WTO: The Issue With Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala's Nomination

I've been keenly following the developments as regards nominations for the position of the Director General of the World Trade Organization, WTO, especially as its concerns the general ratification by the African regional body, AU, to field a consensus candidate.

In doing that I've looked at the nomination of Fred Yunov Agah and the eventual substitution with Ngozi Okonjo Iweala (NOI) by Nigeria, together with the dissension by Egypt, a contender in the forthcoming WTO election and a top interested party in the choice of Africa Union consensus candidacy.

I have looked at it critically from three widely separate angles of national patriotism, independent objectivity and in the light of regional sense of justice. At a point, I sought to be overwhelmed by the flying influence of one over the others- that of having to view at the stronger propensity in standing a robust change internationally to clinch this post by Nigeria, in the event of NOI staying as a nominee. 

That advantage projected by an Ngozi Iweala's nomination was informed by my sense of patriotism, in that Nigeria is as good as winning in presenting NOI, going by her impeccable track records. But in an impulsive demand for a closer look, putting other distinguishing factors into consideration, I considered what the situation of this substitution looks like when viewed beyond the passionate feeling of a national patriotism. 

What is the import of this substitution in the light of international objectivity (as it concerns Africa region) and of an entirely independent sense of justice?

First, we need to look at the implications as seen from a sense of justice. Fred Yunov Agah, for reasons considered by the Nigerian government as germane, to wit possibly included very strongly the fact that he's been an insider of the WTO (the man is Nigeria's Permanent Representative and the organisation's deputy DG), considered him a good sell for the top job and sent in his name as the country's nomination to the African Union Executive Council.

Before I proceed, however, let us understand two things. (Please permit me, as there are many complexities to look at if we must fairly and thoroughly understand the political drama playing out). Firstly, with the current WTO Director General having given an indication of his willingness to resign in 2021, the international body set in motion the process of shopping for his replacement. Quickly, nominations from interested parties were called. A deadline by which these nominations would have been sent and received was set. That's July 2020.

Secondly, that the African Union, as a regional body wanting to make a good outing at the WTO election, saw it conscionable a thing to put its acts together. The AU Executive Council agreed that the African region as a whole would submit a single nomination to the WTO for election. So, it was to be that every interest for the position from different interested countries must be subsumed into one. To achieve this, a process was set in place, and deadline was given. The deadline for submission for the Africa regional in-house selection of a consensus candidate was fixed as November 30, 2019.

It was very clear, from the part of the regional framework set up to streamline and enhance Africa's chances at the outing that the deadline was November 30, 2019. By implication, any African (nation) willing to participate in the WTO DG contest, and who have clearly subscribed to the demand for an African consensus, should have made submission not later than this date. Any lateness implied that such a party is not part of the internal arrangement or is stoutly defaulting same (so as to probably to go ahead in snub of Africa).

Nigeria, having been part of this decision, understood the terms and implications. And the earlier nomination of Amb Yunov Agah was timely. Same was the case with Egypt and Benin, and the other countries that had indicated interest. In a process that was a leg to concluding the consensus project, the regional body, looking at each country's INDIVIDUAL submission, narrowed down the interests to just three: Nigeria, Egypt and Benin. (Note that even as countries are reflectively mentioned, the emphasis is on the persons representing the countries!)

Suddenly, on June 4th, Nigeria made a swipe by withdrawing Agah's nomination and replacing same with NOI's without any cogent reason, at least to AU committee. But what could not be clear is whether Nigeria, by its recent substitution, which happened outside the clear bound for submission of nominations for consensus African candidate, was stoutly trying to say it is no longer part of this arrangement?

What that action of substitution by Nigeria meant was that the INDIVIDUAL Fred Agah that it submitted initially and which the consensus screening panel okayed was withdrawn. By implication, it is stating that the new nomination of NOI ought to undergo a screening to ascertain if it could be shortlisted. But the great question before whether or not it ought to be screened is: did this new INDIVIDUAL nomination meet the deadline of November, 2019?

Your answer is as good as the situation Nigeria finds itself, where Egypt has held firmly to offer a rather stiff opposition that will see its candidate, Hamid Mamdouh, as the last man standing. If this individual nomination of the person of NOI came outside the stipulated time, then is she qualified to be part of the internal Africa mechanism to shortlist a consensus candidate?

No doubt, NOI, Nigeria's recent substitution is super-qualified and very well meets the WTO criteria to contest both in pedigree and in the timeline for nomination (WTO's deadline being July, 2019). But the issue in contention isn't the timeliness of the global nomination, it is in the lateness of been nominated for the regional in-house selection process, when the door already has been long shut since November, 2019.

Remember I tipped you that I was going to also spin this debate around the lense of regional objectivity. In doing that, it would be apt to ask that going by the foregoing clarifications, if the regional body would have been fair and just enough, at least to its arrangement, if it turned the blind eye to its ratification and accepted the new nomination of Okonjo-Iweala? How would other Africans, especially those interested, view this body and the process?

Indeed, it would have broken its stipulation that was generally agreed by member states, very basically as it concerns the deadline for the submission of candidacy with respect to the move for a CONSENSUS that it has set for itself. Once again, I reiterate for the benefit of better understanding that nominations for the WTO are not considered based on countries, rather it is on individual. The country only acts as a force or a platform that an individual candidate must stand, as the individual can't come personally to lead a body that's defined by nations.

The other African countries would definitely smell a sense of bias and of an unreasonable consideration towards Nigeria. The implication is that there would be rift and a huge precedence set that would begin the process of discord in future calls for the adoption of this protocol. This would indeed not be good for Nigeria's future prospects in affairs that would call for Afrocentric support and brotherly understanding.

Quickly, in looking from the angle of  independent objectivity. Without seeking to sound parochial or trivial, Ambassador Fred Agah's withdrawal was uncalled for, betraying of his person and very fatal to Nigeria's chance at the WTO, especially coming after the man's nomination had already been made.

The question for me that significantly begs for answer in the light of objectivity is the place Nigeria's thinking cap was when it submitted Agah's candidacy knowing that NOI that it eventually considered as having more requisite qualifications, exposure and the clout to make a possibly huge impression at the African selection and eventually at the main process was there? Hasn't the woman being there all the while or she just suddenly appeared? Or was she just born? These are unbecoming questions asked because the situation that called for them obviously looks ridiculous.

To be frank, Nigeria shot itself on the leg by seeking to flout the process that it was part of and to which it agreed: the concord for an African consensus candidacy and the subsisting conditions. It was very illogical to have withdrawn its earlier, time-accepted nomination of Agah. It beats objective reason to rub Agah on the face, stylishly ridicule him and shortchange the process. Worst still, it was folly to think other African countries would be blind to it.