeria citing poor human rights record of President Mohamed Buhairi's government as its reasons. As it also grapples with multiple security crisis, the deal is said to be worth $875 million. The lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to a report that was reviewed by the foreign policy magazine, have reportedly delayed clearing a proposed sale of attack helicopters and accompanying defense systems to the Nigerian military. However, the response to security by security sources, they have said that the federal government was not perturbed as all necessary agreements in this is reached on governments to government bases were adhered to. And this is from the Nigerian government. But to debunk all of this, we have joining us, Justin Higgins. He is a former U.S. Congressional Advisor. We also have Iniba Refyong. He's a human rights lawyer joining us. Also later on in the show is Kabir Adamo. He is a security risk management expert. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for joining us. Thank you for having us, Mary Ann. Great. I'm going to start with you, Justin, because this has to do with the U.S. and Nigeria relations. And one of the most important roles that the U.S. is playing, you know, in its relationship with Nigeria is to help us fight terrorism. But this seems to be like a hiccup in, you know, in the midst of all that relations. So I'm going to start by asking why you think that the lawmakers decided to put a pause on the sale, because already we have taken delivery of six, if not more, of those FISA jets, the Takano jets. But then the members of the Senate decided that they were going to stop and think about the fact that there are human rights concerns in Nigeria. What do you think about this? Yeah. So this is a very complex and nuanced issue. And I think it's really important to understand that the original sale was approved by President Trump. And so the Biden administration has yet to rule on this. It was approved in January and two senators, like you mentioned, the Republican and Democrat leading members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee came out and they said, hold on, we need to slow down. We're going to put this on pause. And all reports are indicating this is not public. So this is behind the scenes. But what the reports are saying is that this is due to a combination of human rights abuses and the human rights abuses stemmed from military action, not only in the way that civilians have been harmed in hunting Boko Haram, but also and maybe specifically the N.SARS protests and the death of civilians at the hands of military, the U.S. government, according to reports from these senators, are concerned that President Buhari in the Nigerian civilian leadership does not have adequate control over the military. Well, Justin, I mean, there have been several reports about human rights abuses in Nigeria. I remember several years ago Amnesty International brought out a report on the Nigerian Army and of course human rights, the incited cases of human rights abuses. The police also had one of those same reports by Amnesty International, which the police and the army had denied over and over again. So why has the congressional or rather the Senate and members of the Congress decided now was a better time for them to put a pause? Because look, as you know, Nigeria is dealing with a high level of insecurity and the different types. It's a hydro-headed monster. On one hand, you have Boko Haram. On the other hand, you have the issue of banditry and there are the issues that Nigeria is facing. We need, you know, every form of support that we can get in terms of security and arms and ammunition so that our soldiers can fight this war. But do you think the timing is right? Well, I don't know what I think. I'm going to tell you what I think I've heard from the senators, though. There has been a massive change in the way that the United States is conducting foreign affairs from the Trump administration to the Biden administration. The Biden administration has put human rights, first and foremost, along with protecting and helping support democracies around the world. That doesn't mean that the President Biden won't work with other types of governments when it suits U.S. interests. But based on those two priorities, shifting away from the Trump more real politic approach, which was more transactional, less focused on human rights and democracies, the senators, according to Senator Menendez's statement back in July 2020, and also Senator Rich, according to these unnamed reports, believe that now is the time not to necessarily prevent any arms sales to Nigeria, but to put them on pause because maybe the Biden administration can work with President Buhari to get things back on track. That's what we're hearing from these unnamed reports. The senators see the Biden administration cares about human rights. They care about democracy around the world. And this might be an opportunity for the Biden administration to help our friends in Nigeria realize these two goals. Interesting. I'm going to come back to you, Justin, quickly. Let me go to you, Nibe. Nibe, you're one of the lawyers that have been very outspoken in terms of issues of human rights. And we're talking about several. You were very, very vocal of when we had the NSAS protests, the aftermath of the NSAS protests, the hearing, the public hearing, and now the Twitter ban. I know that you also filed a suit against the federal government and also the AGF was part of the people in that suit. And he recently came out to say that Nigerians are still allowed to use Twitter even though there's a ban. How do you feel about this move by the Senate in the U.S.? Is this really a good thing in terms of the fact that you are fighting for a human rights cause? Well, if the reports are true, if the report is true, what we are reading, what we are hearing from, you know, media reports, I believe it will be a positive development for Nigeria and