From Saturday next week, on TopRadio 90.9 FM, aboard the ‘The Vintage Talkshow’, we shall be hosting the first in a three-part series of the Wale Olomu Memorial Awards and Roundtable (WOMA-R). The awards are set up in the memory of a young Nigerian journalist who, until his death at the age of 30 in 1994, embraced with a crusading tenacity the reportorial philosophy that was uncommon and remarkable amongst his peers. His philosophy was driven by a fervent desire to unearth, appreciate and promote the talented works and great efforts of people least recognised nor appreciated by the vast majority of the Nigerian entertainment reportorial corps of his day.

  You may ask, what is all this fuss about a dead entertainment journalist almost 30 years ago? Perhaps, a rehash of a chapter devoted to our professional relationship in my latest book, “FAME: Untold Stories…” will explain with more clarity the peculiar and admirable traits of this man whom several of his contemporaries, colleagues and objects of his preoccupation still fondly remember…even after three decades. 

  Here are excerpts from the chapter titled ‘Entertainment Reporting Capital’: “I believe I met Adewale Benjamin Olomu in late 1988 through Azuka Jebose Molokwu. He was working with The Republic newspapers. It didn’t take long to like and move around with him. He was just two years younger than me, but was quite respectful, and eager to excel as an entertainment reporter. He was living around Agege, and by mid 1989, I had moved to the fringes of Agege, in an area called Gengeto, Oko-Oba – from Mafoluku, Oshodi. We had sorties in my two-bedroom apartment, discussing ideas and concepts for FAME, which was still a foetus. It was given that my popular multi-columned pages, ‘FAJ’s Fantasia’ would take the usual four pages or so, but I recognized the tenacity, determination and flair of Wale in surmounting reportorial odds and barriers with a dash of warm smiles, likable humour and remarkable honesty. He had to get a page, or two, to actualise his own dreams too. We developed a lot of ‘technical’ reporting of areas of entertainment less glamorous, and hardly mentioned: studio engineers, cover designers, backup singers and bands men, studio editors, record companies, marketers and distributors, and many other ordinary but vital sub-frames of the Nigerian showbiz. 

  I found out early that Wale derived some sort of energy and satisfaction in exposing and recognizing talents in these unglamorous aspects of entertainment, and I was determined to make FAME become synonymous with the Nigerian entertainment so intricately and deeply that anyone interested in understanding the true and full nature of our entertainment industries would simply just pick volumes of the magazine, and be fulfilled…

It was during one of our weekly FAME ‘conferences’ that he introduced his lovely bespectacled girlfriend to me: Taibat Adebisi Yussuf. She was quite supportive, and fond of Wale; she later became close to my then girlfriend, Iretunde Willoughby. We often ‘tripped’ around the weekend club circuit with the two ladies providing great companionship. While I got married about two years afterwards, Wale was still planning to settle down with Bisi… until his demise on 22 December, 1994. But I digress… 

  With about 30% of the new magazine devoted to entertainment, it was a pure hand-rubbing spectacle for Wale to literally dig his teeth in. We created little columns for activities and profiles of men and women buried deep at work in different recording studios, both well-known and nondescript: EMI, Polygram/Premier Records, Afrodisia/Decca Studios, Olumo Records, Decross, Tabansi, Sony Music, CBS Records, Mut-Mokson, etc. We dug them out – some were reluctant collaborators, wondering what was our benefit in showcasing their activities; others lapped it heavily, providing us with regular materials and insider details.

  One peculiar ‘technical’ column was the monthly rundown of best selling music called ‘FAME Monthly Awards’. We agreed that Wale was best positioned to do the ‘dirty work’ of going every week to major record dealers and retailers in Mushin, Oshodi, Ebute Metta, Somolu, Agege, etc, and getting sales performance of albums and cassettes on display. This was a thanklessly hazardous and time-consuming task. To Wale, it was a joyful engagement that would truly identify the actual performance strengths of so-called popular acts whom their record companies’ A&R (artistes and repertoire) managers had hyped to high heavens with specially programmed press releases. It didn’t matter to Wale that his own younger brother, Dayo, worked for one of the more prominent companies!

