Learning from the Charles Taylor

Learning from the Charles Taylor $2m episode

This is sequel to my initial question raised about the status of Femi Fani Kayode of the Presidency. Can he speak on behalf of Nigeria on such a complex issue as the fate of Charles Taylor? Should he be allowed to display his ignorance about how the US system works? Why can’t the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs to clarify the issues? How the US Congress approved a $2 million ransom to deliver Charles Taylor to the Special Court in Sierra Leone is part of the US political process that involves both the US President and the US Congress. Did Femi Fani Kayode know this before he went to the BBC to lambast the US government on behalf of the President of Nigeria? I have since not received answers to my questions.

I am glad the Nigerian Foreign Minister, Ambassador Olu Adeniji, threw some light on what actually happened in This Day of Saturday November 15, 2003. However even though the Minister was right when he traced the source of the $2 million to the US Congress, he was wrong to give the impression that it was a Congressional matter that was done without the knowledge or acquiescence of the US President. Hon. Minister, under the US system unlike in Nigeria, the two arms are in communication always especially in matter of budget and on critical issue of war and peace. The $2 million on Liberia would not be an exception.

Maybe what happened in the US would be an object of lesson to the members of the National Assembly that the Legislative Branch of Government in Nigerian is the missing link in the return to democratic contrivance since 1999. Why and what should be done will be taken up later. The $2 million episode is more complex than what the Minister of Foreign Affairs seems to be telling the Nigerian people. It is part of the law of the land in the US that the President and the Executive branch are duty bound to carry out. The President and his staff would not impound funds that have been appropriated by Congress because the President does not like it. On the issue of Charles Taylor, the two elective arms of government are in agreement contrary to the impression created by Ambassador Adeniji.

What should be appreciated is that the power over money is very well guarded by the US Congress and the US President deals with that body from that position. This should have been a lesson for the National Assembly of Nigeria. The US Congress is not like National Assembly in Nigeria; the National Assembly is forbidden by the President, not by the Constitution or by any known law in book to vary what the President wants.

The National Assembly in Nigeria has been cowed to submission since 1999 not to entertain any requests from the constituencies. The National Assembly follows the wrong advice given it by Professor Ben Nwabueze that the National Assembly has no power to vary by way of increasing what the President requests from the National Assembly. This advice is wrong as it does not grow from the power of the purse exercised by the Legislative branch of government. Even what the American call the ‘pork-barrel’ insertion by the members of the US Congress for projects in their constituencies is unheard of in Nigeria.

When would the Nigerian legislators assert themselves like their counterpart in the US and assume the power to add or subtract from what the President sends to the National Assembly? This was the origin of the $2 million on Charles Taylor. This practice is not new; there is hardly any budget requests from the President that do not have many additions and other matters related or unrelated. A brief review of the process will be in order.

One, the President sent to the Congress requests for certain spending on the armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan and pay for the reconstruction effort in both countries. This was all.

Two, both Chambers of the Congress held different hearings. The Secretary of Defense and other officials appeared before the Congress to defend the Budget or any item on the Budget.

Even the President and the Vice President made many calls to members of Congress especially from the President’s party (Republican) to speed up the process and avoid the trap of the Democrats. The president also negotiates with the opposition members. Even Presidential candidates of the other party made case for or against the budget in their campaign. This practice would be alien in Nigeria. As soon as the two Chambers concluded their work, each Chamber voted separate resolution that included different figures. Each Chamber added something to what the President requested and included language on how the money should be spent. Each Chamber tried to meet the demands of their constituencies.

The two Chambers met to reconcile their differences and harmonise their various additions and languages before sending the resolution to the two Chambers for a second vote. It is at the end of this that the President is sent the finally approved figure and language for his assent.

The President was party to all the processes; he knew of the developments at various stages. He knew what the Congress was adding and subtracting and was familiar with the various languages or riders. The Congress appreciated what he could live with; Once the President got what he wanted, the various additions, subtractions and wording of the resolutions would be matters that he could live with. This was how the budget requests for Iraq and Afghanistan was handled that included Liberia and other matters.

The President and the Congress had their respective irreducible minimum. Both were in agreement in support for the men in combat. This was good politics. After the spending on the armed forces had been agreed on, the spending for reconstruction raised two issues that were to be negotiated. That part of the money for reconstruction should be loan; That certain items should be deleted. He won on the first issue by making the approved money grant. On the second issue he partially won. The Congress took the following actions on its own: Cut the reconstruction aid by $1.7 billion from the budget funds; Increased the aid for Afghanistan from $800 million $1.2 billion; Expanded health benefits to some categories of serving officers. Even added was $500 million for California state according to Senator Bill Fist, the Senate Majority Leader “to help the victims of the California wild fire.”

Why late! The Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs would call this unrelated. There was a relationship between the visit of the Governor-elect of California to the Congress and the late addition. This was how an essentially a domestic matter found its way to an essentially defense related matters. Can that happen in Nigeria? Why not? The National Assembly should wake up and join the President to make laws. Congress on its own included $245 million to the State Department for peacekeeping activities Liberia. This was how the $2 million aid got into the budget resolution. This was not all. Charles Taylor’s name was not mentioned in the Budget resolution. The resolution simply made provision for funds for the “capture of an indictee of the Special Court for Sierra Leone” interpreted by the Voice of America as Charles Taylor’s name. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Human Rights watcher and promoter from Vermount even prided himself as the resolution that the US should cut off funds from any country that harbors an indictee of crimes against humanity. There is nothing new in this. It is like the one co-sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Mitch McConnel of Kentucky in the past that led to trial of the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague.

Maybe Nigerian officials still need to understand the political process in the US before making all sorts of comments. There was no way a serious language of this nature could be in a legislation that does not get the prior consent of the US President for after all he is the one to implement it.

Nov. 2003