U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

61–669 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–650 

EXAMINING THE U.S.–NIGERIA RELATIONSHIP 

IN A TIME OF TRANSITION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID MCKean, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

——————

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin, Chairman

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Campbell, Hon. John, Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for African Policy Studies, 

Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY .................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Carson, Hon. Johnnie, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC ................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator From Wisconsin .................................... 1 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator From Georgia .............................................. 3 

Lewis, Dr. Peter, associate professor and director of the African Studies 

Program, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced 

International Studies, Washington, DC ............................................................. 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Ribadu, Nuhu, visiting fellow, Center for Global Development, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

(III)

(1) 

EXAMINING THE U.S.–NIGERIA RELATIONSHIP 

IN A TIME OF TRANSITION 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Honorable Russell D. 

Feingold (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Feingold, Cardin, Kaufman, and Isakson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. The hearing will come to order and on behalf 

of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on African Affairs, I welcome all of you to this hearing entitled ‘‘Examining the U.S.-Nigeria Relationship in a Time of Transition.’’ 

I am honored to be joined by our ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Isakson, and I’ll invite him to deliver some 

opening remarks in just a moment. 

Nigeria has received increased attention by the United States 

media following the Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack. Although it appears that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based 

in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, played a significant role in Abdulmutallab’s recruitment and radicalization. 

I don’t think we should dismiss the possibility that certain conditions in Nigeria have played some role, too, however small. I expect 

we’ll discuss this at today’s hearing, as well as Nigeria’s inclusion 

on the new TSA list of 14 countries from which travelers will receive additional security screening. 

But today’s hearing is about far more. The U.S.-Nigeria relationship covers a wide range of important issues and strategic interests. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, and the eighth 

most populous in the world. It is home to Africa’s largest Muslim 

population as well as an estimated 250 ethnic groups. It is Africa’s 

second largest economy and a major global supplier of oil. And as 

a current member of the U.N. Security Council, a major contributor 

to global peacekeeping and the host of ECOA’s headquarters, Nigeria has been a leader in regional—and increasingly—in global affairs. 

For all of these reasons, Nigeria’s recent political paralysis has 

been cause for great international concern. Since November, President Yar’Adua has reportedly been in a hospital in Saudi Arabia. 

2 

His prolonged absence and failure to appoint an interim leader for 

months created a constitutional crisis. 

Meanwhile, Nigeria’s role in key regional matters has been diminished and this has been, perhaps, no more evident than with 

the continuing crisis in neighboring Niger. 

Earlier this month, the National Assembly voted to make Vice 

President Goodluck Jonathan, the Acting President, but much uncertainty still remains. Nigeria will likely be in a state of transition 

for the foreseeable future, particularly as Nigeria moves closer to 

general elections which are scheduled for 2011. 

Sorting out the many political challenges facing Nigeria while 

still respecting the constitution will take time, patience, and leadership. A successful transition for Nigeria must address the historic 

tensions and corruption that purveyed most of the country’s political system. 

Last month, sectarian violence broke out once again in Central 

Nigeria and hundreds of people were massacred. This is not the 

first time we have seen this type of fighting, and yet disturbedly, 

there have been no police investigations despite a government 

pledge to the effect that there would be. A cycle of retribution will 

likely continue until there is some effort to achieve accountability, 

and furthermore the discriminatory policies carried out by Nigeria’s 

security forces against certain groups, many of them Muslim, has 

the potential to fuel extremism. 

Indeed, in the northeast of Nigeria, the extremist group Boko 

Haram has already sought to exploit these tensions. 

At the same time in the south of Nigeria the crisis continues in 

the oil-rich Delta Region. For the last 30 years, local communities 

in the Niger Delta have been—Niger Delta have been marginalized 

politically and economically. Over time, frustration and endemic 

poverty have given rise to several armed groups pursuing increasingly criminal ends. The trade in stolen oil from the Delta’s vast 

pipelines, known as ‘‘bunkering’’ has become a lucrative industry 

and created a complex war economy. 

I’ve tried over recent years to focus on Nigeria’s domestic climate, 

because I think it has serious implications for a strategic partnership as well as for Nigeria’s role as a key actor on the global stage. 

The Obama administration has rightly reaffirmed the importance 

of our bilateral relationship with Nigeria, and I look forward to 

hearing today how we can ensure that we have the resources and 

the diplomatic presence and the strategic vision to actively engage 

with and support Nigeria’s transitional leadership. 

At the center of this effort, we’ll be working with Nigerians at 

the Federal, State and local level to address the country’s many political and economic challenges, as well as working to rather address the many regional and global challenges of mutual concern. 

So, with that, let me introduce our witnesses this morning. On 

our first panel, we’ll hear from Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson. Assistant Secretary Carson just returned 

from a trip to Nigeria earlier this month, and it has been great to 

work with him on this and many other issues over the last year, 

and I thank him for his willingness to testify. 

On our second panel, we’ll hear from three experts. First, Ambassador John Campbell who was the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria 

3 

from 2004 to 2007 and served as a political counselor in Nigeria 

from 1998 to 1990. He served for over 30 years in the Foreign Service and now works as a senior fellow for Africa Policy Studies at 

the Council on Foreign Relations. I’ll just note that Ambassador 

Campbell has a first-class education; he received his Ph.D. from the 

University of Wisconsin in 1970. And returned to Madison in 2007 

as a visiting professor. 

Second, we’ll hear from Dr. Peter Lewis who is an associate professor and director of the African Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies. Dr. 

Lewis has written and worked extensively on issues of democratic 

reform and political economy in Africa, particularly in Nigeria. 

And third and finally, we are honored to have with us Mr. Nuhu 

Ribadu. Mr. Ribadu is currently a visiting fellow at the Center for 

Global Development. From 2003 to 2007, he was head of Nigeria’s 

Economic and Financial Crimes Commissions, during which time 

he was recognized widely for his efforts to combat corruption. 

But he was forced to step down from that post after charging a 

powerful State Governor with corruption in December 2007 and a 

year later, he was forced to leave the country after facing harassment, death threats, and even attempts on his life. In fact, in 2008, 

both Senator Isakson and I sent a letter to President Yar’Adua, requesting that he ensure Mr. Ribadu’s personal safety. So we’re especially glad he’s here today. 

So, I thank you all for being here. I ask that you keep your remarks to 5 minutes or less so we have plenty of time for questions 

and discussion and we’ll submit the longer statements for the 

record. And now it’s my pleasure to turn, of course, to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Isakson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you, Chairman Feingold, welcome 

Johnnie Carson, you do a great job on behalf of our country on the 

Continent of Africa, and we are very grateful to you. 

I think it is very important that the chairman called this hearing 

today for multiple issues, not the least of which is Abdulmutallab’s 

failed attack—fortunately failed attack—in Detroit, MI, which 

raises a lot of questions about Nigeria and about al-Qaeda in Nigeria. 

I might also add, Mr. Chairman, as a representative of the State 

of Georgia where Delta Airlines is headquartered, and given their 

attempts to open all of Africa to the United States with many 

routes that they have pending there, aviation security is particularly important to me and to them and I appreciate all we can 

learn about that particular incident today. 

We also have the differences between the North and the South, 

we have the political issues, we have a nation that is rich in oil 

and we have a nation that is the second highest AIDS infection on 

the Ccontinent of Africa and is a PEPFAR participant. 

So, there are multiple reasons today to hear from Secretary Carson and the other experts. I welcome them being here, and I thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the hearing. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Isakson. 

4 

Ambassador Carson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNIE CARSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Isakson, and 

members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify 

before you today on Nigeria. Nigeria is one of the two most important countries in sub-Saharan Africa and a country of great significance to the United States. 

I have just returned from a visit to Nigeria and I am pleased to 

share with you my insights on the evolving political and economic 

situation there, as well as the status of United States-Nigerian relations. 

First, let me express our shared hope that President Yar’Adua, 

who has been receiving medical treatment in Saudi Arabia for the 

past 3 months, will fully recover. His prolonged absence has generated political uncertainty and has challenged Nigeria’s young 

democratic institutions. 

The National Assembly’s resolution that officially designated 

Vice President Goodluck Jonathan Acting President demonstrated 

Nigeria’s resolve to find a peaceful solution to the country’s leadership vacuum, and we commend Nigeria’s top elected political leaders for pursuing a transparent process, one that has adhered closely to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. We will continue to support the Nigerian people as they work through their 

democratic institutions to resolve the challenges facing that great 

nation. 

America’s bilateral relationship with Nigeria remains very 

strong, and my recent visit to Nigeria underscored the continuing 

importance of Nigeria to the United States and the value of our bilateral relationship. It also provided me with an opportunity to discuss areas where the United States can engage with Nigeria on 

issues of importance to both countries. 

In my meetings with a broad spectrum of political, religious, and 

civil society leaders across Nigeria, I discussed the important role 

that elections play in democracy. I stress that Nigeria’s next Presidential and National Assembly elections scheduled for April 2011 

must be credible. They must be free, fair, and transparent and they 

must be a significant improvement over the country’s 2007 Presidential elections, which were deeply embarrassing and deeply 

flawed. 

I urged Nigeria’s leaders to make electoral reform one of Nigeria’s highest priorities. Nigeria’s Independent Electoral Commission 

(INEC) has performed poorly over the past decade, and has not 

served the interests of Nigeria well. INEC needs new and improved 

leadership if elections are to have any real meaning in that country. 

A multinational team of election experts funded by USAID and 

the British Government completed an electoral assessment in Nigeria in January. The United States is prepared to provide technical 

assistance to Nigeria’s Election Commission, provided they demonstrate a willingness to fulfill the primary role of strengthening 

electoral administration. 

5 

I also spoke to Nigeria’s leaders about the economic developments and the many challenges facing Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy. The United States is one of Nigeria’s largest investors, and 

we seek to support economic development in Nigeria by advocating 

for an improved business climate, revitalization of the country’s infrastructure and increased power generation. 

Nigeria, with a population of 150 million, generates less power 

than the city of Brussels in Belgium. The country has only one 

functioning powerplant, and over 70 percent of its power is produced through diesel generators. We support President Yar’Ardua’s 

commitment to increase power generation to 66,000 megawatts by 

the end of the year, and we have encouraged acting President Jonathan to follow through on that pledge. 

We also welcome Nigeria’s efforts to reform its energy sector, but 

encourage it to do so in a manner that will maximize the use of 

the country’s most precious resource, improve the lives of Nigerians 

and not drive away foreign investors in the process. 

I also discussed regional security issues with Nigeria’s political 

leaders. Nigeria’s record on and commitment to regional peace and 

security is outstanding. Nigeria is one of the largest contributors 

to U.N. peacekeeping missions, and is the single-largest contributor 

in Africa. It has fielded troops to trouble spots in West and Central 

Africa and also to Darfur. Nigerian troops played a critical and central role to Liberia and Sierra Leone a decade ago. 

We seek to enhance Nigeria’s role as a U.S. partner on regional 

security, but we also seek to bolster its ability to combat violent extremism within its own borders. Nigeria is a partner in counterterrorism efforts, and it is in this context that Nigerians have expressed dissatisfaction with their inclusion on the Transportation 

Security Administration’s ‘‘Countries of Interest’’ list. Some Nigerians perceived this as collective punishment for the actions of one 

person, when in fact they shared our outrage at the attack and 

have been providing assistance in the ongoing United States investigations. 

Despite this, our friendship and relationship with Nigeria remains strong and continues to be based on a wide range of important bilateral issues. 

I also discussed the situation in the Niger Delta with a variety 

of Nigerian leaders. The Niger Delta has experienced a period of 

relative calm, largely as a result of an October 2009 amnesty 

agreement that the government negotiated with militant leaders in 

the area. As a result security has improved considerably in most 

areas of the Delta. But a resumption of violence can not be ruled 

out if the government does not follow through on the implementation of its rehabilitation and reintegration program for the area. 

We commend the government of Nigeria for initiating the amnesty process, and we urge acting President Goodluck Jonathan to 

move forward on the implementation of the post-amnesty programs. 

During Secretary Clinton’s August 2009 visit to Abuja, she 

agreed to establish a United States-Nigeria Binational Commission 

that would allow the United States and Nigeria to engage on key 

bilateral issues including regional security and counterterrorism 

threats, governance and transparency issues, the problem of the 

6 

Niger Delta, and economic development. The Secretary intends to 

move ahead with the signing of that Binational Commission agreement in the next 2 months. The Secretary has also agreed to reestablish an American diplomatic presence in Northern Nigeria in 

the next 12 to 18 months. We currently have no diplomatic representation in Northern Nigeria. 