the country. I do concede that Nigeria is, you know, essentially fighting an existential, you know, war insurgency and all that. But the point remains that the current regime has shown itself unable to appreciate the demands of human rights. Part of the disappointments that some of us in the human rights community in Nigeria, you know, see is that the West, essentially the U.S., U.K., the European Union, and so on, they tend to pay lip service to issues of human rights. You cannot be sitting and dining with more dross regime, genocidal regime, regime that are killing its citizens, regime that are arresting people, detaining them, flouting corridors, carrying out mass executions, a strategic killing with a few process of law, regime that have no respect for an independent press, and you are still saying you are the person of democracy. You are the example of what a democratic country should be like. So what I expect the Biden administration to do, the Democratic-led Senate in the Senate, of course, the other representatives, in fact, essentially the Congress, and of course the President Biden administration to do, is to go beyond rhetoric, to go beyond saying we are going to delay ourselves. We want to see positive drastic action in terms of sanctions, in terms of travel ban, in terms of seizure of assets, in terms of even imposition of strict sanctions on the country, because on leaders of the country in particular, because people must realize that there is a price to pay for violation of human rights. So I want to believe that the Biden administration would take this issue seriously. I want to give him the benefit of doubt, because Trump didn't really care about human rights. You know, as the commentator of the right, we said Trump was basically a transitional leader who was more interested in the personality of people in power than policy. But I'm hoping that this is an indication that the US policy towards Africa, not just Nigeria, has to change. If you look at what is happening, for example, the role that France is playing in the Francophone conflict, it is embarrassing. They embolden dictators. They give them arms to kill their citizens. They shield them. Look at what is happening in Mali. Look at what is happening in Southern Cameroon. Look at the genocide that is going on all over Africa. This would not have been happening at this alarming rate if the Western countries are holding this despot in Africa accountable. And the Buhari regime has essentially gotten away with murder. This regime has gotten away with murder. What would have been expected by now that people would be sanctioned? Look at the killing of the Shahs. The US is aware of this thing. Nothing has been done. Look at the killing during the answers. But you see the same Trump, and I'm not a Trump representative, but I'm saying the Trump administration did speak on the issue of the shites and the issue of religion and the crisis that was bedeviling the country at the time, even though we didn't do anything, but it did frown at it, of course. And there were several Republicans and Democrats who spoke on that issue, if you remember very well. But then should America, should the US, I mean, because the US is a country on its own, it has its own problem, should they always be the ones that we go to to deal with issues in African countries? I mean, we have the African Union. We have ECOS. Why can't African countries check themselves? Why do we always have to run to the US or the UK to help us out? The reason is because those multinational organizations in Africa, they're essentially useless to Africans. Like the African Union, for example, there is no head of state in Africa that has been held accountable by the African Union, not even ECOS. Look at what they can't even checkmate themselves. It is so embarrassing. They cannot even talk to themselves. So we still have to depend on this Western country, because that's where they go to get loans. That is the way where they ferry our assets to. That is where our stolen funds are being hidden. These countries have a lot of leverage on Africa. They can do a whole lot. And we cannot pretend about the fact that our democratic, our system of government is also modeled after the US. So Nigeria cannot be claiming that it is independent when you are still depending on these countries for aid. You are still depending on them for loans. You are still depending on them for... Look at the president that I speak to you, who are even in the UK. He has to be depending on the medical services of the United Kingdom to survive. He cannot be talking about sovereignty of his country when he does not depend on the services of the country to survive. So what that should be that if the UK, for example, wants to hold Bawarian response to, they have a lot of leverage because they need their doctors. They need their NHS. They need their medical services to survive. So that is why this country is most marginalized, the influence that they have for the interests of human rights and for the interests of the global community. Okay, let me take you back to some of the reasons that were cited for holding back or putting a pause on that sale. They talked about the fact that the present government in Nigeria is tilting towards authoritarianism. They talked about human rights abuse. They even made mention of the Twitter ban. And I'm curious because I want to know from you, as someone who's been in the forefront of fighting for the rights of the average Nigerian, do you really think that the country is moving to some form of authoritarianism? Or are we already there? Aside from the fact that the government of the day disobeys court orders here and there and some people would say they pick and choose what laws to obey and what not to obey. Is it that bad or is it just us making it look terrible, even when it's not that bad? I think the report is just being euphemistic reports. This question is worse than authoritarianism. We are in a full-blown