One would have to agree with the Senate President that not all information on the internet is true, while we can debate the 99 per cent used in his summation on the floor of the house, certainly, he was right on calling out politics in the ongoing discussion on USAID and funding of Boko Haram.
The claim by the US senator that the US government was funding Boko Haram has a lot riding on it, maybe that statement is not fair, but such is life when it comes to opposition politics. Across both traditional and social media platforms, including WhatsApp groups, we have heard several theories and analyses on this topic with everyone claiming to know.
The NGO sector has faced profound mis- and disinformation; it would seem that nonprofits are the source of all the problems we have in Nigeria around terrorism and money laundering, whereas many Nigerians in communities across the country are pinning their hopes on the support and goodwill of nonprofits for good health, education, improved finances, a functioning democracy and respect for the rule of law.
No doubt the USAID funding freeze has resulted in job losses, and disruptions in service delivery combined with lost revenue, The good news is not all NGOs receive funding from USAID and other multilateral, hence as a whole our sector is resilient. Thanks to founders, friends, family members and the public who give the most to these organisations. At this time, NGOs in the country are more threatened by the allure of exaggeration, myths, half-truths, weak understanding, bias, stereotypes and lack of objectivity since the Trump order.
The call for an investigation into whether USAID is funding Boko Haram is welcome, and it is imperative that the National Assembly find closure on this. But let me provide some information on what I think everyone interested in foreign aid, countering terrorism and anti-money laundering should know or better still fill the knowledge gap that persists.
The money given to government and civil society by USAID is called Official Development Assistance. These funds provided by the likes of USAID and other governments are largely part of the 0.7 per cent Gross National Income target which was first agreed upon in 1970 and has been repeatedly re-endorsed since then through the Millennium Development Goals era (2005 to 2015) and now the Sustainable Development Goals (2015 to 2030).
The National Planning Commission (particularly the International Cooperation Department monitors ODA and signs agreements called cooperation agreement between Nigeria and donor countries. In essence, no money comes into the country without our government knowing.
Humanitarian action in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe (often called the BAY area) is coordinated by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. On its website, you can track how money is received and from who. They work in close coordination with the state governments, security agencies, and local and international NGOs.
Since a member of the House of Representatives alleged that NGOs park jets in Maiduguri and Yobe if as an active citizen you are interested in knowing whether NGOS have jets, a freedom of information request sent to the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority would unravel this.
As a federal agency, they are obliged to respond to you about ownership of jets going in and out of Maiduguri and Yobe. In Borno today, development and humanitarian response are coordinated and regulated by the state government.
National laws enacted by the National Assembly regulate the operations of NGOs around countering terrorism financing and anti-money laundering with Nigeria being a pride of the international community when it comes to nonprofit regulations in this regard. The Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering, the government agency leading this effort, has its eyes and ears in areas, sectors and regions of the country at risk. They have a national risk assessment that must under the law be published every two years working in partnership with all stakeholders.
Making the rounds also is the narrative that NGOs support terrorism by treating terrorists. Medically focused nonprofits with expertise in emergency response have always come in conflict with security personnel. In 1864, states agreed to a pioneering International Humanitarian Law treaty on medical care. It required that the wounded and sick combatants of the warring states who are rendered hors de combat (out of the battle) be protected and cared for. Over time, those safeguards were extended to all wounded fighters hors de combat of all parties in all armed conflicts. Of course, protections for the wounded would be largely meaningless without access to medical personnel and supplies. So IHL also shields those engaged in medical care and the means they employ to do so. States thereby struck a balance—part practical, part moral—to keep medical care for the wounded and sick above the conflict. None of these IHL protections is weakened for an enemy if she is defined as a terrorist. For instance, under IHL “no wounded fighter may be denied medical care due to a terrorist designation”. (Excerpts from the report Medical Care in Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law and State Responses to Terrorism).
Certainly, it is an honour for the NGO sector to support the government in its efforts to bring development to the common man even at greater risk to their equity. It will be ironic and tragic if all stakeholders and decision-makers in their quest to be politically correct imperilled the nonprofit sector and the good it does across communities.
• Oluseyi Oyebisi, Executive Director, Nigeria Network of NGOs, writes from Lagos via [email protected]