Mr. Chairman, we are enhancing our bilateral engagement with 

Nigeria, despite the enormous challenges we face. We remain encouraged by the Nigerian people’s commitment to their country’s 

democratic foundation and Acting President Jonathan’s public and 

private commitments to reform. We will seize the opportunity to 

work with the Government of Nigeria in these efforts. Our goal is 

to help Nigeria fulfill its potential as a regional leader, but the 

Government of Nigeria also has obligations that it must meet to 

address the needs of its citizens. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss our bilateral relationship with Nigeria. I look forward to answering your questions. My full statement has been submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY JOHNNIE CARSON, BUREAU OF

AFRICAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Isakson, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today on Nigeria—one of the most important countries in sub-Saharan Africa and one of the United States most strategic 

partners. I particularly appreciate the abiding interest of the African Affairs Subcommittee in Nigeria. I have just returned from a visit there and am pleased to 

share my insights on the evolving situation as well as the United States-Nigeria bilateral relationship. 

First, let me express our shared hope that President Yar’Adua, who remains absent from the country for medical treatment, will fully recover. His absence over the 

last few months challenged Nigeria to find a path forward consistent with its Constitution and in line with democratic principles. The National Assembly’s resolution 

that officially designated Vice President Goodluck Jonathan as Acting President 

demonstrated Nigeria’s resolve, and we commend the commitment of all elements 

of Nigerian society to constitutional process and the rule of law. We will continue 

to support the Nigerian people as they work through their democratic institutions 

to resolve the challenges facing their great nation. 

My visit to Nigeria underscored the continuing importance of Nigeria to U.S. national interests and the value of our bilateral relationship. It also provided an opportunity to discuss areas where the United States can engage with Nigeria on issues 

of importance to both countries. My meetings with a broad spectrum of political, religious, and civil society leaders across Nigeria focused on our shared values and 

goals, including efforts on governance, elections, anticorruption, countering violent 

extremism and regional security. I stressed that the elections scheduled for April 

2011 must be credible—Nigeria cannot afford a repeat of 2007. The February 6 elections in Anambra state, while deemed credible, suffered from poor logistics and administration, and as little as a 16-percent voter turnout. This is one area where the 

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which is in need of improved 

leadership, must do better. 

Our bilateral relationship with Nigeria remains strong and we continue to press 

forward our mutual strategic goals—achieving free and fair elections, building the 

capacity and commitment to fight corruption, promoting economic development, resolving internal conflict and enhancing Nigeria’s role as a regional leader in conflict 

mitigation, and developing other influential actors in Nigeria such as the State Governments and faith communities. 

Elections: While Nigeria has accomplished much in the past 10 years, it still faces 

many challenges to meet its full potential. Nigeria’s 2007 elections were marred by 

poor organization, widespread fraud, and numerous incidents of voter intimidation 

and violence resulting in the deaths of more than 300 people. The 2011 elections 

must be better. As such, I have urged Nigeria’s leaders to make electoral reform 

one of Nigeria’s highest priorities. I have stressed the importance of achieving 

7 

peaceful transition of civilian rule through transparent, free, and fair elections. We 

have supported Nigerian organizations by printing Electoral Reform Commission 

(ERC) recommendations in English, Hausa, and Yoruba, as well as organizing symposiums, seminars, and other venues to educate stakeholders. 

A U.S. Agency for International Development and United Kingdom’s Department 

for International Development team just completed a joint electoral assessment in 

Nigeria. We continue to urge Nigeria to implement the reforms needed to move closer to credible election processes and a peaceful transition of civilian rule through 

transparent, free, and fair elections. We are prepared to provide technical assistance 

to Nigeria’s election commission provided they demonstrate a willingness to fulfill 

their primary role of strengthening election administration. 

Good Governance: The challenges Nigeria faces are principally ones of governance. 

As Secretary Clinton said clearly, ‘‘The most immediate source of the disconnect between Nigeria’s resource wealth and its population’s poverty is a failure of governance at the federal, state, and local level.’’ Endemic corruption is a known culprit, 

but so is the failure to hold political leaders accountable to the people. Improving 

governance is the foundation of U.S. efforts in Nigeria at the federal, state, and local 

levels where we seek to improve transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility. There can be little progress in reducing child mortality, fighting poverty, creating jobs, and improving the business climate without improved governance. 

Economic Development: We seek to support economic development in Nigeria by 

advocating for improved business climate, increased power generation, and transparency in the extractive industries. Endemic corruption is a major factor behind 

Nigeria’s consistently low ranking (125 of 183) in the World Bank’s ‘‘Doing Business’’ report. U.S. companies have to follow the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and 

the USG has been aggressive in pursuing companies that violate it. We will support 

those Nigerian institutions and organizations that fight corruption and inefficiencies 

that hinder economic growth. 

We welcome Nigeria’s efforts to reform its energy sector. We are actively engaged 

in seeing that Nigeria’s reforms advance its own energy security and provide the 

income the nation needs to invest in development. We applaud Nigeria’s participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and encourage Nigeria to finalize implementation of EITI’s revenue transparency methodology and independent validation. 

We embraced President Yar’Adua’s commitment to increase power generation to 

6,000 megawatts by the end of the year and we hope Acting President Jonathan 

takes on this pledge. Major infrastructure improvements are critical to developing 

manufacturing and other nonoil sector industries. This is a real challenge for Nigeria and absolutely essential for the progress and development of Nigeria and its people. The decline in the country’s infrastructure—from poor roads to power shortages 

to reduced health and education spending—has led to a decline in social indices, reduced manufacturing and food insecurity. 

Regional Security Cooperation: Nigeria’s commitment to regional peace and security remains exemplary in a troubled continent. Nigeria has provided the largest 

number of peacekeeping troops in Africa. It has fielded troops to trouble spots in 

West Africa and to Darfur, and played an important role in returning stability to 

Sierra Leone and Liberia. 

We seek to enhance Nigeria’s role as a U.S. partner on regional security, but we 

also seek to bolster its ability to combat violent extremism within its borders. Nigeria is a partner in counterterrorism efforts, and it is in this context that Nigerians 

have expressed dissatisfaction with their inclusion on the Transportation Security 

Administration’s ‘‘Countries of Interest’’ list. Nigerians perceive this as collective 

punishment for the actions of a wayward son, when in fact they shared our outrage 

at the attack and have been providing assistance to the ongoing investigation. Let 

me be clear, our friendship and relationship with Nigeria is strong and continues 

to be based on a wide range of important bilateral issues. 

We condemn the chronic politically motivated, interreligious violence in Plateau 

State, especially around Jos. The conflict flared again in recent weeks, resulting in 

the killings of more than 100 civilians. We urge all parties to address the hostility 

between religious and ethnic groups and bring perpetrators of such acts to justice. 

The tensions in the north have religious overtones and are perceived by outsiders 

as fighting between Christians and Muslims; in fact, the real conflict is one of politics. Political leaders in Nigeria must recognize this and with the help and support 

of national religious leaders promote a dialogue between groups to resolve issues 

peacefully. 

President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo last year called for mutual understanding and partnership across gender, religious, ethnic, and nationality lines. To 

meet this call, we seek to expand our diplomatic presence in key African countries, 

8 

most critically, in northern Nigeria. Having representation in northern Nigeria will 

allow us to engage key Christian and Muslim leaders in the north, support the vibrant civil society, and report on political, economic, and social issues. 

Niger Delta: While we are currently experiencing relative calm in the Niger Delta, 

this region remains at the forefront of our bilateral agenda. By October 2009, the 

Nigerian Government persuaded all major militant leaders to renounce violence and 

surrender arms in exchange for amnesty, government stipends, training opportunities, and pledges of greater development for the Delta. Nigerian officials followed 

up the amnesty program with a series of consultations with Delta stakeholders, including ex-militants. To date, security has improved considerably in most areas of 

the Delta, but ex-militants have staged protests in Bayelsa, Rivers, and Delta States 

over lack of progress on rehabilitation and reintegration. 

We commend the Government of Nigeria for initiating the amnesty process and 

urge the implementation of the post-amnesty programs. We support efforts to establish mechanisms for positive changes in governance, curb activities of criminal elements operating with impunity in the Delta, and provide economic opportunity and 

needed services for residents of the Niger Delta. We have coordinated closely with 

the international partners and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 

to identify opportunities to assist the Nigerian Government in this endeavor. The 

UNDP sent a letter to Minister of Defense and Amnesty Committee Chairperson 

Retired General Godwin Abbe in December 2009 offering to engage on the Niger 

Delta. 

During her August 2009 visit to Abuja, Secretary Clinton agreed to establish a 

United States-Nigeria Binational Commission that would allow the United States 

and Nigeria to engage on key bilateral issues including regional security and 

counterterrorism, and advance discussions on governance and transparency issues, 

Niger Delta post-amnesty progress, and economic development. 

Mr. Chairman, we are enhancing our bilateral engagement with Nigeria, despite 

the enormous challenges we face. We remain encouraged by the Nigerian people’s 

commitment to their country’s democratic foundation and Acting President Jonathan’s public and private commitments to reform. We will seize the opportunity to 

work with the Government of Nigeria in these efforts. Our goal is to help Nigeria 

fulfill its potential as a regional leader, but the Government of Nigeria must first 

address the need of its citizens. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss our bilateral relationship with 

Nigeria. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Ambassador Carson. 

We welcome Senator Cardin who has joined us and we’ll begin 

with 7-minute rounds. 

I’d like to start off my questioning with one about this Nigerian 

political crisis that you talked about. Goodluck Jonathan’s appointment as Acting President may avert a political crisis for the time 

being, but going forward I think it seems pretty clear that just calling on Nigeria to adhere to its constitution is insufficient to avert 

another political crisis. Can you say more about that? Whether 

you’re sure of that and what steps the administration is taking to 

head off any political crisis that might reemerge down the road? 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The United States has been watching the political situation in 

Nigeria for the last several months and our diplomacy has been active and engaged. Shortly after President Yar’Adua left for Saudi 

Arabia, the Embassy and I and Washington began to reach out to 

senior leaders across Nigeria—across the political spectrum—encouraging them that there would be a democratic and stable transition if one were required. 

Secretary of State Clinton issued a statement along with the 

British and French Foreign Ministers and Baroness Ashton some 

1 month ago, also encouraging the Nigerian political elite to act responsibly during this period of uncertainty. My trip out to Nigeria 

approximately 2 weeks ago was also intended to encourage all of 

the political leadership there to act responsibly in ensuring that 

9 

there would be stability and a commitment to constitutional and 

democratic change if it were required. 

We were concerned, as we should be, given Nigeria’s long history 

of military involvement that we did not want to see a return of the 

military to power in an unconstitutional way in Nigeria. I think the 

Nigerian leadership has acted thoughtfully, responsibly, and along 

democratic lines in resolving the current crisis. 

But, Mr. Chairman, you’re right. We’re not out of the woods yet. 

We won’t be out of the woods until Nigeria holds its next Presidential election, until it has a President that all of the people have 

had an opportunity to select and vote for. 

Senator FEINGOLD. In that context, let me say a little bit comparing our policies toward Nigeria and Kenya. Both are clearly important, as you’ve said, United States strategic partners on the African Continent. And both struggle with deep-seeded and often 

crippling corruption. 

In the case of Kenya, this administration you, yourself, Ambassador Carson, have taken a tough public line calling on the Unity 

government in Nairobi to enact meaningful reforms and to ensure 

investigations into corruption allegations. And the administration 

has backed up that public line with travel bans against corrupt 

high-level officials and the suspension of some development assistance. 

With regard to Nigeria, the administration’s statements have not 

been backed up by such targeted measures or tangible steps. Why 

is this? What, Ambassador, would trigger the administration taking a tougher public stance toward Nigeria including the implementation of targeted measures of the type that we took with regard to Kenya? 

Mr. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, we have been outspoken and strong 

on Nigeria, encouraging as I say, a democratic succession process. 

We haven’t, in the past, taken and imposed visa sanctions on individuals who have been engaged in corruption and in criminal activities and I will provide a list of individuals that we have so targeted in the past for criminal activities, mostly related to money 

laundering, drug issues and such crimes. 

But let me just also say that we have been very assertive in 

pressing the Nigerians, particularly on issues related to democracy 

and governance. I, myself, in my statement noted that the Independent National Election Commission under the current chairman, Maurice Iwu, has not in effect served the interests of Nigeria 

well. In the last three elections out there, we have seen a constant 

deterioration in the ability of the Commission to perform at a high 

level within a democratic context. 

We have spoken out and said that this needs to be changed. I, 

in fact, met with Maurice Iwu, the chairman of INEC and clearly 

laid on the line our concerns about the need for a much, much better electoral process in the future. These have been also—these 

representations have also been made to other senior government officials in Nigeria. 

There is a need for good elections, there is a need for improvement, there is a need for change. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

10 

Ambassador, I know that you share my belief that we need a 

stronger and more sustained diplomatic capacity throughout Africa, 

and in Nigeria in particular, although our Embassy—we have an 

Embassy in Abuja and a consulate in Lagos and our Foreign Service officers are doing great work there—but I remain concerned, as 

I have been ever since I visited different parts of Nigeria in 2001, 

I have been concerned that these offices do not have the resources 

or reach the need they have to engage on the Nigerian Government 

on multiple levels. 