dictatorship. There is no pretend about it. Can you point to realistic facts that we are under government that is dictatorial, because we keep saying that the government is dictatorial, but in what ways? That's what I'm saying, the indices are dead. And the ones that are common to us. Look at how the entire civic space has been militarized. Soldiers are all over the streets, checking people what they are wearing. The few days ago, the soldiers in the east even prevented women from entering the market to sell. This is absolute madness. You cannot have that in a democracy. You cannot have that. You can't be seen soldiers all over the place. Soldiers are supposed to be in the barracks, except when they are needed for specific assignments. When the police is overwhelmed. But in Nigeria under this regime, soldiers are basically carrying out civic responsibility. Police duties, soldiers are carrying it out. All of us, we see it on the street every day. That is not a democracy. Again, look at the strategy circulates that are going on. Even the ones that are documented just yesterday, the High Court in Karuna, freed the leader of the Islamic movement of Nigeria. This was after over 300 members of his group were slaughtered and buried in shadow graves. The US is aware of this. Nobody was sanctioned. But the US is still giving military aid to Nigeria. Not even that, nobody was sanctioned. It was demolished, the student was killed. Nobody had been penalized. Kotoran had been flagrantly disobeyed. People are being thrown into detention account of comment they make. Media outlets have been targeted daily. Look at the attack on the social media. Twitter had been banned without due process of law. The government has just acquired equipment to spy on Nigeria for making it to spy on encrypted calls of citizens. You can imagine the intrusion into the rights to privacy that the government has now devoted billions of naira to acquire military, to acquire equipment to spy on citizens. Is that how to run a democracy? I do not think so. This is clear dictatorship. And you have a president who is not even listening to the people. You cannot say you are running a democracy and you are not talking into the people you are leading. When last, did you see who are re-talking Nigeria's? The man doesn't talk, he doesn't care. He doesn't even communicate. He's not even interested in what is going on He has basically left the country claiming it's going for education for me. The president has been speaking through his aid. I mean, we have asked the president over and over to speak to us and he's spoken a couple of times and he's made his point. He's fighting. He's devoted to fight the level of insecurity. He's going to bring it to its bare minimum. He's trying to unite the country. And he spoke through his aid telling us that he's going to the UK to be part of an event. And then when he's done, he's going to check his health. What else do we expect the president to be telling us at this time? The president has no business going for an educational summit. You know, I don't want to sound disrespectful to the office of the president, but who already has no business attending an educational summit? What have they done about the educational system since it became president? Which university have they built to a global standard? None of his children had been in public school. I would like to inform you in case you didn't see the papers today. He did say he was devoting more money and more attention to the education in the country. After six years, school kids are being kidnapped every day in the North. Have they done anything? I was answering your question. The system has totally collapsed. Have they done anything to stop the kidnapping of school children? Have they done anything? So what is he going to record in the summit he's attending? As I spoke to you, I saw the lecturers are trusting that they are going back on strike. So what is he going to discuss? What is he bringing to the table? What will he, what will be his contribution? What example will he start? To say, this is what I have done in my country in the last six years to improve the fortunes of education. Nothing, nothing. All right, Iniba, thank you very much. I want to go back to Justin and talk about the politics of it all. Justin, I know that you used to work in the Congress. You know how things work out there. Do you think that there is sort of political undertone to the move or the stand that the Senate has taken? Like I said to you earlier today, there are people, there are experts who have said that it could be as a reason that Nigeria's relationship or the ties that Nigeria has with China is a bit more stronger. And of course, the U.S. reportedly and China have had their own troubles. But do you see any political undertone in this stands and looking at what Iniba has said, does this cement the reasons why the Senate is really putting a halt to this? And how will this help us in the fight against insecurity? Yes, we know we need to deal with human rights abuses, but looking at the big picture, who are we really helping and who's the U.S. helping? Yeah, so that's a great question. So I would start out with no, to be honest and to be blunt, I do not hear or see political undertones in this. I do not believe that this is related to anything that the CCP government is doing in Nigeria. To be very clear though, there are very big tensions between the U.S. government and the CCP government, both politically and then literally the Biden administration has put some sanctions on the CCP government for their genocide of the Uighurs, holding up some of their pledge to put human rights back on the table. But to be very, very clear here, and this is really important to understand, while the United States values democracy, while we value human rights, the United States also must secure our own interests first. So what does that mean in this context? I believe from what I'm hearing on the ground