  We had been complaining about one of the selection criteria in the biggest award ceremony in town, the Nigerian Music Awards, NMA – namely ‘Popularity/Sales Performance’. How did the adjudicators of the awards come about which artistes were more popular than the others beyond the media penetration and savviness of record companies and labels? And how did they know who sold more than the others, in an environment where there was complaint galore amongst artistes of not knowing how their works were doing? Everyone knew that most record companies were being dodgy about opening their sales records to public scrutiny. 

  We chose to delve into the murky mirage of actual records from the streets, at least using Lagos, and possibly Onitsha, as our field of investigation. And it worked like a charm. Every week, we collated Wale’s wealth of accessed data to make the best selling works as revealed by actual sales, without any ‘mago-mago’ – and published at the end of the month the summary in different awards categories with fanfare. One week was for announcing the nominees by the two-man “FMA committee”; and the next week for the winners, sometimes including a brief explanation.  The following month, the inflow of collated data would make some artistes drop off or stay up; and new ones might come in. 

  The first monthly Fame Music Awards was published on August 2, 1991, and it became very popular amongst music enthusiasts, and our readers. By the end of 1991, we decided to review all the editions since the beginning in July, and produce an elaborate edition in the year’s last magazine edition – a Fame Music Annual Awards. Even at that time, we were still thinking of a ‘paper tiger’ kind of intervention. While this was going on, I had grown weary of what I considered as the failings of NMA, as earlier indicated, principally because of the levity they handled the criterion of sales performance of works that they had little or no knowledge of the true reality on ground – the pains and frustrations of the Nigerian artistes. And then the other matter of identifying an artiste’s national popularity when most of the judges, if not all, were domiciled in Lagos….” End of quote.

 The special three-weekend WOMA-R event also includes a Roundtable discussion of diverse showbiz personalities focusing on issues of serious concerns to the Nigerian creatives: artistes vs labels relations, equitable royalties, accountability, etc. Expected discussants and schedules include: Tony Okoroji, Kenny Ogungbe and Paul ‘Play’ Dairo (9 Dec.); Obi Asika, Daddy Fresh, Kayode Samuel (UK) & Kenny St Brown (16 Dec.); and Laolu Akins, Orits Wiliki & Dayo Olomu (UK) (23 Dec.). The events will equally be live on Zoom, Facebook and YouTube platforms.

The failure of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to follow through with its recent threat of military intervention to restore constitutional order in Niger, the fourth of its member States to have descended into a military dictatorship within the last four years is embarrassing enough. But the regional organisation faces even greater reputational damage from its lethargic response to disturbing “political and constitutional coups” in the region.

Until a decade ago, ECOWAS boasted a good track record in political conflict/crisis prevention, management, and resolution, including international acclaim for ending the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone, followed by the restoration of peace in other member States such as Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, and Niger.

These successes were achieved through a combination of sanctions and preventive diplomacy relying on regional instruments and protocols, which have been adopted by other organisations, such as the African Union.

For instance, the 1999 ECOWAS Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping (the Mechanism), and the 2001 Supplementary Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance have been used to stabilise the region progressively and incrementally and promote democratic governance, especially by applying the policy of ‘Zero Tolerance’ to power obtained or maintained by unconstitutional means.

Between 2009 and 2010, three member States - Guinea, Niger and Cote d’Ivoire were suspended for violating the 2001 Protocol. Specifically, in 2009, the tenure elongation plan of the then Niger President Mamadou Tandja, was halted and he was forced to reverse his dissolution of the country’s parliament.

Also, the post-election crisis in 2010 and subsequent civil war 2011-2012 in Cote d’Ivoire were eventually resolved with ECOWAS inputs to international efforts.

The regional organisation also bluntly refused to deploy observers to the 2011 ‘sham’ elections conducted by the then Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh. Citing the absence of a conducive democratic environment and level-playing field reported by its fact-finding Mission to the Gambia, ECOWAS refused to recognise the results of that election.

