In the last few weeks, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has found himself in the eye of a storm, largely due to his twin salvos against Northern Nigeria and the Nigerian Federation at large. Two issues have come to the forefront of national discourse: the proposed tax reforms and the signing of a controversial solid minerals development deal with France. Both actions, seemingly unrelated, have deepened concerns over the direction of Nigeria’s future, particularly with regard to the North’s place within the federation. While the tax reforms appear on the surface to be mere economic policy shifts, there is a growing suspicion that these bills were deliberately framed to divert the North’s attention, paving the way for something far more sinister: a deal that could lead to the recolonization of Northern Nigeria.
The Nigerian tax system has long been a subject of debate. Under Tinubu’s administration, a series of tax reforms aimed at restructuring the fiscal policy have been introduced, but their timing has raised eyebrows, especially in the North. These reforms, which aim to widen the tax base and impose more stringent compliance measures, have hit many citizens and businesses hard. But it is the manner in which the reforms have been framed that gives a sense of deliberate misdirection. It is as though the government is deliberately keeping the North preoccupied with fiscal issues, allowing it to avoid questions regarding more significant matters, such as the deal signed by Tinubu with the French government just last week.
The tax reform bills, while ostensibly designed to improve Nigeria’s revenue generation, seem to have distracted the political elite, especially in Northern Nigeria, from a more concerning issue: the signing of a solid minerals development agreement between Nigeria and France. The deal, which has not been subject to significant public scrutiny, could have profound implications on Nigeria’s sovereignty and the future of the North. While the tax bills have made headlines, the solid minerals deal has been largely downplayed in the media. This is a classic distraction that could have far-reaching consequences for the region.
One of the most concerning aspects of the deal signed between President Tinubu and French President Emmanuel Macron is its potential for exploitation. While the details of the agreement are still being revealed, its timing and nature point toward a significant shift in Nigeria’s foreign relations, particularly with France. The deal revolves around the development of Nigeria’s solid minerals sector, with France taking a prominent role in the exploration and exploitation of Nigeria’s vast mineral resources. On the surface, this might appear as a mutually beneficial economic partnership, but for those familiar with France’s historical dealings with its former colonies, the agreement looks more like a modern form of neocolonialism.
Over the past six decades, countries in Africa that gained independence from France have continuously found themselves ensnared by exploitative agreements. French companies, often backed by the French government, have maintained an iron grip on the economies of former colonies, ensuring that resource extraction remains under French control. These agreements, often signed under the guise of cooperation and condition for independence, have kept African countries in a perpetual state of economic dependency. From the Côte d’Ivoire to Mali, Senegal to Congo, these countries have struggled to break free from French influence and exploitative contracts. The most telling evidence of this frustration can be seen in the rising wave of anti-French sentiment across the continent, with several nations pushing for the departure of French troops and companies.
One of the most important lessons that African nations have learned from their dealings with France is that these agreements are not designed to uplift the people but to continue the flow of resources to France. These agreements always place harsh conditions on the host country, ensuring that much of the wealth generated from natural resources does not benefit the local population but instead is siphoned off to foreign corporations and governments. This same pattern of exploitation appears to be the foundation of the solid minerals deal signed by President Tinubu and President Macron.
Northern Nigeria, in particular, must take heed of this agreement. For over a century, the region has been subject to various forms of exploitation and marginalization, first under British colonial rule and later under the policies of successive Nigerian governments. The solid minerals deal with France could further deepen this exploitation, especially given that the North is rich in untapped mineral resources. With foreign companies taking control of the region’s resources, the North’s economic future could be jeopardized.
The most significant concern, however, lies in the military and political implications of this agreement. The deal, like many others signed by France with its former colonies, is likely to include provisions for French military presence in Nigeria under the guise of safeguarding French interests. France’s historical military interventions in Africa, under the pretext of maintaining order, have often led to political instability and the erosion of national sovereignty. The presence of French military forces in Northern Nigeria, even if justified by economic agreements, could lead to further destabilization, undermining the region’s political autonomy.
It is crucial for the representatives including the governors and members of the National Assembly from Northern Nigeria to take a firm stand against this agreement with France. They must not allow the government to sell out the region’s resources to foreign powers without proper scrutiny. The French have a long history of exploiting Africa’s resources, and it is imperative that Northern Nigeria’s leaders take action to ensure that any agreement with France does not include clauses that will allow for French military intervention or control over Northern Nigeria’s resources.
The question must be asked: who in their right mind would knowingly send death to their own address? By allowing France to establish a foothold in Northern Nigeria, we may be inviting a new era of exploitation and security crises that could set the region back for generations. The people of Northern Nigeria must demand transparency and accountability from their representatives and make sure that any agreement signed does not threaten their autonomy or subject them to further crises through external control.
Northern Nigeria must rise to this occasion. It is our duty to hold our representatives accountable for ensuring that any agreements, especially those involving foreign powers like France, do not compromise the region’s interest and Nigeria’s sovereignty. It is essential that we insist on full transparency and thoroughly examine every detail of the solid minerals agreement with France. Any clauses that permit the presence of French military forces in the region or provide excessive control over its resources should be categorically rejected.
Northern Nigeria must not repeat the mistakes of the past. The specter of neocolonialism is real, and it is up to us and our representatives to ensure that our region is not subjugated to foreign exploitation. This is a call to action for all Northern Nigerians to stand together and protect their future.