Specifically on the reach issue, our diplomats continue to be limited in their ability to travel to many parts of Nigeria, including 

the North and the Delta. This, in turn, limits their ability to report 

on and analyze the situation in those regions. So, what steps are 

we taking to address these limitations and expand our diplomatic 

presence outside of Abuja and Lagos? 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We totally agree with 

you and Secretary Clinton has responded. She has committed to reopening a diplomatic presence in Northern Nigeria, quite likely 

Kano. Today, in 2010, we have fewer diplomatic establishments in 

Nigeria than we had 25 years ago, when we had an Embassy in 

Lagos, a consulate in Abaden, a consulate in Kaduna, an American 

presence in Kano, and a presence in Eastern Nigeria, as well, prior 

to the civil war. 

We are committed to reestablishing our diplomatic presence in 

the North, it’s extraordinarily important that we do so, I think, as 

you pointed out, Nigeria is the sixth-largest Muslim state in the 

world, the second-largest Muslim country in Africa, and we have no 

diplomatic presence in the—— 

Senator FEINGOLD. What kind of a size of contingent are you 

talking about in Kano or in Northern Nigeria? 

Mr. CARSON. I would think that we would be looking at somewhere between three and five Americans up there. And we are, in 

fact, dispatching—next week—a team of officers from the State Department to go and look at site and security measures that would 

have to be implemented before we can—I’m extremely pleased to 

hear that, Ambassador. 

Thank you, Ambassador. 

We welcome Senator Kaufman, and I turn to Senator Isakson for 

his round. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Continuing on the comment about the Muslim population for just 

a second, since the arrest of Abdulmutallab, other than putting 

‘‘Countries of Interest’’ category of Nigeria, has anything else been 

done by the United States regarding that? 

Mr. CARSON. Senator Isakson, the answer is absolutely, yes. 

When I went to Nigeria last week, I spoke to a number of Nigerian officials, and I urged them to do four things that we think are 

absolutely essential. We asked the Nigerian Government to allow 

United States Sky Marshals to fly on any planes originating in Nigeria and coming into the United States. 

Second, we asked the Nigerian Legislature to pass tougher 

counterterrorism laws. We said that the existing laws on the books 

are insufficient to reach those individuals engaged in terrorist activities. 

11 

Third, we asked the Nigerians to improve their airport security, 

and we offered to provide assistance in helping them to do so. 

And fourth we asked—and I asked specifically, a number of senior officials including Acting President Goodluck Jonathan—to 

speak out more forcefully on issues related to the threat that terrorism poses to all of us, globally, in Nigeria, in the United States 

and across the world. But that they should recognize that they, too, 

can in fact have terrorist-related problems. 

So, we’ve asked them to do those four things and we will continue to encourage them to do it. We think that it is in their interest, it reassures the traveling public, whether it’s Nigerian or 

American, and it also helps to reassure companies like Delta that 

want to fly into—Delta, Continental, and others—who want to fly 

into the Nigerian market. 

Senator ISAKSON. Twice during your testimony you referred to 

some of the religious conflict as the religions actually being surrogates for politics, or political movements. Which religion is whose 

surrogate? 

Mr. CARSON. I think that depends, Senator, on the particular regions. And I think that a lot of the conflict that we see in Nigeria 

does, in fact, have a political origin, and that political leaders use 

religion as a vehicle to project, in advance, their political interests. 

But it can depend on where the conflict is taking place. I think that 

political leaders can use Islam or Christianity as a scapegoat for 

some of the current political problems that exist both in the North, 

the South, and in the middle belt. 

Senator ISAKSON. In the studies I’ve done, al-Qaeda generally 

tries to befriend the most radical sects of Islam, I know there are 

various sects. Do you know what sect of Islam is predominant in 

Nigeria? 

Mr. CARSON. Most Nigerians are Sufi and very moderate Muslims. 

Senator ISAKSON. With regard to being on the Gulf of Guinea, in 

my visit to equatorial Guinea—and I have not been to Nigeria—we 

were attempting to get an increased presence of United States 

naval vessels because of some of the potential terrorist threat as 

well as narcotrafficking, things of that nature. Do you know if 

Lagos or the port city of Nigeria have allowed any United States 

naval visits, or are there any planned to go there? 

Mr. CARSON. Yes, indeed, there have been United States Navy 

visits, and they have been occurring on a regular basis for the last 

several years of the United States Navy and AFRICOM have a program called the West African Partnership Station, in which they 

send a frigate down the West Coast, hitting most of the major West 

African cities, including Lagos. The African Partnership Station 

had to be cancelled, just about a month ago because it was requested to respond to the earthquake in Haiti. 

Senator ISAKSON. Right. 

Mr. CARSON. But approximately a week and a half ago, a different U.S. frigate called in at Lagos as a port call, they carried out 

a number of activities, the band played around Lagos, the crew received ship leave and moved on. So, there are regular port visits 

by the Navy, the Africa Partnership Station is the recurring activVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:06 Oct 19, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\61669.TXT MIKEB
12 

ity. But there was, in fact, a port visit just a week ago from another non-Africa Partnership United States naval vessel. 

Senator ISAKSON. Last, just acknowledging in your remarks that 

twice you referred to corruption as a major problem, first in free 

and transparent elections, and second in economic development. 

That is a similar problem in Kenya—it has been the same type of 

problem. What kind of reaction did you get when you opened up 

corruption discussions on your most recent visits to Nigeria? Is the 

Government looking the other way, or is there going to be a sincere 

interest to try and reduce it? 

Mr. CARSON. Corruption is a pernicious cancer in many parts of 

Africa. It is particularly pernicious in Nigeria. I spoke to a number 

of government officials about the need to crack down on grand corruption, both at the national and at the local level. I also spoke to 

Acting President Goodluck Jonathan about this. I was very pleased 

at his responses, I was also very pleased that when he spoke on 

television that he said that he would, in fact, move against corruption in his country. He recognizes that this is a major problem. 

But, we will have to see whether there is a strong commitment. 

You will be hearing, on the second panel, from one of Nigeria’s 

most prominent corruption fighters—a man who has dedicated his 

life to trying to eradicate the scourge of corruption. He can probably tell you far more than I can how very, very difficult it is to 

get at corruption in Nigeria. 

It requires political will, it requires good judges, it requires good 

prosecutors, and it requires—more than anything else—a commitment and a resolve to make this an activity that will not, any 

longer, be sanctioned at any level by those in the central government, or those at the state government. A great deal of Nigeria’s 

corruption occurs, and is in the hands of, government officials at 

the state and at the national level. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Secretary Carson, it’s always a pleasure to have you before 

our committee and we thank you for your service. 

Well, let me follow up on corruption for one moment, because the 

major source of corruption, it seems to me, in Nigeria, deals with 

the fact of its mineral wealth. It’s a country that’s very much dependent upon oil and gas. If my numbers are correct, about 80 percent of its revenues—or more than 80 percent of its revenues comes 

from oil and gas. It’s the—95 percent of its exports, it’s the largest 

in Africa, and one of the 10 largest in oil globally. 

It became an application country for the EITI—the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. It’s my understanding they were 

in danger of being delisted because of their poor preparations for 

the EITI. Mineral wealth, for many countries, has become a curse 

because it becomes the source for corruption; that’s where the 

money is. And EITI offers an opportunity for transparency, so that 

the companies that are participating in Nigeria are required to list 

their contracts publicly, so the public knows where the money is 

going. 

13 

The prospect here is to try to get the wealth to the people. Nigeria—because of corruption—is a country in which the general populace does not benefit from the wealth of its own country. And until 

we correct that, it seems to me it’s going to be extremely difficult 

to see how the economic and political reforms have a chance of advancing that country. 

So, I guess my question to you is, what is the position of the 

United States regarding Nigeria’s efforts to become a member of 

EITI and to use the leverage we have in that country to make sure 

that the companies that are participating in Nigeria are prepared 

to release and make public their mineral contracts? 

Mr. CARSON. Senator Cardin, I agree with you totally. We think 

that it is important that Nigeria be a member and a strong and 

willing participatory member in EITI. There is no question that oil 

and gas in Nigeria have been more of an economic curse than an 

economic benefit for that country. 

It is a source of a great deal of Nigeria’s current corruption and 

its current economic woes. As you point out, it has been for much 

of the last decade, the largest source of income. It also has been 

the largest producer of oil and gas in sub-Saharan Africa. But 

much of the country’s wealth has been squandered and/or stolen. 

And it has been stolen by individuals mostly occupying government 

positions, both at the national level and at the state and local level. 

Issues of bunkering—where oil is stolen from pipelines and 

pushed onto ships—is also quite common. There have been sweetheart preferential agreements made that have also led to oil being 

stolen, as well. This has been a major problem for Nigeria over the 

last two decades. 

There is an absolute need for greater—much greater—transparency in the way Nigeria’s oil revenues are handled. Some of 

that transparency started to creep into the system about 6 or 7 

years ago during the first term of President Obasanjo, but then as 

he moved into his second term, some of the effort and desire to 

clean up the oil industry, make the books more transparent, make 

the revenue flows clear, disappeared. 

But the country must do more, the political leadership has to do 

more, there has to be a greater degree of transparency. If it is not, 

then we will see a continued squandering of the nation’s wealth. 

Senator CARDIN. I guess my question is, How does the United 

States leverage its relationships in Nigeria to make sure that in 

fact progress is made? In 2007, Nigeria became an application 

country in EITI. Two years later, it was almost delisted because of 

its failure to really move forward on the requirements on EITI. We 

have active engagement, including your visit last week, how do 

we—plus assistance, United States gives a substantial amount of 

aid to Nigeria—how do we leverage that, so that 2 years from now 

we’ve not talking about this as to, ‘‘Gee, there was some progress 

made,’’ and then they slip back. How do we make sure that there’s 

continued progress toward transparency? In oil, how do we do that? 

Mr. CARSON. Senator Cardin, we can’t guarantee it. What we can 

do is continue to focus a spotlight on the problem, put a spotlight 

on those individuals who we think are engaged in corrupt activities, work with reformers who want to see the system cleaned up, 

encourage the government to prosecute—increase—encourage more 

14 

work by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to take 

an aggressive stance against individuals engaged in corruption, exposing those at the upper and the lower levels who were involved 

in activities, and also where we can—and where we have evidence—sanction through visa restrictions individuals who we believe are engaged in corrupt activities. 

But in the end, it does require the political will and leadership 

of Nigeria’s top officials to make the changes that are there. 

I would also say one thing about aid, if I could—— 

Senator CARDIN. Before we leave that, I just want to—— 

Mr. CARSON. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. Just underscore the point the 

chairman made. You certainly shouldn’t give the impression by 

how we recognize Nigeria about credibility to corrupt practices, or 

the lack of progress that’s being made, whether it’s on watch lists, 

or other considerations that are being asked—or in our aid. We 

should make it clear that we do not accept their failure to move 

forward, as they should have, on the EITI, for example. Let’s be— 

just urge us to be more open in our assessment of Nigeria and not 

try to pretend that progress has been made, when it hasn’t. 

Mr. CARSON. Senator, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think I’ve 

probably been pretty blunt in saying that corruption in Nigeria is 

a cancer and a curse. It has undermined the ability of the country 

to move forward economically, and it remains one of the most serious and pressing problems that they have. It requires political 

leadership in Nigeria at the very, very top levels. We’re in no way, 

sort of, trying to brush it aside or to push it off of the front pages; 

it is a major, major, major problem out there and it exists at the 

highest levels and it goes down to state governments, as well. 

But in the end, our pressure—which we should continue to maintain—is only one part of the equation. We need to support people 

in Nigeria, reformers who are also committed to pushing ahead on 

corruption. 

If I could say, on our aid, we do have a substantial aid program 

in Nigeria, some $550 million, but most of that money—probably 

80 percent of it—is in the health care area. It is in fighting HIV/ 

AIDS and malaria, and is absolutely needed for the people of Nigeria. Probably another 5 or 6 percent of that goes into democracy 

and governance work where we are trying very hard to empower 

civil society. So, there isn’t a whole lot that is outside of the area 

of health care and democracy and governance. What we actually 

give in straight development assistance is probably less than 7 or 

8 percent of that total package. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Kaufman. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for 

holding, excellent timing on this hearing. And I know no one is concerned more about corruption than Ambassador Carson. 

But, you know, it brings to mind that wherever you go in Africa, 

in my opinion, if you point to one thing to change things is dealing 

with corruption. I mean, it just, wherever you go, you just see these 

places that would be great if we didn’t have corruption. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I just think we have a lot—and Senator 

Cardin’s questions are right on point—but I think you could ask 

15 

those questions about every—not every—but many of the nations 

in Africa. Mr. Chairman, could we think about having a hearing 

and bringing together some of the great minds and try with a systemic approach? 