Jammeh went ahead with another election in 2016, but the post-election violence eventually resulted in his forced exile in Equatorial Guinea in 2017, through an ECOWAS-led international intervention. That crisis could have been avoided if the international community had supported ECOWAS’ principled stance in 2011.

Set up in 1975 primarily to foster economic development and regional integration, peace and security were injected into the ECOWAS regional agenda because of the myriad political conflicts and governance challenges, including civil wars that followed the formation of the regional organisation.

To their credit, ECOWAS leaders of that time responded promptly and with urgency, often militarily, to halt the slide of the region into anarchy, and to salvage the organisation’s credibility, through the rigorous application of normative and institutional frameworks to support the aspirations of the peoples based on shared values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and market economy.

Unfortunately, those aspirations and ECOWAS’ glory appear to have receded into the distant past, no thanks to leadership failures at national and regional levels.

Granted that the political environment has since evolved charactered by different hues of insecurity, especially terrorism, religious extremism, asymmetric warfare, and global economic recession, but it also behoved ECOWAS leaders to think outside the box.

Instead, the regional organisation has become largely ineffective because its leaders have allowed the lack of principle to gain foothold over time, due to their pursuit of personal ambitions, greed, corruption, authoritarian tendencies, and insensitivity, with regional protocols completely ignored on observed in breach.

Four ECOWAS member States - Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, and Niger, are presently under military dictatorships after several coups, with three of the countries Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, forging a coalition and Defence Alliance, that falls short of their withdrawal from ECOWAS.

The collaboration by the four suspended member States, that are also enduring ECOWAS-imposed sanctions, could be part of their “survival strategy.”

Even so, ECOWAS cannot dismiss such unwholesome developments or the resurgence of coups in the region, with two attempts each reported in Guinea Bissau and Sierra Leone, resulting in simmering political tensions in both countries following post-election disputes.

The opposition in Sierra Leone has rejected the results of the June presidential election after the national electoral Commission declared sitting President Julius Maada Bio re-election with 56.17% over his opposition party rival Samura Kamara.

Also troubling is President Umaro Sissoco Embalo’s decision to dissolve Guinea Bissau’s opposition-controlled parliament. This followed violence that greeted last week’s gunbattle which the government called an ‘attempted military coup’ after the legislature condemned the clashes between the National Guard and the State armed forces.

Meanwhile, the Bissau government has remained silent on the casualty figure and the number of arrests, adding to the dozens that were rounded up after the February 2022 reported coup attempt in that country.

Many analysts consider some of the foiled coup reports as a ploy by the governments involved to silence the opposition.

More importantly, Embalo’s dissolution of the parliament is in blatant violation of Article 64 of Guinea Bissau’s Constitution and therefore, “a constitutional coup.”

The former Portuguese colony operates a semi-presidential system, which emphasises separation of powers with the majority party or coalition, in this case, the opposition PAIGC in control of parliament, government and the National Guard, while the National armed forces report to the President.

Announcing the latest parliament dissolution in a presidential decree, the second time in two years after the reported coup attempt in February 2022, Embalo, who is also accused of operating a private army, said a new election would be held on an unspecified date. However, the country’s constitution forbids the dissolution of parliament 12 months before an election.

Guinea Bissau is one of the countries where ECOWAS has invested large human and financial resources over the years in peacekeeping and stabilisation.

An ECOWAS military Mission is in place in the country. It was only sent back in February 2022 following the withdrawal in 2020 of a larger Mission, ECOMIB, deployed in 2012.

Also, recently in Senegal, which will hold a crucial presidential election in February 2024, President Macky Sall, has gone on “political rampage,” by proscribing an opposition party and sacking members of the national electoral Commission, a move considered “a political coup.”

It is not only ironic but inconsistent that ECOWAS, which is usually quick to condemn military coups has remained silent on the political and constitutional coups threatening peace and security in Guinea Bissau and Senegal, and by extension, the region.

ECOWAS’ response has equally been timid to the developments in Sierra Leone, where the government is reportedly targeting opposition members in the aftermath of two reported coup attempts from September.

Military rule is an aberration in the Modern World, and military coups cannot be justified, neither should “political, constitutional, ballot box, or human rights coups.”

