A lawyer and human rights activist, Inibehe Effiong, has expressed concerns over the proposed Foreign Aid Bill, questioning the motives behind its introduction and the potential implications for non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
The bill, which has passed second reading in the Senate, seeks to regulate and coordinate foreign aid, grants and donations received by organisations in Nigeria. While its proponents say it will strengthen transparency and accountability, civil society groups have raised concerns about increased regulatory burdens and possible government interference.
Speaking with ARISE NEWS on Wednesday, Effiong said while there is a legitimate need for accountability in the management of foreign grants, Nigeria already has institutions capable of overseeing such funds. He argued that strengthening bodies such as the CAC, EFCC, ICPC and SCUML would be preferable to creating another regulatory bureaucracy.
“Is it necessary to have some form of accountability framework governing the operation of NGOs in our country? The answer is yes. For non-governmental organizations that receive foreign aid, there has to be a system where they account for such aid.
“There is a legitimate argument in having an institutional system or framework where NGOs are encouraged or made to account in terms of how funds or grants received, either within or internationally, are used. So no debate about that.
“The challenge—the peculiarity of our country—is that what history shows, the lesson of history, is that when the politicians in our country bring this kind of initiatives, their motive is rarely good. I am very suspicious of the intent behind this bill.
“If you look at the current system, the current legal framework that exists, we have the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), we have the ICPC, we have the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML), and we have certain other regulatory institutions that exist. We have the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) that have some sort of legal powers to oversee the activities of organizations and NGOs in Nigeria.
“So I would propose that rather than create a new bureaucracy or expand the already over-bloated bureaucracy in our country in the name of establishing the Foreign Aid Regulatory Commission, why not strengthen the existing institutions to oversee those responsibilities?”
He also criticised the proposed requirement that foreign aid must align with government priorities, describing the provision as potentially problematic and warning that it could be used to target organisations such as SERAP, particularly given the bill’s provisions for fines, imprisonment, suspension and revocation of licences.
“If you look at certain clauses of this bill, for example, Clause 2 and so on, you find this very—should I describe it as amorphous or insidious provision that says that foreign aid must align, in quotes, ‘with government priorities.’ Because if you look at the bill, the bill also has sanction provisions that enable the suspension of license, revocation of license, imprisonment, fines, and so on.”
Effiong also questioned the National Assembly’s focus on scrutinising NGO funding while, in his view, paying less attention to accountability in government expenditure. He challenged the Senate to explain how trillions of naira borrowed by successive administrations have been accounted for and whether it has adequately held the government accountable for the loans it approved.
“More importantly, I find it rather curious that the Senate—the National Assembly—is considering a new bill, a new law, to basically checkmate non-governmental organizations on how they are spending money, whereas we don’t seem to see the similar degree of excitement or passion in ensuring accountability of government expenditures! You are saying non-governmental organizations should come and account for funds that they have received, come and give explanation on what they want to use those funds for.
“How about government money that is primarily their responsibility? How about the trillions of loans that this country has received, from the Buhari dispensation to the current dispensation? Can the Senate today tell Nigerians that the borrowing of loans they have approved for the administration can be accounted for? Can they hold the government accountable to that? The answer is no.”
Speaking on why the existing regulatory institutions and safeguards have failed so far, Effiong attributed it to what he described as a lack of political will by the government to tackle terrorism and its financing.
“The story is not the absence of law; the question is enforcement. Why is it that the government today has not shown the willingness, the political will, to stop the financing of terrorism? Because my view is that the government is not necessarily interested in ending terrorism. If the government is interested in ending terrorism, the government knows who the terrorists are, the government knows who the sponsors are. And when grave allegations are made—I cited the case of Senator Ndume that you have covered—how come that till date, he has not been arrested? Till date, he has not been taken into custody. We have not heard that the State Security Service has even invited him.
“So the point is that if the government is not profiting from terrorism, if the government does not believe that terrorism is something that is bringing some sort of benefit to them, the government will go out to end it. So the problem is not regulating civil society.”
Speaking on the potential impact of the Bill on Nigerians who depend on foreign-funded programmes, Effiong warned that the bill could discourage international donors from funding Nigerian organisations, leaving critical sectors such as healthcare and support for internally displaced persons without essential resources.
“If you look at what is happening now, since President Trump came back for a second term, he has significantly reduced grants to foreign NGOs, right? In fact, they had to dismantle the almighty and very powerful agency that had that responsibility. So now, many parts of our national life are suffering.
“For example, matters pertaining to treatment of HIV in Nigeria—there are reports that many states in Nigeria today are unable to provide resources because why? Many of these states in Nigeria depend on grants. So where is the government that is willing to step into the shoes of what some of these organizations are doing? You go to what they call IDP camps—I don’t know why we even have internally displaced persons in our country—go to those camps, see what some of these NGOs that are doing legitimate work are doing. Where is the government that is willing to step in to ensure that no vacuum is created on account of this mindless bureaucracy that they want to put in place?”
On the incident involving Peter Obi in Benue State, Effiong condemned the state government’s position, arguing that the NDC presidential candidate’s right to move freely was guaranteed by the Constitution and should not be subject to a governor’s approval.
“The position of the Benue State Government amounts to political banditry. There is no other way to describe what they have done. You begin from even the Constitution, right? Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of movement to every Nigerian. What that entails is that whether you are a political operator or candidate or not, as long as it is within the geographical space—the component parts of the federation, the 36 states and the FCT—every Nigerian, irrespective of his or her standing, whether high-profile or low-profile, has the right to move around freely without restriction.
“That right is not susceptible to the mindset of a governor. That right is not subject to the feelings of an incumbent governor or the feelings of thugs working for the government or supporting the party in power. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution of Nigeria.
“This is even a political season. The Electoral Act 2022 gives every candidate and political party the right to move around freely and says that it is the responsibility of the police and other law enforcement agencies to guarantee the safety of political candidates to move around the states.
“What I find very curious is that the government of Benue State says Peter Obi did not seek clearance. The bandits that are killing people in Benue, who are they seeking clearance from? How come that the governor of Benue State is not willing to stop terrorists from killing his own people, but suddenly now has the enthusiasm to say if a politician is coming to my state, you must seek clearance?”
Effiong also faulted Obi for withdrawing from the trip, saying he should have insisted on proceeding to his destination rather than allow what he described as an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of movement.
“My fault with Mr. Peter Obi is that he shouldn’t have withdrawn. He should have insisted on proceeding on that journey, because it has to come to a point that you realize that you do not continue to concede, you do not continue to say in the name of diplomacy that, ‘Oh, let them do what they want,’ and then you begin to make speeches. He should have insisted on going to where he was going, because we cannot allow our country to become Iran, to become Pakistan, to become Iraq, or to become North Korea, where some people believe that it is in their place to determine who has the right to move around. I condemn that action; it is irresponsible, it is unconstitutional, and it should have no place in our country.”
Favour Odima
Follow us on:
