Uncertainties as Military rulers of Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso Exit ECOWAS , gives reasons and Next line of action

From this day forward, Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso are no longer members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

This withdrawal will significantly impact regional cooperation in trade and security, which is already facing challenges.

On Sunday, the military rulers of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger withdrew from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) with immediate effect, three days before the deadline for their departure.

This departure has reduced the regional economic bloc from 15 to 12 members.

The indications

The three countries had on January 28, last year, jointly indicated their decision to withdraw their membership from the bloc, for a rival confederation – the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

They accused the leadership of the ECOWAS bloc, led by Nigeria, of constituting a threat to their sovereignty and people by coming under the influence of foreign powers, and allegedly betraying its founding principles.

Going by the regional protocols, the letter takes effect today, and the entire region is apprehensive over the likely implications of their exit on the region and on individual countries, particularly those who share common borders with them.

Implications

Stakeholders reckon that Niger’s exit, for instance, may likely create a power vacuum in the region.

This could be exploited by extremist groups as the country has been a key player in regional counter-terrorism efforts, particularly in the fight against Boko Haram and other extremist groups operating in the Sahel.

The implication is that without Niger’s participation, ECOWAS’s ability to coordinate regional security efforts will be severely impaired.

Already, the French military’s withdrawal from the Sahel has heightened concerns over the conflicts spreading southward to Gulf of Guinea states like Ghana, Togo, Benin and Ivory Coast.

The exit will also impact a borderless region agenda of ECOWAS.

According to the 2023 Africa Visa Openness Report, 97 per cent of ECOWAS country-to-country travel routes require no visa for regional individuals. Because people of the three Sahel states trade with West African countries and other nations, they are likely to lose these rights, unless they are protected by separate bilateral agreements.

In addition, with the trio’s exit, the remaining members may begin to levy import duties or require visas from their citizens.

Collaterals

The ‘divorce’ has more collateral damages. The Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Strategic Communications and Communications Adviser to the President on ECOWAS Commission, Linda Akhigbe, noted that there are at least 132 citizens of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, serving in different ECOWAS institutions, who are likely to lose their jobs.

Similarly, ECOWAS institutions in those countries also risk a shutdown.

These include the West African Health Organisation (WAHO), ECOWAS Centre for Water Resources and ECOWAS Youth and Sports Development Centre, all in Burkina Faso.

Others include ECOWAS Resident Representative in Mali and Niger as well as ECOWAS Regional Food Security Reserve situated in the countries.

“So, there is going to be closure of the regional food security reserves in these three countries and as a consequence of the withdrawal of AES from ECOWAS, the employment of their citizens would be terminated. It is unattainable to maintain them due to the circumstances.

They will also exit the Inter-Governmental Action Group Against Money Laundering in West Africa (GIABA), and you know how important GIABA is in terms of dealing with financial crimes and all that. Even though the AES countries have requested to remain in GIABA, this needs to be seen.

EBID-

“We also have the ECOWAS Bank for Investment and Development (EBID), which is a financial institution that facilitates wealth creation, economic growth and industrialisation for the well-being of the community members.

There is going to be a halting of EBID’s development programmes and projects in these three countries, including the over $3 million credit facility granted Mali’s main bank,” the SSA said.

She feared that the exit would take its toll on humanitarian interventions, including peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and regional integration and development initiatives.

Speaking further on the consequences of the countries’ decision to leave, a public affairs analyst, Mr Paul Ejime, pointed out that informal trade by itinerant traders would be grossly affected.

GDP-

In 2022, total trade volumes, including imports and exports, from the ECOWAS region to the rest of the world totalled $277.22 billion, according to data from the region’s Trade Information System (ECOTIS) portal.

Total exports from ECOWAS were worth $131.36 billion. Burkina Faso contributed $4.55 billion out of this number; Mali exported $3.91 billion worth of goods; and trade with the rest of the world accounted for $446.14 million.

Mali’s imports were worth $6.45 billion, Burkina Faso $5.63 billion, and Niger $3.79 billion.

While the economies of the three countries account for just eight per cent of ECOWAS GDP, withdrawing from ECOWAS may amount to the countries condemning themselves to economic isolation.

Ejime added that without a regional bloc to project a common front, the three countries might also find it difficult to benefit from global bodies such as the European Union (EU) or Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), which prefer to deal with African regional blocs.

“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.

At a time when the region was in dire need of funds for the execution of developmental projects, it will be losing the yearly contributions (calculated on the Gross National Income (GNI) of each member state) of Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso.

Despite the countries’ low contribution due to their poor economy, it was impactful to the running of the body.

AFCFTA

There is also fear that a broken ECOWAS bloc may encroach on the effective implementation of the five-year-old African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The full implementation of the AfCFTA agreement is projected to increase real incomes by seven per cent, or nearly $450 billion.

Since the three countries are bound by the provisions of the regional and continental treaties, including the AfCFTA, their exit may complicate and weaken the pillars of the agreements.

Trade Integration

A Professor of Accounting and Financial Development at Lead City University, Ibadan, Godwin Oyedokun, expressed worries that the trio’s exit could decrease 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 aims 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 three 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, maintained that breaking away from the three French-speaking countries would hurt them more than it would hurt the rest of West Africa.

Aremu said: “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.

Furthermore, many supply chains in West Africa have over the years, relied on cooperation among ECOWAS members and disintegration may disrupt the supply chains and consequently, affect production and distribution networks that are crucial for regional and broader continental trade.

In as much as Nigeria repented of its sanctions against Niger and expressed sadness over the three countries’ departure from the bloc which it hosts, and deployed several strategies to appease them to change their mind on the exit plan, a statement from Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had nevertheless, reiterated the country’s stance with ECOWAS in upholding due process and sharing commitment to protect and strengthen the rights and welfare of all citizens of member states.

The statement held that Nigeria had worked in good faith to reach out to all members of the bloc towards resolving their challenges but the actions of the exiting countries buttressed that not all members shared “the same good faith.”

Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger were founding members of ECOWAS back in 1975, but the regional group had imposed sanctions on them following military coups that overthrew elected civilian governments