ECOWAS member States must realise that there is strength in unity, but individually, they will be preyed upon by foreign powers be they from Europe, the Americas, Russia, or China.

There is no doubt that ECOWAS and its present leaders have derailed on the dreams of the organisation’s founding fathers. They, therefore, owe themselves and more than 400 million citizens of the community a constitutional duty and responsibility to right the wrongs and guarantee good governance, based on democratic principles and international best practices.

The ECOWAS Commission management and regional leaders must not allow the sacrifices of past leaders to be in vain.

Nigeria, the regional powerhouse, current Chair of the ECOWAS Authority, and the organisation’s largest financial contributor has to step up and lead by example.

Democracy may not be a panacea, but through credible elections, it provides the necessary choice for transition to normalcy, particularly in West Africa’s fragile and politically restive environment.

As noted by the famous British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill in 1947:

“Many forms of government have been tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

A former ECOWAS Commission President Ambassador James Victor Gheho also affirmed during a presentation in Chatham House, London in 2011: “We made a conscious choice with the genuine belief that while even the most credible elections may not produce good leaders, at least they offer the electorate the opportunity to remove bad ones. ECOWAS, therefore, encouraged Member States to interrogate and refocus their style of governance.”

*Paul Ejime is a Global Affairs Analyst and Consultant on Peace & Security and Governance Communications

…such profligate expenditures raise questions of whether the government really empathises with  the increased hardship that ordinary Nigerians are going through since Tinubu removed fuel subsidy and announced the flotation of the naira. While the government has kept urging ordinary Nigerians to be patient with it and to ‘tighten their belts’ further, there are little indications that the government is leading by example.

President Tinubu’s 1,411 delegations to the Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai has raised considerable concerns in the country, overshadowing whatever benefit that could be potentially garnered from attending such a conference. Only United Arab Emirates, which has 4,409 delegates, and Brazil, having 3,081 delegates, have larger numbers of representatives than Nigeria, which tied in the third place with China, which also has 1,411 delegates.

Temitope Ajayi, the senior special assistant to the president on media and publicity, in an article entitled, “Nigeria at COP28: Separating the facts from fiction,” sought to provide the government’s perspective on the controversy surrounding the size of the delegation. According to the media aide, “In Nigeria, like so many other countries, interested parties comprising government officials from both federal and sub-national governments, environmentalists, climate activists, business leaders, journalists and agencies of government such as the NNPC and its subsidiaries, Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs, NIMASA, and the NDDC are present in Dubai.

“Many youth organisations from Nigeria, especially from the Northern and Niger-Delta regions, whose lives and livelihoods are most impacted by desert encroachment and hydrocarbon activities, are also represented. The President of Ijaw Youth Council, Jonathan Lokpobiri, leads a pan-Ijaw delegation of more than 15 people who registered as parties from Nigeria. Among delegates from Nigeria are also over 20 journalists from various media houses,” he wrote.

The presidential aide however failed to tell us the exact number of delegates being funded by the government among the 1,411 delegates.

There are several issues involved in the controversy over the size of the President’s delegation to COP28:

One, is the cost associated with the size of the delegation. Some papers have estimated that the number of people funded by the government to the 13-day Conference could be as high as 890. Aside from the cost of paying for international chartered flights (which the government is said to prefer over local flight operators), other costs include accommodation, per diem (estacodes) for each delegate (which some estimate could be as much as $900 per day for ministers, while different rates are used for other members of the delegation who are not sponsoring themselves).

There are also associated expenses like the cost of parking the presidential jet for so many days and of course sundry expenses. Given the dire financial situation of the government, people are asking whether such expenditures could be justified at this time when the government is on a borrowing binge to meet even basic obligations.

Two, is that such profligate expenditures raise questions of whether the government really empathises with  the increased hardship that ordinary Nigerians are going through since Tinubu removed fuel subsidy and announced the flotation of the naira. While the government has kept urging ordinary Nigerians to be patient with it and to ‘tighten their belts’ further, there are little indications that the government is leading by example. For instance, in the 2023 supplementary appropriation bill of N2.17 trillion signed into law by the President in early November this year, there was hardly any significant item of social welfare.