again and from what these senators in their aides have told reporters off the record, it sounds more like the United States is very concerned with the current trajectory of the Nigerian government, current being at least back to July when the Ansar's protests and that human atrocity happened at the hands of the military. And the United States is more concerned that this will continue down the path it is going and we will not have a willing partner, not only in the fight against the extremism that is very troublesome obviously for the Nigerian people, but also for the United States' strategic interests, but also moving forward, we do not want these weapons to be used in any potential actions against civilians or in actions where the military claims they're going after extremists, but does not take civilian human life and prioritize at the correct level. So to really underscore that and to put a fine point on this, one, I do not think that this is politics, domestic politics in the United States. Two, I think that this is a big red sign to the current Buhari administration that they really need to look at what they're doing and get their house in order, work with the US to meet some type of plan to be able to turn things around. And three, that the US can get assurances that these weapons will be used responsibly and also that the Nigerian government will be a cooperating and good faith partner moving forward. I do not believe it's politics though, domestically here. Okay. Well, we're being joined by Kabir Adamu and Kabir is a security expert. Kabir, I'm sure you have been listening in on the conversation. There have been claims made by the human rights lawyer as to how the government has dealt with the issue of human rights. Of course, you listened to Justin just a few minutes ago and he's talking about the US's position, but as a security expert and someone who's been dealing with the insecurity in Nigeria you have seen firsthand what the bandits are doing, what Boko Haram is doing and you obviously know the challenges that the army is having. Do you really agree with America's position on pausing or stalling the sale of these choppers? Thank you. Great question. And I joined in a bit late. So I didn't hear the first part of the conversation. But then with regards to your question, first off, I would like to emphasize that international politics is determined by interests. And in this instance, we're dealing with two separate countries. The US, it's been very clear in terms of its strategic objectives. We know the US pushes for democratic traditions, tenets, as well as most times human rights, freedom of the press and all that. Now, incidentally, we're dealing with a situation in Nigeria where we have a history, unfortunately, of issues surrounding abuse of human rights and transparency with regards to how government is run and unfortunately, heavy handedness and sometimes abuse of the rules of engagement by the security agencies. So there appears to me to be a natural tendency for the foreign policy of these two countries to clash. However, having said that, we also know that in certain times, we've seen instances where the US have projected foreign policy even in countries where, for instance, they have worse human rights records than Nigeria. A good example is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that the US has a very close relationship with at the moment despite allegations and accusations regarding its human rights abuses and several other tendencies that would show the autocratic nature of the government there. And so it begs the question, why at this point in time, when the reality as a security practitioner, I would tell you that Nigeria needs those weapons. It needs those weapons to address the issue of terrorism in particular, as well as mandatory. And if I'm going to make a choice between the super particular that Nigeria bought and the helicopters that it's, well that the US is putting a halt to at the moment, I would go for those helicopters because they are more appropriate for the type of asymmetric warfare that Nigeria is facing at the moment. So we haven't said this. I find it really strange that for the country that is at the forefront of the fight against global terrorism, and that has a very close relationship with the Nigerian military and the Nigerian government, it's using this instrument as it were, foreign policy to prevent Nigeria from obtaining this weapon. There are other instruments that perhaps will be more effective, but at the same time would not prevent Nigeria to address this issue of terrorism. I want to buttress this point. I run a consultancy and between January and March this year, we documented 3000 plus deaths from terrorism and banditry. So how can the US justify the use of this foreign policy instrument to prevent Nigeria from accessing these weapons and 3000 plus of people are being killed? And there is a solution to stopping this if Nigeria procures this, I'll stop here for now. Justin, would you like to comment? Well, I think the security expert here is 100% right. Foreign affairs, foreign relations are based on domestic interests. What we're hearing right now is there are a couple of things going on in domestic politics in the United States. One, Congress is trying to attempt to take back some control over foreign affairs from the president, the ability to wage war, and this may be another example of that. But number two, these weapons are very important. And putting a hold on these weapons right now, it could be very temporary, right? Does not mean that these weapons will not come, but because they are so important and they are so necessary, maybe it will strengthen the Biden's, Biden administration's negotiating hand when dealing with the military, when dealing with the president to get some concrete solutions that make the United States government make these two senators feel better and more secure in the ongoing, enduring partnership between the Nigerian