Chinedu: Victim or Villain?

The Chidenu deportation saga is a very serious international affair as far as Nigeria is concerned. Kenya’s deportation of Nigerian Anthony Chinedu and others was poorly thought-out and executed. It was poorly thought-out because it lacked the benefit of the history of Nigeria’s reaction to the perceived “unfair” deportation of its citizens, and poorly executed because instead of giving Chinedu a one-way ticket to Nigeria on Ethiopian Airlines, Kenya chartered an expensive plane and sent-off Chinedu with a load of Kenya’s civil servants.

Now it has opened a can of worms: Not only are Kenya’s civil servants and their plane stuck in Nigeria, the saga is threatening to become a diplomatic stand-off between two hither-to friendly countries. One of the two has to blink first and it won’t be Nigeria.

It is important, therefore, to shed some light on this issue, one about which a lot of ignorance prevails and lack of seriousness abounds. The Chinedu deportation saga is a very serious international affair as far as Nigeria is concerned. It does not matter what one thinks of Chinedu; what counts is that he is a Nigerian who seems to have been treated like dirt by a friendly country.

A simple analysis of Nigeria’s history with deportations shows a country that will do anything to retaliate the ill-treatment (real or imagined) of its citizens (corporate or individual) abroad. It is a history that dates back to as early as 1983 and Kenya had better take note of this in seeking to resolve the current impasse. Let’s consider three cases to illustrate this fact — a 1983 case involving Ghana, a 2011 case involving the UK, and a 2012 case involving South Africa.

In 1983, Nigeria deported more than 1 million Ghanaians in retaliation for Ghana’s deportation, 13 years earlier, of half-a-million Nigerians. What made Nigeria’s action particularly grating to Ghanaians was the timing of it all — first, 13 years later when no one was expecting it, and second, the fact that the Nigerian action was executed when Ghana was undergoing a very difficult period. A severe drought had ravaged the country causing massive hunger and despondency, and the economy was in shambles. Incidentally, the only beacon of hope for many Ghanaians then was Nigeria.

Nigeria knew that expelling the Ghanaians at that time would hurt Ghana for generations. Majority of the deported Ghanaians had to walk back to Ghana and many paid with their lives. In a Christian Science Monitor report of the time, “the European Community mission in West Africa reported that ‘there are stories of death due to fatigue, wounded, women giving birth in indescribable conditions, and the presence of numerous drug addicts suffering from withdrawal’.”

Nigeria also knew that Ghana was not in good terms with Benin and Togo, countries whose borders were closed to Ghanaians, yet which Ghanaians leaving Nigeria had to cross to get back to Ghana as Ghana and Nigeria do not share a common border. It was a heartless thing to do, but hey, Nigeria was “retaliating” the ill-treatment of its citizens by Ghana 13 years earlier. It took the personal intervention of Ghana’s then military leader Jerry Rawlings, who negotiated a settlement with fellow military strongman in Nigeria then Ibrahim Babangida, to right the relationship between Nigeria and Ghana.

However, it is since the ascendency of Goodluck Jonathan to the Nigerian Presidency that Nigeria’s policy towards countries that “delight” in ill-treating Nigerians has taken a new shape. His motto is simple: Do unto others worse than they have done unto you! Mr Jonathan seems determined to restore Nigerian pride — battered as it is by the effective global branding of Nigerians as “criminals”, especially “drug dealers” and “conmen.” He is demanding “fair and reasonable” treatment of all Nigerians regardless of social status wherever they may be.

In November 2011, Nigeria took a reciprocal move against the UK whose airport authorities had denied a Nigerian-owned airline, Arik, landing slots at Heathrow Airport. This technically forced Arik to suspend flights from Abuja to London Heathrow. What did Nigeria do? They slashed British Airways’ flights to Lagos from seven times a week to three and went further to reschedule British Airways’ landing and take-off times in Lagos, thereby adversely affecting the airline’s passengers’ connectivity in Europe. The British authorities quickly rescinded their decision on Arik and the matter was resolved.

On March 2, last year, South Africa deported 125 Nigerians accusing them of possessing fake yellow fever vaccination certificates. Nigeria immediately started the deportation of South Africans at all ports of entry into Nigeria, including by sea. Before a week was over, 136 South Africans had been deported from Nigeria for “improper documentation,” diplomatese for anything between not having papers at all to having fake ones.