Senator FEINGOLD. Certainly we’ll look at that—you couldn’t be 

more right that this is—— 

Senator KAUFMAN. I mean, because—— 

Senator FEINGOLD [continuing]. But I would say that this country has a particularly sever problem, and I don’t want to lump all 

of the African countries—— 

Senator KAUFMAN. No, no, and I’m not. But I’m just saying, 

there’s so many of them when you go and you look at what the 

problems are, it’s a problem. And this thing, the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s requirement for dealing with corruption is excellent, there are people that talk about that would, Senator 

Cardin said, that you know, it’s a curse to have all of these natural 

resources, when you go to the countries that have the high natural 

resources, they have the most corruption and they’re the ones that 

are having the most problems. It’s really almost better to be—not 

have anything. 

And I’m not painting with a broad brush, but it just seems to me 

an approach that—just talking to the leaders and demanding it, it’s 

not like we’ve got aid, as you point out, it’s not like aid is something that, if we threaten we’re going to remove it, you know, is 

an incredible problem. It’s just getting some thinkers together on 

some kind of a systemic approach to this thing—how about our allies? I always thought the World Bank and IMF—everybody—getting together and trying to figure it out, and as I say again, the 

Millennium Challenge program, I think, was an excellent one, 

where countries had to demonstrate the fact that they were dealing 

with corruption, had specific things to do, is a way to approach it. 

So, again, I know no one cares more about this than our present 

witness. I’d like to ask you about something else that I think affect 

a great deal in corruption, I know something you care a great deal 

about, but the problem is, when you list all of the things you’re 

talking about it doesn’t come up. And yet, I think—and that is the 

press situation, the freedom of the press in Nigeria and throughout 

Africa. 

When you look at the Freedom House surveys and far too often 

the countries listed as trending toward not free or not free are the 

same countries that have high levels of corruption. I really do believe that, you know, and one of the great things we have in the 

United States is a free press. Brandeis’ comment about sunshine 

is a wonderful disinfectant, the people that drive sunshine are the 

media and having an aggressive media in a country makes corruption even more difficult. Where does the free press in Nigeria stand 

at this point? 

Mr. CARSON. Senator Kaufman, one of the good things about Nigeria is its press and its press freedoms. There is no question that 

Nigeria probably has a large number of newspapers, they are vibrant and active and many of them are critical—harshly critical— 

of the government. They do, in fact, run exposes on corruption and 

corrupt individuals, and they do find a way of getting the story out 

16 

there, even when politicians and other government leaders don’t 

want it to be told. 

A good example of that is reflected in the reporting on the medical absence of President Yar’Adua. While many top government officials have, in effect, suggested that the President is out of the 

country only for a minor illness, much of Nigeria’s aggressive press 

has suggested that the President would be away for much longer 

and is much seriously ill than any politician around President 

Yar’Adua has said. 

The press has also been willing to criticize and expose individuals who were engaged in corruption. Yes, they do, in fact, exercise 

some restraint, some self-censorship as to avoid any kind of lawsuits that might be leveled at them for not having the evidence 

that would underpin a good story. But the press in Nigeria is, in 

fact, aggressive, it’s vibrant, it’s alive and it’s independent for the 

most part, although there are some papers and news media are allied to political parties and there is a government media organization. But the press is alive and well and needs to be encouraged 

to continue to do what it’s doing. If anything, it probably has a 

streak of yellow journalism about it in some areas. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Wasn’t there a strong press law that they 

tried to pass that didn’t get passed by the legislature? 

Mr. CARSON. I’m not sure about any recent press laws. I would 

have to check. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Would you check? That would be good. 

Mr. CARSON. I will. 

[The written response supplied by Mr. Carson follows:] 

In November 2009, the House of Representatives’ Committee on Information set 

up a technical committee of stakeholders to review the contentious Nigerian Press 

and Practice of Journalism Council bill. The committee produced a compromise 

bill—Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Bill 2009—which they presented to the 

National Assembly for consideration on December 23, 2009. At present, the bill has 

not yet been scheduled for further consideration by the National Assembly. 

Senator KAUFMAN. And how about—the last time I checked they 

were trying to pass a law to limit the international broadcasters 

broadcasting into Nigeria? The Voice of America, do you know 

where that stands? 

Mr. CARSON. The Voice of America can’t be heard broadcast, but 

we do have rebroadcast—you can hear it on certain stations—but 

it’s rebroadcast, there. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Yes. Because that’s really—you talk about 

spotlight, one place to—I’ve learned over the years that that—leaders don’t want is—they don’t want Voice of America broadcasting 

about corruption and things like this and exposing it to the rest of 

the continent. 

Mr. CARSON. Yes, I think we—we’re certainly are—we are rebroadcast there and some of our programs are very, very, very, 

very popular. The Voice of America does a program with Nigerian 

students who are studying at the college level in the United States. 

And they interview the students, mostly in Housa, and they talk 

about their experiences as college students, graduate students in 

the United States and it is an extremely popular program throughout Northern Nigeria. 

17 

Our programs—our rebroadcasts there, both in English and in 

some of the vernacular languages, and I know first and foremost 

they’ve been told that BBC World Service is probably the most popular international news program in Nigeria, it is a source of information for many, many, many of the country’s educated and informed elite. 

Senator KAUFMAN. I know Voice of America has a large 

listenership in Nigeria, in fact, it’s one of the largest listenerships 

in the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Senator Kaufman. 

I’ll start a second round. 

Ambassador, turning to the Delta, specifically, prior to his extended absence, President Yar’Adua had announced some promising initiatives to address the underdevelopment of the region, following on the amnesty program for militants. And Acting President 

Jonathan is, himself, from the Delta and has, as I understand it, 

committed to continue to work with his predecessor to address the 

instability there. How, specifically, can the United States assist 

him to turn that commitment into a viable plan? 

Mr. CARSON. The United States stands ready to help the Nigerian Government in the Delta through programs aimed at reconciliation and at helping to find ways to generate the local economy, 

helping to generate jobs and to providing microfinance and microcredit schemes that can be useful in helping to help people improve 

their economic circumstance. 

We would also be helpful and willing to be helpful in other areas, 

as well. Over the years, the Nigerians have not encouraged or 

sought out a great deal of outside assistance in trying to resolve 

the problems of the Delta. But I was, in fact, encouraged on my 

trip 2 weeks ago that Acting President Goodluck Jonathan was, in 

fact, prepared to accept outside support—in the economic and social 

areas, I stress—not in any security or police-related areas. 

Senator FEINGOLD. While Christmas Day attacker Umar Farouk 

Abdulmutallab’s actions were clearly more influenced by conditions 

and actors in Yemen, it is notable that he grew up in the region 

of Nigeria that has experienced repeated clashes between Muslim 

and Christian communities. So, I want to ask you about the potential for violent extremist groups that flourished in Nigeria last 

summer, in Northern Nigeria we saw the extremist group Boko 

Haram, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘‘Nigerian Taliban’’ 

fighting against security forces. And I know that we are here, sir, 

in an unclassified setting. But do you believe Boko Haram’s emergence is an isolated phenomenon, and to what extent are you concerned about the potential for violent extremism to take root in Nigeria? 

Mr. CARSON. Nigeria’s had a history in the North of violent extremism. It has always been, for the most part, inwardly directed, 

groups like Boko Haram have focused their attention on attacking 

government installations, police establishment, administration 

buildings and have not, in fact, gone after international targets or 

citizens of other countries. 

I think that the emergence of organizations like Boko Haram will 

continue in Nigeria as long as there are social and economic issues 

18 

of that community’s face that are not being addressed by the central government or by local governments. 

Senator FEINGOLD. So, I’m taking your answer, at this point, to 

suggest that as far as you can tell, Boko Haram is more an isolated 

incident. Is that fair? 

Mr. CARSON. I would say, Senator—Mr. Chairman—that Boko 

Haram is, in fact, a domestic organization, not an international organization, and that its targets are Government of Nigeria institutions. It is a way that these organizations express their resentment 

and anger to—about, and to, the government for lack of attention 

to their demands and lack of attention to services required for their 

community. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And in a related question, along similar lines, 

al-Qaeda and the Islamic Magrab maintains a twin presence in 

both North Africa and the Sahal. And some of those Shal countries, 

as you well know, are nearby or actually neighboring Nigeria, so 

again, recognizing that we’re in an unclassified setting, I wonder 

if you might share how concerned you are given the conditions and 

existing tensions in Northern Nigeria that AQIM may expand into 

Nigeria. 

Mr. CARSON. Well, let me say, at this point, Mr. Chairman, we 

don’t see any direct linkages between al-Qaeda and the Islamic 

lands of the Magrab and organizations such as Boko Haram. We 

do not see linkages. 

But let me also say that groups like AQIM look for new areas 

to expand into. There are a number of groups in Northern Nigeria 

who continue to have grievances and serious grievances against the 

government, individuals in those groups could, in fact, become 

gargets of recruitment for AQIM. At this point we do not see any 

established linkages there. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And as I said in my opening remarks, I’m 

concerned that abuses and discriminatory policies by Nigeria’s security forces, particularly against Muslim communities, could also 

feed into extremism. I’d like your thoughts on this issue and Nigeria’s capacities to deal with terrorism while maintaining due process and civil liberties? 

Mr. CARSON. The Nigerian security forces—while attempting to 

do a good job—do not have an exemplary record in human rights. 

There have been known excesses that have occurred in the fighting 

in the Delta. There have been known excesses, even most recently, 

in putting down the conflict in Jost, where both soldiers and police 

have used excessive force in trying to arrest and restrain individuals. No question of that more is needed in terms of supervision 

and training of security forces, especially in dealing with civilian 

populations. The excesses have been there, the Delta is a classic 

case, ongoing, while the conflict was there, and Jost, more recently, 

there have been some very credible reports of excessive use of force 

in stopping the violence there. 

It is always a sad situation when military have to be brought out 

to undertake what should, in fact, be police operations. And when 

there is an absence of restraint by any security forces, it’s an issue. 

These things are noted in our human rights report that we issue 

annually, and they will be noted when the next edition comes out. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Ambassador. 

19 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. I have no further questions. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you very much, again, Ambassador. 

And we can now go to the second panel. 

All right, now we’ll begin with the second panel. When we’re 

ready, we’ll begin with Dr. Lewis. All right, Doctor, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER LEWIS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR 

AND DIRECTOR THE AFRICAN STUDIES PROGRAM, JOHNS 

HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, PAUL H. NITZE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Dr. LEWIS. Thank you, Senator Feingold, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Isakson, Senator Kaufman, for your invitation to address this hearing and for your sustained involvement with contemporary issues 

regarding Africa. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the current 

situation in Nigeria. 

Although Nigeria and the United States share many common interests and have generally maintained cordial relations, Nigeria’s 

chronic problems of poor governance and domestic turbulence have 

often raised dilemmas for United States policy. 

The current situation in Nigeria is fraught with challenges to the 

nation’s political advancement and stability. At the same time, the 

temporary resolution of the succession crisis presents opportunities 

for change in Nigeria and improvement in our bilateral relations. 

The United States should engage Acting President Goodluck Jonathan, while consistently pressing for needed political reform and 

enhanced efforts toward peace and development in the Niger Delta. 

I want to briefly address three questions: To what extent has Nigeria’s leadership crisis been resolved? What are the critical issues 

for advancing governance and stability at this point? And, what 

role should the United States play at this juncture? 

President Umaru Yar’Adua, as we’ve heard, has been absent 

from Nigeria for 3 months, apparently in grave condition in a 

Saudi hospital. There is no indication from any quarter that he will 

be able to return to fulfill his official duties. 

The timing and circumstances of his illness are especially unfortunate since Nigeria faces serious security issues, including a 

shaky amnesty following a military offensive against militants in 

the Niger Delta, recurring clashes with Islamist sects in the northern states—Boko Haram as well as a separate sect in Bauchi—and 

continuing economic problems from the global downturn. 

Since the President’s departure from the country, we have witnessed the Christmas Day attack on a United States flight by a Nigerian national, an upheaval of interreligious violence in the central city of Jos in which several hundred people died, and other 

challenges. Amidst these serious problems, the country has effectively lacked executive leadership. 

The sense of drift and paralysis in Abuja has been aggravated by 

the political elite’s reluctance to allow a constitutional transfer of 

power. Fearing their loss of influence and spoils, Yar’Adua’s inner 

circle and key notables have obstructed information and procedures 

that could have quickly dispelled the crisis. 

20 

Under mounting pressure from public opinion, a vocal political 

opposition, and growing concern about possible military intervention, the political establishment was finally moved to transfer authority to Vice President Jonathan through the February 9th resolution from the National Assembly. The confirmation of an Acting 

President resolves the leadership question for the time being, in accord with the spirit, if not the formal letter, of the Constitution. Civilian politicians have crafted a workable solution that is preferable to the alternatives of a leadership vacuum, a power grab by 

a rival faction, or a military intervention. 

However, this incident serves to highlight deeper problems in a 

political system that is increasingly dominated by a single political 

party, lacking in broad accountability, and mired in corruption and 

patronage politics. The leadership crisis arises out of the deeply 

flawed 2007 elections, possibly the worst in the nation’s history, 

which brought forward President Yar’Adua and Vice President Jonathan through a back-room nomination process and a highly questionable election. 