government and the United States government in the fight against extremism. It could be just an example of maximizing leverage at a time when it's necessary and not completely saying that these weapons are dead on arrival. But it makes me really wonder, I mean, at the expense of what? Because he just gave us a figure and I tell you what, that figure might not even be, you know, as it might not reflect the many, the number of people who are dying every day from different forms of terrorism that we face in the country. So yes, this standoff might be temporary, but at the expense of lives of these Nigerians, and there are so many people who are migrating from their home states because they no longer feel safe. So as much as the US is trying to deal with the issue of its foreign policy, and just like Kabir said, couldn't there be other ways of dealing with it? How long can we hold off? And how many more people should die before the US, you know, decides to restrategize or take another route in dealing with this issue? Mary, and these are all great points. And all that I can say is recent history shows us that the United States government is maybe learning from its past, maybe taking a minute, taking a deep breath to truly vet the situation rather than just give arms away that could be used in ways that ultimately don't protect human rights and don't save at the end of the day, don't reduce the loss of civilian lives. So time and time again, just go look at the Middle East, go look at proxy wars that governments around the world have been involved in. Sometimes when weapons are sold, you give them to partners assuming that they're gonna act one way and they ultimately change course and act another way. So I think that being prudent here and slowing down and taking a breath, really truly reevaluating might be the way forward. And to really put a fine point on this, the initial notice was given to Congress in January. It is now the end of July. And now we're just hearing about this hold being put on it. So there has been no drastic urgency by the Biden administration. I have heard nothing from the president and the government in Nigeria calling for these arms and putting pressure on the United States. It has been seven months. If there was true urgency and the necessary will to act, you would assume that we would be hearing more about this than just right now, seven months later a hold being put on it. This is a very complex and convoluted process. This hold is just the beginning. It's an informal hold. And really to be honest, if the Biden administration really wanted to push this forward, there is a way that they could attempt to override this hold by the members of the Senate. So again, I think that this is just an example of being prudent. Sure, sanctions could be interesting and it could achieve one goal. But what we've learned here in the United States from harsh sanctions against Russia, we've been sanctioning Venezuela, we've been sanctioning Cuba. Sanctions do not work to the full extent that you hope unless you have a multilateral coalition, that takes time and it takes willing partners. So the way that the US senators are looking at this is this is the most effective, highest leverage tool they can have to change the course and feel okay with what is currently going on. Well, in closing, Mr. Damu, can you quickly just respond? Because I'm curious, the government had also put out a statement saying that it's not perturbed by, you know, this move that whatever they want from the US, they'll get it because they feel that they've gotten to a certain stage in their negotiations and they don't see this as a blockade of any sort. Going forward, do you see this overturning anytime soon? Just as Justin has said, it's temporary, but how soon do you think this will change? It all depends on the capacity and the ability of the diplomatic pro-eval power available to both Nigeria and the willingness of the diplomatic machinery within the US and how Nigeria is able to accept that and use it to address the concerns. That is, I also know from international politics that what is sometimes stated and what the reality are different. So determining those underlying factors that perhaps may not have been stated through backdoor channels and sometimes even the engagement of lobbies would go along with towards addressing this. So there is a lot of it there and it all depends on how Nigeria plays. You mentioned that we need it, we really need it, but Justin seems to be saying that we haven't applied the much pressure that we should be applying in seven months down the line for people to even start hearing about this conversation that's been had behind closed doors. If we were serious about this situation, should we still be here and sounding the way that the government or the presidency is sounding? If we were serious, we would have a local industry that would be able to produce some of the... Oh, that's a whole kettle of fish. If we were serious, we will not be dependent on the US for charity items. There are other countries that have this available and perhaps will not put the kind of question mark that the US is putting. So let's put serious aside and talk about the reality. There are certain reasons why Nigeria is going to the US and if it says it has to buy them from the US, then it should take advantage of the available diplomatic both bilateral and multilateral channels to sort this out. Well, I want to say thank you. Justin Higgins is a former US congressional adviser. He joined us from the US. Thank you very much. Inibara Fiong is a human rights lawyer and thank you very much. Kabir Ademo is a security expert. Thank you, gentlemen, for being part of the conversation. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you all for staying with us. We'll take a short break. Now, when we return, protesters have broken out in their limo due to poor roads and bad infrastructure. We'll take a break and when we come back, we'll talk.