…given the country’s present debt profile, the current profligacy by the government will make it even more difficult for it to get any listening ear for debt forgiveness or debt relief from its Western creditors. Despite concerns over the Buhari government’s loan binge, the Tinubu administration has continued in the same path of a loan spree. Recently President Tinubu sought the nod of the National Assembly to borrow another $7.8 billion and €100 million or $106 million respectively.

Rather the supplementary budget was dominated by luxury items such as the purchase of a Presidential yacht (N5 billion); purchase of luxury vehicles, including for the Office of the First Lady, which is not even recognised by the Constitution (N6.9 billion); renovation of the Official Quarters of the President and the Vice President in Lagos (N8 billion); and the renovation of the residential quarters of Mr President (N4 billion), etc. 

A few days ago the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, also announced plans to build a befitting residence for the Vice President at a whopping cost of N15 billion. Given these patterns of expenditures that seem to deny the dire economic circumstances of the country, not a few Nigerians are asking whether the government is deliberately mocking the suffering Nigerians or whether it is merely suffering from compassion deficit. While the government may mean well (as it claims), it is equally true that it is people’s deconstruction of the government’s intentions that counts. This is what optics is all about. And the Tinubu government has not demonstrated sufficient sensitivity to how people may perceive its patterns of expenditures in these perilous times.

Three, given the country’s present debt profile, the current profligacy by the government to COP28 will make it even more difficult for it to get any listening ear for debt forgiveness or debt relief from its Western creditors. Despite concerns over the Buhari government’s loan binge, the Tinubu administration has continued in the same path of a loan spree. Recently President Tinubu sought the nod of the National Assembly to borrow another $7.8 billion and €100 million or $106 million respectively. The World Bank has pledged another loan of $2 billion, while the African Development Bank (AfDB)  promised to  give the country a loan of $1 billion.

It should be recalled that last year the Debt Management Office urged the government to put a moratorium on fresh loans, after pointing out that 73.5 per cent of last year’s revenue was used to service debt (currently  96 per cent of the government’s revenue is used to service debts).

Despite the warnings by the DMO, the borrowing spree continues. And with the government apparently uninterested in dispensing extravagant and frivolous expenditures, many are wondering whether it has the necessary discipline to cut down on the cost of governance and with that be in a better position to convince its creditors for debt relief or forgiveness.

As a politician and a presidential candidate, Tinubu seemed oriented towards an imperial and monarchical carriage. This is when a leader feels especially affirmed by the size of hangers-on around him. We saw this during his campaign for the presidency, with his large campaign entourages (and some governors had to abandon their duty posts to be part of the campaign trails or receive him at the airports).

Four, the size of the COP28 delegation and other wasteful expenditures at a time the government’s economic policies are yet to bear the promised fruits raise further questions about the future of messianic politics in Nigeria. Nigerian politicians come in various forms of messianic packaging. As a presidential candidate dogged by several moral and character controversies, one of the rather ‘convincing’ arguments advanced by some of Tinubu’s supporters was that the country has tried ‘integrity’ (referring to Buhari) and it did not work and for that, Nigerians would have nothing to lose by also trying the ‘it takes a thief to catch a thief’ model (turning the allegations against Tinubu on their heads). People who advanced such a view argued that many leaders said to have questionable pedigree and character (as Tinubu’s critics claimed during the campaigns) are often radicalised by power in such a way that they generally perform above expectations.

Another argument here is that Tinubu had accomplished all that anyone would want to accomplish materially and that since, by his own account, being the president of the country has been his life-long ambition, Tinubu would most likely be radicalised by power and would give up all the trapping of comfort he had acquired to transform the system that he is believed to understand so much. So far, there is no evidence of power radicalising President Tinubu in the mould of Murtala Mohammed, as his supporters claimed. 

As a politician and a presidential candidate, Tinubu seemed oriented towards an imperial and monarchical carriage. This is when a leader feels especially affirmed by the size of hangers-on around him. We saw this during his campaign for the presidency, with his large campaign entourages (and some governors had to abandon their duty posts to be part of the campaign trails or receive him at the airports). 