Nigeria’s fragile democratic system has steadily been eroded by 

the near-monopoly of the ruling party and an associated cartel of 

elites that has come to control much of the government. Without 

a competitive and accountable electoral process, it was possible for 

an infirm President and a few retainers to take the reins of government. Without a well established rule of law, it was impossible to 

quickly manage the leadership succession in the face of Presidential incapacity. 

The transfer to an Acting President does not resolve these deepseated challenges, but it does create opportunities for a modicum 

of governance and some progress on reform. Clearly more vigorous 

than his predecessor, Jonathan has articulated a set of goals for his 

brief tenure, including reform of the electoral system prior to next 

year’s scheduled elections; an extension and consolidation of the 

peace process in the Niger Delta; improvement of the decrepit electric power grid; and a reinvigoration of anticorruption efforts. 

To conclude, these are essential priorities for Nigeria and the 

United States should take every opportunity to encourage progress, 

while offering critical support and pressing for added reforms. 

I’ll finish there and I will welcome your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lewis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER M. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, AFRICAN STUDIES PROGRAM

AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, PAUL H. NITZE SCHOOL

OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Thank you for the invitation to address this committee and for your sustained involvement with contemporary issues regarding Africa. I welcome the opportunity to 

discuss the current situation in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country and an important bilateral relationship for the United States. Although Nigeria and the 

United States share many common interests and have generally maintained cordial 

relations, Nigeria’s chronic problems of poor governance and domestic turbulence 

have often raised dilemmas for U.S policy. 

The current situation in Nigeria is fraught with challenges to the nation’s political 

advancement and stability. At the same time, the temporary resolution of the succession crisis presents opportunities for change in Nigeria and advancement in our 

bilateral relations. The United States should continue to engage with Acting President Goodluck Jonathan, while consistently pressing for needed political reform and 

enhanced efforts toward peace and development in the Niger Delta. 

21 

I want to briefly address three questions: To what extent has Nigeria’s leadership 

crisis been resolved? What are the critical issues for advancing governance and stability in Africa’s most populous country? What role should the United States play 

at this juncture? 

President Umaru Yar’Adua has been absent from Nigeria for 3 months, apparently in grave condition in a Saudi Arabian hospital. He has not been seen by the 

public, nor has he spoken to anyone outside a tiny inner circle of family and retainers. There is no indication that he will be able to return to fulfill his official duties. 

The timing and circumstances of his illness are especially unfortunate. Yar’Adua’s 

hospitalization came in the wake of a May military offensive against militants in 

the embattled Niger Delta, followed by a fragile amnesty initiative in October. Government forces also clashed in July with an Islamist sect in the northern states, resulting in a number of civilian deaths. Throughout this period Nigeria has been 

grappling with the effects of the global economic downturn. 

Since the President’s departure from the country, we have witnessed in quick succession the Christmas day attack on a U.S. flight by a Nigerian national, confrontation with another group of Islamists in the northern Bauchi state, and an upheaval 

of interreligious violence in the central city of Jos with a death toll in the hundreds. 

The cease-fire in the Niger Delta also appears to be fraying, as some militants have 

resumed action or threatened to go back to war. Amidst these serious problems, the 

country has effectively lacked executive leadership. 

The sense of drift and paralysis in Abuja has been aggravated by the political 

elite’s reluctance to allow a constitutional transfer of power. Fearing their loss of 

influence and spoils, Yar’Adua’s inner circle and key notables have obstructed information and procedures that could have quickly dispelled the crisis. 

Under mounting pressure from public opinion, a vocal political opposition, and 

growing concern about possible military intervention, the political establishment 

was finally moved to transfer authority to Vice President Jonathan. A February 9 

motion by the National Assembly declared the President to be on medical leave, and 

empowered the Vice President to act in his absence. 

The confirmation of an Acting President resolves the leadership question for the 

time being, in accord with the spirit, if not the formal letter, of the Constitution. 

Civilian politicians have crafted a workable solution that is preferable to the alternatives of a leadership vacuum, a power grab by a rival faction, or military intervention. 

However, this incident serves to highlight deeper problems in a political system 

increasingly dominated by a single political party, lacking in broad accountability, 

and mired in corruption and patronage politics. The leadership crisis arises out of 

the deeply flawed 2007 elections, possibly the worst in the nation’s history, which 

brought forward President Yar’Adua and Vice President Jonathan through a backroom nomination process and a highly questionable election. 

Nigeria’s fragile democratic system has steadily been eroded by the near-monopoly 

of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the associated cartel of elites that 

has come to control much of the government. Without a competitive, accountable 

electoral process, it was possible for an infirm President and a few retainers to take 

the reins of government. Without a well-established rule of law, it was impossible 

to quickly manage leadership succession in the face of Presidential incapacity. 

The transfer to Acting President Jonathan does not resolve these deep-seated 

challenges, but it does create opportunities for a modicum of governance and some 

progress on reform. Clearly more vigorous than his predecessor, Jonathan has articulated a set of goals for his brief tenure, including reform of the electoral system 

prior to next year’s scheduled elections; an extension and consolidation of the peace 

process in the Niger Delta; improvement of the decrepit electric power grid; and a 

reinvigoration of anticorruption efforts. 

He also reportedly disavows any interest in contesting the Presidency in 2011, 

which would upset the delicate regional power rotation that underlies national politics. 

These are essential priorities for Nigeria, and the United States should take every 

opportunity to encourage progress in these areas, while offering support where possible. 

However, even this limited policy agenda will face considerable challenges: 

• Electoral Reform: Elections in Nigeria have historically been compromised by 

weak administration, fraud and violence, carrying severe consequences for 

democratic development. Since the 1999 transition to civilian rule, there has arguably been a worsening trend in the quality of elections. The 2007 polls, 

marred by widespread violence and misconduct, produced an outsized majority 

for the ruling party, continuing a worrying trend that has limited pluralism and 

violated the rights of millions of voters. Not surprisingly, opinion surveys and 

22 

popular commentary reveal a sharp decline in the legitimacy of the electoral 

system and public estimations of democracy. 

Electoral reform is a requisite for credible and peaceful elections in 2011. A 

commission inaugurated by President Yar’Adua in 2007 has furnished strong 

recommendations for revising the electoral system, including new leadership 

and increased financial independence for the Independent National Electoral 

Commission (INEC). Acting President Jonathan has an opening to implement 

these measures, though the window of opportunity is brief, with the election 

season just a year away. Resolve will be needed to surmount resistance from 

within the ruling party and the political class, who benefit from the flawed status quo. • The Niger Delta: The situation in the Niger Delta has degenerated into a virtual 

insurgency, depressing oil production and undermining security throughout 

much of the region. The restiveness in the Delta is grounded in longstanding 

grievances over poverty, government neglect, environmental degradation and 

the abuse of human rights. In recent years, the economic agendas of militant 

groups engaged in abduction and oil smuggling have aggravated the situation. 

A comprehensive solution to the crisis in the Niger Delta will require a sustained peace process, political reform, and accelerated development efforts 

throughout the area. 

In October 2009, following a military offensive against key militant camps, 

the government concluded an amnesty program for fighters in the Niger Delta. 

Several important commanders brought in thousands of supporters and surrendered a significant cache of weapons. The lull in hostilities permitted a recovery 

of oil production and encouraged hopes for a more sustained peace. Unfortunately, the amnesty was not accompanied by broader conflict resolution efforts, 

steps toward political change, or development initiatives. After a few months, 

the amnesty program lost momentum, and some militant commanders warned 

of a resumption of conflict. 

Acting President Jonathan is from Bayelsa state in the ‘‘core’’ Niger Delta, 

and has played a role in negotiating with militants and community members 

in the region. He can also draw upon the comprehensive recommendations of 

last year’s Technical Committee that outlined a map for resolving the Delta crisis. Jonathan has already sounded a different note in allowing for the possibility 

of international cooperation in addressing the Delta’s problems. External assistance can be especially helpful in implementing a demobilization, disarmament 

and reintegration (DDR) process, and in advancing development programs for 

the region. Professionalization of security forces and improvements in the 

human rights situation are additional areas of potential cooperation. • Infrastructure: It is widely recognized that Nigeria’s economic growth and diversification are seriously constrained by deficient infrastructure. Significant 

advances have recently been achieved in telecommunications, but transport, 

domestic fuel supply, and electric power fall well short of need. Several billion 

dollars have been allocated over several years to the revitalization of the power 

system, with little result. A substantial increase in electric power supply would 

jump-start the economy and boost approval for the civilian regime. Concerted 

attention from the Presidency can potentially yield results, as regulatory and 

technical changes are in prospect, and resources have been devoted to this program. Improvement of the regulatory and investment climate will also be 

imperative. • Anticorruption: Nigeria’s leading anticorruption agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), made dramatic progress under the leadership of Nuhu Ribadu from 2003–07. Hundreds of prominent public officials were 

investigated, indicted, or jailed, and billions of dollars in illicit funds were recovered. Since Ribadu was demoted and sidelined by the new administration, the 

agency’s efforts have lagged considerably. In explaining the shift, many observers note the prominence of figures in Yar’Adua’s inner circle such as James 

Ibori, a former Delta State governor charged with corruption. 

Acting President Jonathan is not burdened by a reputation for misconduct, 

and he has pledged to revitalize the anticorruption campaign. Obviously, there 

are many powerful interests in Nigeria who will oppose such efforts, and political resolve will be essential here as well. Largely as a result of the EFCC’s 

work, Nigeria has improved considerably in Transparency International’s corruption perception rankings. Continued efforts to stem malfeasance could improve the business climate, attract investment, and rejuvenate political life. 

There are of course a number of other areas that require attention, including the 

management of Nigeria’s volatile religious and ethnic tensions, and rising concerns 

about religious extremism and security. In addition, the administration has to grapVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:06 Oct 19, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\61669.TXT MIKEB
23 

ple with controversial reforms in the oil sector, a set of overdue constitutional 

changes, improved supervision of banks, continued prudent macroeconomic management in the face of global economic distress, security sector reform, and reform of 

the ruling party to encourage internal democracy and accountability. In view of the 

limited tenure of the Acting President, Jonathan has outlined a modest and potentially achievable agenda. If he is able to shepherd electoral reform and conflict resolution in the Niger Delta, improve electricity supply and tamp down corruption, this 

will be an impressive legacy. 

It is fortuitous that the National Assembly acted during a visit to Nigeria by 

Assistant Secretary of State Carson. His immediate engagement with the Acting 

President, and the statement of Ambassador Sanders, has helped to improve communication with an administration that has frankly been chilly toward U.S. overtures. This is a promising basis for working with the new leadership on important 

common interests, as well as cooperation on strengthening Nigeria’s democratic 

stability. 

In engaging the Nigerian leadership, it is essential to send a clear and consistent 

message on the need to reform and strengthen democratic institutions, build a rule 

of law, and resolve problems through constitutional means. We can and should address immediate bilateral issues and the preferred agenda of the current leadership 

in Abuja, though we must not lose sight of our broader concerns for a Nigeria that 

is democratically governed, respects the rights of its citizens, manages conflict effectively, and promotes economic expansion and the reduction of poverty. There is 

much room for cooperation, but also an imperative to press for a more competitive, 

transparent, and accountable state in Nigeria. 

One urgent concern is obviously the potential of terrorist activities emanating 

from Nigeria. Following the December 25 incident involving a Nigerian national, 

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Nigeria was included by the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) among 14 ‘‘countries of interest’’ connected with terrorism. 

Nigerians are understandably affronted by this classification. Abdulmutallab was 

substantially radicalized and trained outside the country, and was brought to the 

attention of U.S. authorities by his father, a prominent banker and moderate Muslim. Fortunately, the U.S. Government has outlined a viable path for Nigeria to be 

dropped from the TSA list, including the denunciation of terrorism, passage of 

antiterrorist legislation, and improved airport security. This early step could open 

the door to further cooperation in other policy areas. 

In the domain of electoral reform, the United States can play a constructive role 

in supporting Nigerian initiatives. If the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) receives new leadership, rules and funding, it could warrant technical 

and financial assistance from external donors, including the United States. The 

leading U.S. democracy-promotion organizations have been working in Nigeria since 

1998, and could readily engage in the development of electoral institutions. These 

efforts will of course be contingent on initiative from Nigerian leaders. 

In the Niger Delta, there is significant opportunity for external assistance in conflict resolution and development. Outside actors, many of whom are already intensively involved with the issues in the Delta, can be helpful in engaging or mediating 

among militants, companies, and the government. Bilateral and multilateral assistance can furnish technical support and pivotal resources for development programs. 

International organizations, notably the U.N., can provide essential oversight of 

DDR efforts. Here too, Nigerian officials and constituencies must lead, but there are 

several potential areas of effective external collaboration. 

On the economic front, the Nigerian administration has sustained prudent macroeconomic policies throughout the economic downturn. The privatization and reorganization of critical infrastructure has largely been supervised by Nigerian officials 

and advisers, with support from the multilateral financial institutions. The crucial 

factor in guiding investment toward the power sector will be a credible regulatory 

regime, and a generally favorable setting for the private sector. There is room at 

the margins for external technical assistance, but this is an area in which Nigerian 

initiative will be the deciding factor in success. 

