Why G-20 leaders didn’t yield to Nigeria’s, Africa’s demand

This year's G-20 meeting was held in Hamburg, Germany between July 7 and 8, 2017, also created an African developed centred initiative called G20 African Partnership. This initiative is not different from all others created in similar high government events.

In an attempt to tell the global leaders what Africa needs, Nigeria’s Acting President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo wrote the meeting, since we are not invited.

The thrust of Osinbajo’s letter is for “the global leaders to move beyond pledges to support Africa’s future and end European Secrecy.”

With the conclusions reached the meeting on Africa development, was Nigeria’s request ignored?

The global leaders rather consider taking another round of pledges at developing the region. The United States government gave a whopping $648 million for food aids in Nigeria ($121 million), South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.

The world leaders also cumulated their support for Africa in the G20 African Partnership. Which is expected advance women empowerment, girls in ICT, and facilitates investment Compacts. Does Africa really need these?

No, from Nigeria’s perspective. Fighting corruption and money laundering were considered more important by the Nigerian government. It is due to the fact that the G20's commitments (in aids or private investments Compacts) may also be a prey of corruption and mismanagement.

“But our efforts to create sustainable economic growth are undermined by corruption facilitated by the legal and financial systems of G20 countries…. So if European countries want to help Africa succeed, they must help African governments kerb corruption.

"…a true partnership with Africa by delivering game-changing EU anti-money laundering regulations that prevent the criminal and corrupt from hiding behind anonymity and stealing Africa’s future from its people. Because failure to do so could undermine all their other efforts to help Africa prosper.”

In the last fifty years, over $50 billion is being deposited in various banks across Europe. Also, Africa has lost $1 trillion to illicit financial flows. If these funds are repatriated back to Africa, it would greatly foster infrastructural development and economic growth.

But, the European countries may have considered it the impact of taking such move on the stability of their financial system. Hence, their approach to continue gaining aids or grants to African countries as the best alternative to Nigeria’s demand.

In the same vein, four African countries were invited but none could emphasise the Nigerian position. Reasons being that some of them expect Guinea is currently being accused of corruption. While most of these world leaders also have agenda of positioning their countries to benefits from resources potentials of Africa.

So, giving aids or grants to attract Goodwills from the continent is one best strategy on their table. Meaning the global leaders may never consider releasing of looted funds in the nearest future. Little achievement as regards financial transparency from the US government after the August 2014 U.S.–Africa Leaders’ Summit in Washington, D.C. should tell Africa countries that they may not really care about us.

Thus, does this mean Nigeria is less important in Africa or in the world? No, this may be an indication that African development must be led by an African approach.

The “European Secrecy or more so the Development Economies secrecy” is one thing African country would have to find a way of defeating.