In this sense, the size of Tinubu’s delegation to COP28 (which reminds one of the controversy surround the 120 cars in his convoy in Lagos in June this year) is nothing new. It has always been part of his style as a politician who likes to create and sustain a network of political patronages and clients. In essence, concern about the size of Tinubu’s COP28 delegation could further accelerate the current citizens’ disenchantment with democracy and messianic politics in general.

Five, it is tempting to speculate on what would happen if Tinubu decides to abandon this imperial style he has been used to and travel lean or decides to attend conferences virtually, cut the size of his convoys, and show up in meetings in a staff bus. This, in my opinion, will be the ultimate radicalisation of an otherwise prebendal politician. And Nigerians are not likely to lose sight of such radicalisation. His ministers and other aides, seeing the president lead from the front, will be uncomfortable to fall out of line.

Nigeria, as I have often said, is a country of one scandal, one minute. Before you have settled down to digest one, another happens! So, you hurriedly sweep the previous one under the carpets to have enough room for the latest! Our carpets, thus, are bulging, threatening to burst any time-t, as they say, at the seams!

The latest controversy is over Nigeria’s seemingly bloated delegation to the ongoing COP28 meeting in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Nigeria’s delegation is the third largest, coming after the host country, UAE and Brazil and sharing the bronze medal podium with China. UAE (4,409) has the largest-ever registered delegation of any country, followed by Brazil (3,081) and then China and Nigeria tying at 1,411.

Other countries with a “bloated” delegation of 1000+ delegates are Indonesia (1229), Japan (1067), and Turkey (1045). Six countries have between 750 and 900 delegates, and these include three African countries (Morocco, 823; Kenya, 765; and Tanzania 763). Six other African countries have a delegation of over 500; namely: Ghana, 618; Uganda, 606; Congo DR, 590; Egypt, 656; Senegal, 560 and Chad, 554. Only three countries sent no delegation to COP28: Afghanistan, Myanmar and San Marino.

Controversies have trailed the sheer number of Nigeria’s delegates; and this is understandable. I would prefer, however, that we give due consideration to who the delegates are, on whose ticket they are attending the conference, what role they have to play there, and the significance or otherwise of the conference itself to Nigeria.

Hysteria has become an important part of public discourse here. Few people still retain a measure of confidence in, and support for, the government, be it at local, state or federal level. And this is not misplaced, judging by the actions of the government at all levels and tiers. So, every action of the government is treated with suspicion.

No matter how fabulous the allegation levelled at the government is, the government is deemed guilty as charged. Here, the contrary is seldom proved, even when the government wakes up later in the day to state its own side of the story. And, sadly, as the elders say, it is not every ear that hears “we are going” that also hears “we are back”!

That was the situation on ground before COP28. Of course, still trending is the politics of the last presidential election – which can best be described as that of throwing the baby away with the bathwater. Or, better still, throwing Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu under the bus. But when the same Tinubu douses himself with petrol and stands by the fire-place, he makes the job easier for his detractors!

Many of those condemning Nigeria’s COP28 participation on account of the parlous state of our economy may know little about the conference. For many, all they care about is the sheer number of delegates and the cost of taking care of them in Dubai – cost of flight tickets, lodging and feeding, estacodes, etc. If flight tickets alone are said to gulp about N1 billion, then, the other logistics will cost some more billions. That is humongous, to be frank. A country we are told is broke; that is going everywhere a-borrowing; that is asking even the multi-dimensionally poor to still tighten their belt – such a country should not be seen engaging in the many profligacies that have hallmarked Tinubu’s six months in office.

So, my first reaction was to ask: What kind of conference is this? What benefits will accrue to Nigeria? Who are those attending? I, too, was alarmed at the sheer size of the delegation; just as I was at Tinubu’s large delegation to his first United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, USA. Are these signs of things to come and will this president always travel larger-than-life; the Mansa Musa of our times? Can we not achieve the same goals with less resources, seeing resources are scarce these days? Or are they not truly scarce as the government itself keeps drumming it in our ears?