If the new leadership demonstrates clear commitment to a renewed anticorruption 

drive, there is much that the United States can do to cooperate. One important 

measure would be to tighten restrictions on money-laundering and the movement 

illicit assets through this country and our banking system. The London Metropolitan 

police have made the U.K. much less hospitable for corrupt Nigerians who seek a 

haven there, and we should seek to match that level of effort through our own regulatory and police institutions. We can also render direct resources and assistance to 

the EFCC, as has been done in the past, to enhance local capacities for insuring 

accountability and enforcing the law. 

24 

In conclusion, Nigeria’s leadership succession crisis highlights deeper problems of 

governance and social stability. The failure of the political establishment to respond 

promptly to the President’s illness reflects division and self-interest among governing elites, and the general weakness of constitutional rule. The poor quality of 

elections, an increasingly dominant ruling party, and limited accountability 

throughout the political system have increasingly alienated the Nigerian public. In 

a setting of poor governance, the country’s multiple social tensions have fostered 

violence and polarization. These dilemmas reverberate well beyond the country’s 

borders. 

While the political settlement elevating Vice President Jonathan leaves open some 

legal issues, this measure alleviates the leadership vacuum in Abuja and presents 

a reasonably strong agenda for the rest of the administration’s term in office. Acting 

President Jonathan has targeted essential priorities including conflict resolution in 

the Niger Delta, electoral reform, and new action against corruption. If the government demonstrates resolve in pursuing this agenda, the United States can find 

many areas of cooperation in advancing these goals. 

More generally, the change in leadership holds out the possibility that the United 

States will have better channels of dialogue with the administration in Abuja. We 

should take this opportunity to press for needed political reform and improvements 

in governance, while extending areas of common interest and collaboration. An 

active, but critical engagement holds out the best opportunity for working with 

Nigerians to advance democracy, better governance, and a more dynamic economy. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Doctor, thank you for your testimony. 

Ambassador Campbell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CAMPBELL, RALPH BUNCHE SENIOR FELLOW FOR AFRICAN POLICY STUDIES, COUNCIL ON 

FOREIGN RELATIONS, NEW YORK, NY 

Ambassador CAMPBELL. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss 

the transition in Nigeria. Here I want to highlight some of the 

main points in my written submission. 

Acting President Goodluck Jonathan faces three major challenges: The incomplete basis of his Presidential authority; smoldering ethnic and religious conflict in the Middle Belt with deep 

discontent in the North; and the government’s inadequate followup 

to its amnesty in the Delta. 

The National Assembly’s designation of Vice President Goodluck 

Jonathan as Acting President was welcomed by many in Nigeria 

and abroad. It ended the void in executive authority that resulted 

from President Yar’Adua’s illness, and it occurred through a political process rather than by military intervention. Others, however, 

are not so sanguine. 

They observe that the National Assembly acted unconstitutionally. One distinguished Nigerian journalist has characterized what 

happened as a ‘‘democratic coup.’’ A complication is the unwritten 

principle of regional power sharing between the Christian South 

and the Muslim North. The National Assembly’s vote means that 

the Presidency shifts back to the South, at least until the 2011 

elections, thereby shortening the North’s turn. 

Nigerians care about American opinion. A forthright stand on 

Jonathan’s need to bring his Presidency into line with the constitution would encourage the country’s political leaders to find a better 

legal basis for his administration. 

Paralysis of the Yar’Adua government has precluded a Nigerian 

regional leadership role commensurate with the country’s heft. It 

remains to be seen what Nigeria will do about the coup in adjacent 

Niger. If weak government continues, Nigeria risks becoming increasingly irrelevant, regionally and to the United States. 

25 

Meanwhile, the nonofficial bilateral relationship goes from 

strength to strength, without much reference to Abuja or Washington. American people-to-people links with Nigeria are more extensive than with any other African country. There is a vibrant, 

productive Nigerian-American community in the United States. Nigerian civil society looks especially to the United States as a model 

of democracy and the rule of law. 

As for building the official relationship, Nigeria and the United 

States have started to establish a Binational Commission. Unfortunately, there has been little movement on the Nigerian side since 

the illness of President Yar’Adua. It is to be hoped that progress 

will resume under the new Nigerian administration. 

For many Americans, Nigeria’s halting progress toward democratic development has been disappointing. Nigeria has had three 

elections since 1999, each worse than its predecessor. There has 

been no progress on electoral reform to date, and there is little evidence that the elections of 2011 will be any more credible than 

those of its predecessors; things could change. 

As for the insurrections in the Delta there had been hopes that 

President Yar’Adua’s amnesty for the militants would kick-start a 

political process to address the region’s grievances. That did not 

happen, hence the prospect of renewed attacks on the oil industry. 

The Technical Committee Report issued in 2008 provided an 

overview of the best thinking about how to address the underdevelopment and the alienation of the Delta. It highlighted the 

Niger Delta Regional Development Master Plan, itself the result of 

6 years of stakeholder consultation. Though it promised to do so, 

the Yar’Adua government has not issued a white paper based on 

the Technical Committee Report. Friends of Nigeria should again 

urge the Jonathan administration to do so. 

The Yar’Adua administration also did not follow up its amnesty 

of Delta militants with meaningful training programs. Again, 

friends of Nigeria should urge the Jonathan administration to keep 

that promise. We should also continue to reiterate our message of 

military restraint. The Niger Delta cannot be solved by force of 

arms. 

Let me close with a brief comment on sectarian violence in the 

Middle Belt and the North. Episodes such as the July insurrection 

of Boko Haram and this winter’s ostensibly ethnic and religious 

conflict in Plateau State both reflect and promote an radicalization 

of some of the Islamic population; how many is hard to judge. However, domestic radicalization—though inward focused—could facilitate in the future the activities of international terrorist groups. 

Nigerians like to say that they are masters of dancing on the 

edge of the precipice. The vision of Nigeria as a huge, multiethnic, 

multireligious state that is democratic and governed according to 

the rule of law is in the interest of the United States, Africa, and 

the international community. That vision animated the founders of 

the Federal Republic, and it has never died. Those working for a 

democratic Nigeria deserve our support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Campbell follows:] 

26 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CAMPBELL, RALPH BUNCHE SENIOR FELLOW

FOR AFRICA POLICY STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, NEW YORK, NY 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the evolving political situation in Nigeria, perhaps sub-Saharan Africa’s most important country, and central 

to the interests of the United States. As members of this subcommittee are well 

aware, Nigeria has the unfulfilled potential to be a leader of the African Continent. 

It has approximately 150 million people—about the same as the Russian Federation—its democratic aspirations date back to independence, and it has the continent’s second largest economy. In the recent past, it has also been an important 

diplomatic partner of the United States, especially with respect to West African 

security. 

Nigeria continues to be a major source of oil for the international market. It is 

the fifth, sometimes the sixth, largest supplier of imported petroleum to the United 

States. Interruptions in the flow of Nigerian oil to the world market can influence 

how much Americans pay at the pump for a gallon of gas. International oil prices 

deeply affect the American economy, as we saw during the summer of 2008 when 

we were paying more than $4 for a gallon of unleaded. 

Let me now turn to the specific questions I was asked to address in the committee’s letter of invitation. 

What are the major issues or challenges facing Acting President Goodluck Jonathan? 

The Acting President faces three crises at present: the unconstitutional basis of 

his Presidential authority, smoldering ethnic and religious conflict in the Middle 

Belt, and the government’s inadequate followup to its amnesty program in the Delta 

with the prospect of renewed militant attacks on the oil industry. 

While the National Assembly’s unconstitutional designation of Vice President 

Goodluck Jonathan as the Acting President did end the void in executive authority 

that dated from President Yar’Adua’s mid-November Saudi hospitalization, it did 

not address the political and institutional failures that led to the current constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, many in Nigeria and abroad have welcomed the Jonathan interim Presidency, particularly because the transition occurred through a 

political process rather than by military intervention. Others are not so sanguine. 

Spokesmen for some Nigerian nongovernmental organizations say that the 

National Assembly acted unconstitutionally, thereby endangering Nigeria’s fragile 

democratic development. One distinguished Nigerian journalist has characterized 

the Acting President as ‘‘the product of a democratic coup.’’ Furthermore, Ridle 

Markus, Africa strategist at Absa Capital (London), noted in the Financial Times 

that, ‘‘the National Assembly’s motion may not have any legal backing, which means 

every decision Goodluck makes could potentially be declared unlawful.’’ 

A further complication is the unwritten principle of regional power-sharing between the Christian South and the Muslim North in Nigerian governance. If the 

President is from the North, as is Umaru Yar’adua, then the Vice President is from 

the South, as is Goodluck Jonathan. The National Assembly’s vote means that the 

Presidency has shifted back to the South at least until the 2011 elections, thereby 

shortening the North’s turn. Northern political leaders appear to have accepted the 

National Assembly’s action in part because they were disunited over any alternative. But they are likely to resent Jonathan’s administration. 

Considering the North’s multiple sources of discontent, it is too early to say what 

the impact will be of the military coup in Niger. However, there is always the risk 

that some will be tempted to imitate what their Nigerien cousins have done. 

Legal and constitutional avenues do exist to remove or suspend a Nigerian President because of his or her inability to carry out mandated duties. Nevertheless, Nigerian politics and government institutions, thus far, have been unable or unwilling 

to respond to the void in Presidential authority created by Umaru Yar’Adua’s illness 

in a way required by the constitution. Nigeria has a history of military chiefs of 

state replacing each other outside the law. Jonathan’s Acting Presidency is, however, the first time a civilian chief of state has replaced another civilian extra-constitutionally. This illegality could be resolved if President Yar’Adua resigns or is 

constitutionally removed from office, which would end Jonathan’s ‘‘acting’’ status 

and render his Presidency constitutional. There are hopeful signs that a consensus 

may be forming in the National Assembly and other political circles on the need to 

establish a constitutional basis for the Jonathan administration. 

How strongly should the United States and the international community press for 

Nigeria to adhere to its Constitution and avoid a deeper political crisis? 

This current crisis, particularly in conjunction with the series of rigged elections 

over the last 10 years, has certainly damaged Nigeria’s democratic development and 

credentials. However, because of its size and regional leadership role as well as its 

27 

historical democratic aspirations, Nigeria should lead West Africa in democracy and 

the rule of law. For that reason alone, Nigeria’s friends, especially the United 

States, should urge that Nigerians take the necessary steps to lift the cloud of unconstitutionality from the Jonathan administration. They should urge the Acting 

President, the Cabinet and the National Assembly to take the painful steps necessary to determine, in good faith, if President Umaru Yar’Adua will be able to 

resume his constitutional duties and, if not, remove him from office following constitutional procedures. Otherwise, Nigeria becomes an example of legal and constitutional set-aside in the name of short-term political expediency. 

What leverage does the United States have that it can use to that end? 

Nigerians care about the United States opinion of them, and they desire a positive 

international reputation. They are particularly conscious of their historic leadership 

role in African multilateral organizations. Therefore, it matters what the Obama administration and congressional leaders say to them about democracy and the rule 

of law. The views of the African Union and other international organizations such 

as the Commonwealth are also influential. 

For example, the consistent, strong public U.S. position opposing a military coup 

appears to have had a positive impact on Nigerian public opinion. Already many Nigerians believe that military coups allegedly planned for December 31, 2009, and 

January 15, 2010, were averted because of senior officer fear of international disapproval. Similarly, the United States should make full use of its access to the Nigerian media to ensure that its support for Nigeria’s Constitution and the rule of law 

is known and understood. A forthright stand on Jonathan’s need to bring his Acting 

Presidency into line with the Constitution would encourage the country’s political 

leaders to find a constitutional and legal resolution to the present crisis. 

Finally, Nigerian elites relish the opportunity to travel to the United States and 

to own property there. The power of the U.S. Government to revoke visitors’ visas 

is particularly potent personal leverage with members of the Nigerian elites. 

What is your general assessment of the current United States-Nigerian relationship, 

especially in light of the Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack and Nigeria’s inclusion in the new 14-country screening requirement? 

After the restoration of civilian governance in 1999, the bilateral relationship between the Nigeria and the United States became close, particularly because of Nigeria’s constructive regional activism. Like his military predecessors, President 

Obasanjo (1999–07) personally played a positive and creative role in addressing security crises in West Africa. The Obasanjo administration was also diplomatically 

active in the Africa Union and the Economic Community of West African States, 

and sought to strengthen both organizations. Nigeria became one of the largest suppliers of peacekeepers to the U.N. and the African Union, and still today plays a 

major peacekeeping role in Darfur. President Obasanjo was one the first leaders of 

a major African state to visit Washington after 9/11 to express his support. The 

United States supported international debt relief for Nigeria, at least in part to 

demonstrate support for Nigerian democracy. 