In addition, the Nigerian Foreign Affairs Ministry summoned the South African envoy to Nigeria, Mr Kingsley Mambolo, to explain the deportations. Further, Nigeria’s two chambers of the National Assembly summoned Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Amb. Olugbenga Ashiru, to shed light on the matter.

Those who think the Chinedu affair is a light matter had better take note of Ashiru’s words then: “I find the action (of deporting 125 Nigerians from South Africa) totally unfriendly and un-African. You don’t treat fellow Africans that way… They (South Africa) should know that they do not have the monopoly of deporting travellers. If we feel that the action against our nationals was discriminatory, we will take action to reciprocate and there are various ways of reciprocating. It will be measure for measure… The signal must go out, not just to South Africa, but to the rest of the world, that when you treat Nigerians with disrespect, we also will find a way of treating your nationals with disrespect. No country has a monopoly of treating Nigerians with disrespect; we too can hit back.”

Why did Nigeria act this way? Because South Africa could not proffer satisfactory answers to these questions: If the yellow fever certificates were fake, why did the South African embassy in Nigeria issue the travellers with visas? Why didn’t South Africa follow procedure before effecting the deportations i.e. quarantine and vaccinate the travellers? If the 125 were to be deported, why wasn’t the Nigerian ambassador to South Africa informed? Why weren’t Nigerian authorities called to supervise the deportations?

In the Chinedu case, can Kenya satisfactorily answer the following, among other, questions: Whatever his alleged transgressions, was due process followed in deporting Chinedu? What happens to his investments in Kenya which he claims to be worth Ksh500 million; has he no right to wind them up? What is the evidence against him? Why was he deported in a chartered plane by so many immigration officials; is it because he is a wealthy man to whom the bill can easily, but ‘unfairly’ be passed on to? If he is what the Kenyan authorities claim he is, why is he being denied his day in the Kenyan courts?

If these questions are not answered, Nigerian authorities are likely to conclude that Kenya is mistreating a Nigerian national simply because he is Nigerian! Forget Chinedu’s demented hubris about being “powerful” in Nigeria! He isn’t. No powerful Nigerian leaves Nigeria to seek greener pastures elsewhere unless sent by the government. Chinedu is just lucky to originate from a country that hates the ill-treatment of its citizens abroad regardless of how lowly they are. Majority of those Ghana deported in 1969-70 were petty handymen and traders, not powerful Nigerian operatives. But look what Nigeria did. Chinedu is not powerful in Nigeria but his claims that while in Kenya, he was treated unfairly, deported without due process, assaulted, robbed and impoverished are powerful enough to provoke an unexpected “retaliatory” move from Abuja.

With the 1983 Nigeria action against Ghana in mind, when Amb. Ashiru speaks of “various ways of reciprocating” in 2012, he is in effect saying that Nigeria holds the monopoly of the surprise element in such matters. They will not fire the first shot but they will have the last laugh. That is why this time, instead of rounding up Kenyans in Nigeria for deportation, the country has chosen to hold those who had the temerity to go there in the name of delivering deportees.

The message from Nigeria to the world is clear: “You treat our citizens like dirt; we repay you with the most bitter dose of your own medicine. If Nigerians have broken your law, let them have their day in court. If found guilty, punish them accordingly; if not, let them be. Not all Nigerians are drug dealers, online scammers and document forgers! We demand some respect and we will do what it takes to get it!”

Kenya’s high-handed, almost naïve, approach to the issue won’t work. The authorities in Nairobi seem to have realised as much which is why neither the Foreign nor the Interior ministries are taking outright responsibility for the deportations. Foreign is saying ‘ask Interior’ and Interior is saying ‘we are negotiating with Nigeria.’ Since when was it the responsibility of Interior to negotiate with foreign governments?

To resolve the matter amicably and soon, Kenya should emulate Ghana, the UK, and South Africa: Swallow humble pie and return Chinedu to Kenya for a transparent justice process in the courts. Otherwise, Kenya is courting an ugly diplomatic fallout with a powerful African ally, something the Kenyan leadership can ill-afford right now.

By Chaacha Mwita

The author, a former journalist, now an ordinary citizen, is a fanatical follower of African history and works for Thomson Foundation, UK.