But, then, I looked at the other participating countries and marveled at the sheer number of delegates: Added together – 97,000 actual participants and 3,000 participating virtually! There must be something, then, about this year’s COP28 because the number of those attending, not only from Nigeria but from all over the world, is unprecedented, being about twice the number that attended last year’s conference (COP27) at Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt.

I decided to ask more questions. What is COP28? COP means “Conference of the Parties”. The “Parties” being countries subscribing to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In short, Climate Change summit. COP came into force in 1994. Its first meeting was in 1995. 196 countries have signed up for COP.

COP28 goals are: To move the world towards achieving the Paris goals; fast-tracking the move to clean energy sources; slashing greenhouse gas emissions before 2030; delivering money from richer to poorer countries; and working on a new deal for developing countries.

COP28 specifically aims at improving lives; providing access to clean air and water; healthy food for all; healthy nature/environment; and safe and secure life for all. Parties meet annually to measure progress made as well as negotiate multi-lateral responses to climate change.

To achieve its aims, COP28 will strive at the decarbonization of the energy sector, which accounts for three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Topics for discussion at the conference, thus, include: Report on the worldwide implementation of the landmark Paris Climate Accord of 2016; the future of fossil fuels; climate finance for poorer countries; and setting up of a fund to pay for climate change.

Even an illiterate knows that our environment is getting more heated up although he may not know why. Africa today suffers some of the deadliest impacts of a heating planet, such as drought, flood, and mass displacement. Witness the recent flood disaster in Somalia that killed hundreds and displaced millions, with the attendant humanitarian and healthcare challenges.

Africa is responsible for less than five percent of global emissions but is disproportionately affected by negative climate change impact. Thus, for it, climate change issues are not just a matter of urgency, they are, appropriately, also a matter of survival. As a result, African nations have recently woken up to the realization that their voice must be heard loud and clear and their presence felt more at COP meetings.

Africa’s needs are: A just energy transition from fossil energy to renewable and safer energy; climate change finance; and funding for adaptation.

Richer countries promised $100 billion annually in climate financing funds but only $83 billion was collected. Most of it ended up being given not to African countries that needed it most but to countries outside Africa whose voices were loudest.

Africa needs $500 billion in climate change adaptation costs through 2030 but only $11 billion was available in 2020. At last year’s COP27 in Egypt, a Fund for loss and damage was, at long last, approved but not a dime has yet been collected. And time is running out! If by 2030, seven years from now, the developed countries abandon fossil fuels for renewable energy, what becomes of our crude oil and gas? The same fate that befell coal stares us in the face!

Africa is warming up faster than the developed countries. The sea level is rising faster in Africa than elsewhere, with no resources and or technology to tackle the menace. Climate change impacts Africa’s development more than it does the developed countries.

It is in the face of these challenges that African countries held their First African Climate Summit in Nairobi, Kenya last September and their demands include: That richer countries should commit to past funding commitments; reform unfavourable tax regimes; reduce borrowing costs for African countries; and restructure debts. They also demanded the right of African countries to use gas as a transition fuel.

It is clear from the above that Africa needs COP28. Despite this realization, Nigeria and some other African countries have been criticized for their large delegation to COP28. Kenya and Tanzania, for example, have been vilified along with Nigeria. But the countries have fought back, explaining that not all the delegates were sponsored by their home government. Nigeria, for instance, said only 422 of the 1411 were on its sponsorship. Many of those in Dubai were private individuals or those sponsored by private organizations. Some registered but attended online. The point was also made that the time has come for African countries to take Climate Change seriously.

From the foregoing, it cannot be denied that Nigeria has a serious stake in COP28. Nigeria is Africa’s largest country and economy. Besides, enlightened self-interest makes it mandatory for it to take the front seat at any Climate Change forum because of its extensive extractive economy. Our concern, then, should be whether the right people are those who made the delegation; whether they are there for the business of COP28; and whether Nigeria gets value for money.

Government’s media machine should be proactive rather than engage in expensive but usually ineffectual damage control measures. Not every ear that hears the report deliberately couched to damage will hear or believe your own response belatedly made.