However, Nigeria’s current travails could weaken the official bilateral relationship. The paralysis of the Nigerian Government since the onset of President 

Yar’Adua’s illness has reduced the role Nigeria plays on African regional issues. A 

Nigeria that is diplomatically active in a way commensurate with its heft is very 

much in the interests of the United States, particularly in its leadership and support for regional organizations such as the AU and ECOWAS. They have been 

important fora in which the international community has responded to a host of 

African issues. 

The Nigerian Government’s weakness since the onset of President Yar’Adua administration has already reduced the role the country plays on African regional 

issues. For example, Nigeria did not demonstrate its traditional diplomatic leadership in the resolution of the political and humanitarian crises in Guinea. It remains 

to be seen if Nigeria will play a central role in countering the coup in Niger. 

Goodluck Jonathan has just been made the chairman of the Economic Community 

of West African States, an organization that should play a central role addressing 

the crisis in Niger. How he responds to a coup in a country that shares a porous 

border with his own will be his first international test as chief of state. If paralysis 

or weak government continues, Nigeria risks becoming ever more irrelevant, regionally, and to the United States. 

Because of its heft, some Nigerians have an exaggerated view of the importance 

of their country on the international stage. As admirers of the United States, Nigerian elites expect Washington to reciprocate and to show special understanding for 

their shortcomings. Hence, there was resentment that President Obama did not visit 

28 

Nigeria on his first trip to Africa. While Nigerians were deeply embarrassed by 

Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed terrorist attack against an American airliner on 

Christmas Day, they are resentful of the Obama administration’s inclusion of Nigeria on the security watch list. They argue that Abdulmutallab’s radicalization occurred in the United Kingdom or Yemen rather than in Nigeria. They see a disparity of treatment between Nigeria on the one hand and the United Kingdom and 

Saudi Arabia on the other. They argue that the Shoe Bomber was British, and most 

of the 9/11 terrorists had Saudi links. Yet neither the United Kingdom nor Saudi 

Arabia is on the security watch list. So, why is Nigeria? Nevertheless, injured Nigerian rhetoric does not mean that the security watch list has significantly damaged 

the relationship and some thoughtful Nigerians have even expressed the hope that 

more stringent security screening may have the consequence of reducing the transfer of Nigeria’s wealth illegally out of the country. 

In what areas is the bilateral relationship strongest? 

Nigeria and the United states influence each other in ways more than diplomacy, 

security, and energy. People-to-people links between the United States and Nigeria 

are more extensive than with any other African country. There is a vibrant, productive Nigerian-American community in the United States that may number 2 million. 

It is a successful immigrant community characterized by entrepreneurship, strong 

family ties and an emphasis on education. Nigerians like to say that more than 1 

million of them have also been to the United States for extended periods and have 

since returned home, positively influenced by their American sojourns. Popular culture from New York and Los Angeles is ubiquitous in Lagos, while Fela RansomKuti’s ‘‘afro-beat’’ and other musical styles of Nigerian origin have influenced American pop. Nigeria’s legions of unemployed university graduates dream of a U.S. visa. 

American educational, religious and civil society links to Nigeria are also probably 

more extensive than with any other African country. Over the years, many Nigerians have received their university educations in the United States. Nigeria now 

has a small community of private universities that are organized on the American 

model and teach an American curriculum. Churches of the same denomination on 

both sides of Atlantic have close links. Nigerian civil society especially looks to the 

United States as a model of democracy and the rule of law. Nigerian legislators and 

judges at every level relish contact with their American counterparts. U.S. and 

Nigeria Government agencies cooperate closely around HIV/AIDS and other health 

issues. Otherwise, the nonofficial relationship is growing and strengthening without 

much reference to Abuja. 

What opportunities exist for strengthening the relationship? 

Resulting from Secretary Hilary Clinton’s 2009 visit to Nigeria, the two countries 

have undertaken the establishment of a binational commission. This would provide 

a framework for extensive, official cooperation of issues of mutual concern. Unfortunately, there has been no movement on the Nigerian side since the illness of 

the President. It is to be hoped that progress will resume under a new Nigerian 

administration. 

What are the main weaknesses and challenges? 

For the United States, Nigeria’s halting progress toward democratic development 

has been a disappointment. Nigeria had elections in 1999, 2003, and 2007—each one 

was worse than its predecessor. Following failed efforts to amend the constitutional 

mandated term limits so that Obasanjo could run for a third term, the President 

imposed on the ruling party his own candidates, Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck 

Jonathan, setting the stage for the current constitutional crisis. They were elected 

President and Vice President in 2007 elections that lacked credibility, nationally 

and internationally. Nevertheless, there was little public protest, which suggests 

that the Nigerian public have largely lost confidence in their leadership. 

Jonathan faces enormous challenges, even if he establishes his constitutional 

legitimacy. He must manage the crisis in the Delta and the smoldering ethnic and 

religious conflict in the Middle Belt. He needs to restart the major Presidential initiatives that have come to halt with President Yar’Adua’s illness. Economic and 

electoral reforms are at a standstill, and government programs in the Delta have 

stopped or were never started. At present, there is little evidence that the elections 

of 2011 will be any more credible than those of its predecessors. 

Could the United States be doing more to help bring lasting peace to the Niger Delta, 

mitigate tensions in central Nigeria, and encourage greater constructive engagement 

throughout the continent? 

The current round of violence in the Delta dates from late 2005. Its root causes 

are its inhabitants’ alienation from the rest of the Federation because of its lack of 

29 

development, and grievances over the federal government’s formula for allocating oil 

revenue to states and the local authorities. There is a significant criminal dimension 

to militant activity as well: kidnapping and oil bunkering is very profitable. Politicians dabble in Delta violence to advance their own agendas. Militants have demonstrated their ability to bring Nigeria’s oil industry to its knees, should they choose 

to do so. They have shown that they can attack even offshore production facilities. 

There had been high hopes that President Yar’Adua’s amnesty for the militants 

who surrendered their weapons would kick-start a political process that would address that region’s grievances. This did not happen. Goodluck Jonathan is an Ijaw 

from the Delta, and expectations are high in the region that he will at long last address their grievances. 

But, it will be difficult for an Acting President to overcome the political obstacles 

and move forward. The civilian political cycle in the Delta is also unfavorable. Candidates are already vying for ruling party nominations for the elections of 2011. In 

the runup to elections in 2003 and 2007, they recruited militias to fight their opponents within the party. The bloodshed was greatest in the year before the polling. 

Hence, 2010 will likely be especially bloody even without the change in the Presidency. 

Nevertheless, there is a way forward. The Technical Committee Report issued in 

2008 provided an overview of the best thinking about how to address the underdevelopment and alienation of the Delta. It highlighted the Niger Delta Regional 

Development Master Plan, itself the result of 6 years of stakeholder consultation. 

The Master Plan envisions an extensive program of youth training that would lead 

to work programs that, in turn, would be harnessed to a coherent development plan. 

Though it promised to do so, the Yar’Adua administration did not issue a white 

paper on the Technical Committee Report, the next step. Friends of Nigeria should 

again urge the Jonathan administration to issue the white paper. Similarly, the 

Yar’Adua administration has not followed up its amnesty of Delta militants of 2009 

with meaningful training programs that could address youth unemployment, as it 

had also promised to do. Again, friends of Nigeria should urge the Jonathan administration to do so. The United States has particular expertise in youth training and 

employment strategies that could help. We should offer our expertise. We should 

also reiterate our message of military restraint. The Niger Delta cannot be solved 

by force of arms. 

Let me close with a brief comment on sectarian violence and lawlessness in the 

Middle Belt and the North. The violence last summer associated with the Boko 

Haram insurrection in the North was horrific and had to be suppressed by the 

army. Ostensibly religious, conflict around Jos this winter also resulted in many 

deaths and thousands of displaced persons. Again, order could be restored only by 

the army, and the violence still smolders. 

Such episodes both reflect and promote an increased radicalization of some of the 

Islamic population—how many, and what percentage of the whole is hard to judge. 

But, the North’s population is very poor—poorer even than the population of the 

Delta by some measures. Its leadership may fear marginalization if Jonathan’s government is dominated by his fellow Southerners. 

Up to now, radicalization in the North has been inward looking, concerned with 

opposing the secular government in Abuja rather than the western ‘‘Great Satan.’’ 

Associations with al-Qaeda such as Abdulmutallab’s have been rare. Nevertheless, 

domestic Islamic radicalization could facilitate in the future the activities of international terrorist groups hostile to the United States. It will bear watching. 

CONCLUSION

Nigerians like to say that they are masters of dancing on the edge of the precipice 

without falling off. The success of Nigeria as a huge, multiethnic, multireligious 

state that is democratic and governed according to the rule of law is in the interest 

of the United States, Africa, and the international community. That vision animated 

the founders of the Federal Republic at the time of independence, and it has never 

been abandoned through military coups, civil war, the oil boom, mega-corruption 

and the current leadership crisis. That vision continues today too, but it is in danger. Those working for a democratic Nigeria deserve our support. And such support 

is in our own interest. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Mr. Ribadu. 

30 

STATEMENT OF NUHU RIBADU, VISITING FELLOW CENTER 

FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RIBADU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for inviting me and for your sustained interest in Nigeria. But let me just 

seize this opportunity to reiterate more strongly my appreciation 

for your intervention. You have really, literally helped—I’m here 

simply because of people like you. At a time when the Nigerian 

Government turned against people like me, you stood up, you 

spoke, and it has made a difference. 

We disagreed—we Nigerians somehow understood this to be 

more than ordered, though. We feel it—we feel we have been unfairly treated and mismanaged by our own people, and that is the 

situation, that is the cause of all of the dissidence that we are talking about; mismanagement, incompetence, poor, poor, more or less 

close to criminal handling of our own affairs that resulted to what 

we are talking about. Whether it is Abdulmutallab, whether it is 

Niger Delta, or literally all of the things that we are talking about 

it. 

Some of us talk against it, we fought. And you followed exactly 

what happened. But if there is going to be a difference, it has to 

come from us. We Nigerians will have to stand up and we need the 

support of good people like you. You showed that it could be done. 

Only 2 days ago a colleague of mine that I worked with was murdered in Abuja, simply for standing up to say, ‘‘We disagree with 

the way we have been managed.’’ And, Mr. Chairman, I want to 

tell you that really, Nigerians are your friends. And at the end of 

the day, like what Dr. King—Reverend Martin Luther King—said, 

in the end, who will remember, we will not remember the wrong 

things or bad things that was done, but we will remember our 

friends who refused to say anything. The friends that are quiet or 

silent. Some people like you refuse to be silent when you see bad 

things happening. 

Today, Nigeria has a wonderful opportunity to turn around. We 

have a new leadership and the possibilities are there. I am here, 

and I agree completely with almost all of those things that have 

been said so far, but I want to reiterate importantly the issue of 

fighting corruption. If you address the problem of corruption, they 

are likely going to address all of the other things that we’ve talked 

about. 

I have already made my own submission, and they are all there. 

But, I think, Mr. Chairman, there is a need for us to really take 

this seriously. We have had good, beautiful things been said from 

Secretary Clinton to so many others, but action is needed. We need 

to go to the specifics. Elections—what are we going to do now? 

Time is getting late, already we have less than a year for those 

elections. 

What are the things that we could do that may make a difference? And they are simple, basic things, for example, to engage 

the leadership at the highest level and tell them, ‘‘Time has come 

for you to change.’’ Come up with things that would make the elections possible. 

For example, get good and credible people who are going to manage these elections, who have a Commission that is there, out 

there, waiting for implementation. We need institutions here to 

31 

stop talking and directly lead with Nigeria and civil societies and 

so that a difference can be made. 

When the issue of corruption, which is so fundamental, which is 

really, if there’s going to be difference, it has to be in that direction. 

Already, you have done so much, particularly the Department of 

Justice, there are a lot of—so many cases that we have done together that are still out there that need to be followed. Go after 

these corrupt people. They fear the reach of the U.S. name and 

shame, go after those who are using your own institutions and 

structures to continue to cheat and steal from their own people. 

You will see the difference it can make. 

Already, some actions have been taken, but we need more of 

that. These are some of the specific things that can make a difference, but the most important, Mr. Chairman, is the issue of law 

and order. Most of the things that you see happening in Nigeria 

is a result of breakdown of law and order. Failure of institutions 

and structures. You do not have law enforcement officers that 

ought to be doing what they are supposed to do. You have bad people who are in charge of different organizations or different organs 

of government that insist on doing what is right for the common 

good of all of us, we choose to be selfish and so things in the wrong 

way. 

These are some of the things that have to be addressed, and the 

United States could do it. We saw what we did together from 2003 

to 2007. Things changed in Nigeria within a short period of time. 

We need action. We need to see those people to come along because 

it is not just a Nigerian problem. 

The world is a global village today. Whatever happens in Nigeria, 

it also affects you. Your taxpayers are paying the cost of corruption 

in Nigeria. It is time for us to realize that it is—we are all in this, 

and that we need you to come along. It is our responsibility as Nigerians to do it, but we need good people to come and stand for humanity to change, and change those people who are desperately in 

need of change. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ribadu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NUHU RIBADU, VISITING FELLOW AT THE CENTER FOR

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT, SENIOR FELLOW AT ST. ANTHONY’S COLLEGE AT OXFORD

UNIVERSITY

Good morning and thank you for this kind invitation, Chairman Feingold, Ranking Member Isakson, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is a cherished opportunity to speak to you today. Your subcommittee has shown sustained 

interest in Nigeria, an interest, that I must say, has not been misplaced or gone 

unnoticed. 

From a personal perspective, I would like to thank you, Senator Feingold, for the 

bold comments you made regarding my safety and security, after my removal from 

the chairmanship of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). I recall, with gratitude, that you sent letters to President Yar’Adua in January 2008 

and then again with Senators Levin and Isakson in December 2008. I remain eternally grateful for these timely acts of support and advocacy. 

NIGERIA IN RECENT HISTORY

Nigeria, like most nations, has had its share of internal issues. We can all agree 

that this is not unusual for a country in our state of development. However, few 

will deny that we made relative, if even major, progress in the past decade. Much 

of this progress was made possible through a strong relationship with the United 

States. Sadly, in the short period since May 2007 when President Yar’Adua came 

32 

to office, much of these gains were lost through ill-advised policy reversals and entrenchment of corrupt persons in strategic positions. 

This abuse of office and arrogance of power are emblematic of President 

Yar’Adua’s governing style during his tenure in office. Nigeria’s precipitous retreat 

from the reform gains made during former administration is due to the lack of preparation, vision, and the unbridled self-interest of many of the people Yar’Adua surrounded himself with. 

The story is now widely known that last November, President Yar’Adua left the 

country for medical treatment, and, typical of his administrations, left no one in 

charge of the affairs of the state. Naturally, the situation got worse. But fortunately 

for our country the Nigerian Senate acted prudently this month, recognizing Vice 

President Goodluck Jonathan as Acting President. 

Upon taking office, Acting President Jonathan signaled his desire for meaningful 

reform by immediately removing the controversial Attorney General and Minister 

of Justice Michael Andoakaa, affirming his commitment to electoral reform, reengaging the Niger Delta militants and taking steps to improve power generation 

and distribution. 

While this development presented us with the opportunity for change, it came 

loaded with the challenge for the democratic, legal, and peaceful resolution of our 

situation. 

True, the major challenge is ours. Yet the international community, and the 

United States in particular, must play a crucial role in ensuring that Nigeria seizes 

the opportunity of this moment to get back on track. 

I would like to take this opportunity to ask for America’s assistance in restoring 

law and order to Nigeria and want to focus my remarks on three crucial recommendations: 

1. Insisting on constitutional and legal continuity; 

2. Restarting the fight against corruption; and 

3. Ensuring free and fair elections in 2011. 

Constitutional and legal continuality 

I applaud Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and others, including Chairman Feingold, Ranking Member Isakson, and other members of this subcommittee, 

for your strong comments on the need for constitutional continuality and rule of law 

in Nigeria. But the time for talk is over; action is needed and action can only start 

with your direct engagement and communication with our new leadership. 

Nigeria proved its willingness to follow its laws and uphold its Constitution 

through the peaceful management of the crisis. We now have a sitting Vice President as Acting President, and with the support of the United States and others this 

trend could continue. 

To further this goal, the United States should: support Nigeria’s civil society, 

monitor internal developments closely, state unambiguously that any resort to unconstitutional action against the Nigerian people will be resisted, and back prodemocracy movements inside the country. 

The breakdown of law and order is largely responsible for the incessant conflicts 

in all parts of the country, and this point must be strongly registered. 

Fighting corruption 

There is no need to reiterate the problem of corruption in Nigeria. It is a wellknown fact that without addressing the corruption problem all other problems— 

from executive lawlessness, to stealing of votes, and the pillage of state recourses 

for personal use—will remain untouched. The United States has already done so 

much to help fight this problem. The challenge of the moment is to demonstrate 

through action that enough is enough. 

As the head of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the 

anticorruption agency in Nigeria, my team and I fought against this cancer alongside U.S. officials. Unfortunately, in 2007, I was forced out by the reentry of blatant 

acts of corruption. To help Nigeria get back on track, here is how the United States 

can help: 

First, the Department of Justice, the FBI and SEC need to continue the prosecution of cases we tirelessly worked on together. We have thousands of pages of detailed evidence and intelligence on corrupt officials which are sitting, waiting to be 

used. I am overjoyed to hear that in the United Kingdom, the Metropolitan Police 

is continuing with its case against former Gov. James Ibori. It will give most Nigerians cause to cheer that the United States also does the same and continue their 

cases. 

Second, expand on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA allowed for the 

prosecution of a number of corrupt businesses and sent a wave of panic among those 

33 

who were previously able to get away with their corruption. This line of action can 

be furthered if you include foreign nationals among those who can be prosecuted on 

U.S. soil. It is important to include those who accept the bribes and use your financial institutions to hide or launder these funds. Corrupt Nigerians fear the reach 

of U.S. law into their illicit activities. Start acting upon that fear. 

Third, it is time to deploy the powers already available in your instruments. You 

can encourage the administration to use existing powers under Proclamation 7750 

by issuing travel bans against those known to be corrupt. The United States can 

also cooperate in the creation of Interpol red notices; confiscate stolen assets found 

on U.S. soil; and insist on the extradition of corrupt foreign nationals. You must 

continue to name and shame those who do not fear justice at home. 

Acting President Jonathan’s emergence provides the United States with a second 

chance to purposefully reinvigorate the fight against corruption in places like Nigeria. These three broad acts are vital steps toward positively turning the situation 

in Nigeria around and can also be applied to the rest of Africa. 

Electoral reform 

Perhaps the most important and pressing issue effecting Nigeria today is electoral 

reform. In the recent election in the Anambra state, the people showed they are 

ready to make their voices heard. This was only possible because President 

Yar’Adua and his cronies were distracted and unable to meddle in the democratic 

process. 

To ensure free and fair elections in 2011 however, the task needs to start now. 

The Justice Uwais Commission’s recommendations are a modest but good start that 

needs to be followed through in its entirety. The National Democratic Institute and 

the International Republican Institute and others can start assisting now to support 

voter registration exercises. 

This can be followed up by encouraging the government to clean up the electoral 

commission by appointing credible personnel with proven integrity and credibility, 

while the civil society needs to be engaged and supported. They will be the true 

force behind a change for these elections. 

U.S. electoral funding support must change its approach to supporting Nigerian 

elections. U.S. prodemocracy NGOs must drill down to directly fund civil society initiatives at the state and local levels. Such changes are more cost effective and better 

integrated into the social framework of the average Nigeria. 

And the United States needs to back a level playing field so that all parties, including big and small opposition groups, can participate fully. The United States 

assistance is vital. Without it, change is going to be difficult. We must act now, well 

ahead of time. If we wait for polling day, it will be too late. 

FUTURE OF UNITED STATES-NIGERIA RELATIONS

Nigeria has the potential to be a strong, regional leader and an important partner 

to the United States. But there is still a void. Last week there was a coup in Niger. 

I suggest that if Nigeria were strong, this would not have happened. In the current 

situation, Nigeria’s 1,500 kilometer-border with Niger Republic can serve as leverage for ensuring stability but today, it serves no other significance than for smuggling, especially in petroleum. 

And more than governance support is needed. Nigeria desperately needs technical 

assistance and policy attention to boost our power output necessary for our country’s 

economic and entrepreneurial potential. Attention should be given to other aspects 

of Nigeria’s socioeconomic equation to create jobs, spur small- and medium-sized 

business development and overall economic diversity. Nigeria’s agriculture sector, 

long abandoned, has the potential to be West Africa’s bread basket and reduce the 

impact of food insecurity. 

Nigeria must not be allowed to fail completely, as its ripple effect would be felt 

across Africa and even to the United States. Greater instability leading to the kind 

of military takeover in Niger will be the norm. You could see more young people 

like Umar Forouk Muttalab entering the country, boarding American-bound planes 

with murderous desires, while the supply of oil will be strained even more. 

This is a new Nigeria. Our destiny is no longer determined by one person or a 

group of people in a back room. Democracy has started to take hold. We see a new 

leadership rising up, new people-oriented power centers being created, and the people demanding more from their leaders. Religious politics are less important and the 

military is less interested in engaging. These are new phenomenon in Nigeria and 

they must be respected and nurtured. America can no longer take the attitude of 

keeping the lid on this boiling pot, we must work to turn down the flame. 

Chairman, members of the committee, I urge you to take this situation seriously, 

both for the opportunity, but also for the danger it presents. Nigeria and her people 

34 

need the restoration of law and order. This is the time to act. It is our responsibility 

as Nigerians to do so, but we ask you today to join with us. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you all. 

I will do a round of questions. Mr. Ribadu, thank you in particular, I really appreciate your specific recommendations for how 

the United States can help Nigeria get back on track in its fight 

against corruption. And I will work to see that these recommendations are seriously considered. 

But I do want to ask you specifically about something you just 

were talking about—corruption in Nigeria’s security forces, particularly the police. As you know, there continue to be reports implicating the Nigerian police force in Syria’s human rights violations, 

including extrajudicial killing of persons held in police custody, torture, and extortion. And despite pledges to do so, the police—as I 

understand it—have taken no steps to investigate recent killings in 

Northern and Central Nigeria. 

In your view, what is needed to end the culture of impunity within Nigeria’s police force, and how could the United States specifically help in this regard? 

Mr. RIBADU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A difference can be made. Simply look at what happened with 

the EFCC, the organization that I headed. We were engaged and 

we worked closely with the United States. We had over 40 

trainings from the FBI. We were taught how to probably be the 

best law enforcement agency in Africa. It made a difference. We 

never abused no one’s rights. 

But if you see what is happening with the other law enforcement 

agencies in Nigeria, we attempted to do something. You know, personally we went after the leadership of the police at one time. We 

arrested the chief law officer of Nigeria. We recovered $150 million 

from the chief law officer, the Inspector General Police of Nigeria. 

It is literally impossible for you to have any law enforcement to 

perform his duties with a leadership like that. 

We tried to do something. What is needed for now, I believe, is 

strong—strong influence to be more or less, literally, I mean, force 

people to start realizing that unless you start changing, there’s no 

possibility for you to get a law enforcement that will be able to perform. Bring in your best expertise, your technical knowledge, your 

skills and then possibly engage them in the way that they will be 

able to receive it. There’s not any other way, apart from getting 

good partners on the ground in Nigeria, work with them, make 

them to realize and understand that it is in your own interest, first 

and foremost, before any other person and then possibly, maybe if 

they are ready to receive it, then change will come. 

Senator FEINGOLD. If I were communicating with Acting President Jonathan, what are some tangible, visible steps we could ask 

him to show now that he is truly committed to confronting corruption and ending impunity? 

Mr. RIBADU. Thank you. 

First and foremost, to engage with him is the most important 

thing, at the highest level. Your own level, level of your own leadership. We’ve seen it happen before. And we saw the difference. In 

2003 and 2007, President Bush talked directly with President 

35 

Obasanju and we saw the difference it made. The leadership of the 

Congress spoke directly with our own leadership and we got the 

laws passed. 

I was the one responsible for the establishment of all of those 

fundamental things that helped brought change in Nigeria, for example, terrorist financing. We did a wonderful job, as a result of 

that political connection and linkage. First and foremost, Mr. 

Chairman, there is a need to get back on that. 

Two, tell them that you have the means to support them and you 

are ready to support them in the sense that you have the technical 

know-how and it is going to be available for them to make good use 

of. 

Three, your Excellency, Mr. Chairman, the money that you have 

and you want to support and send and help in Nigeria, please try 

to divert it towards the establishment of law and order, rule of law, 

and spend more on the institutions and structures that will support 

the establishment of law and order. Justice, fairness for other 

things to work. 

I’m not saying it is wrong to spend money in, for example, 

health—no. It is a good thing. But probably you may not see the 

value of it unless there is first and foremost law and order—security, stability—in the way that other things will work. 

I think there is a need to understand that fundamentally the 

challenge in Nigeria today is for us to even start to run things 

properly and correctly. Our law enforcement agencies, the justice 

sector requires more support, more of—in terms of your technical 

skills and knowledge—than any other. It will be a foundation for 

whatever that is going to come after to work—policies and whatever assistance that will follow. But for now, it must be the most 

important thing. The President of Nigeria should understand that 

this is in his own interest. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, sir. 

All three of you have touched upon the importance of electoral 

reform, the need for such reform is evident. 

Ambassador Campbell, as you noted, each of Nigeria’s last three 

elections has been worse than its predecessor, and although President Yar’Adua committed to carrying out significant electoral reform, the process was slow going, at best, and it would seem that 

the Acting President now has an opportunity to get that process 

moving before next year’s election, so I’d like to ask all of you to 

just say a bit about what concrete steps you believe the Acting 

President should take toward electoral reform and how the Obama 

administration can best encourage and support that. 

Let’s start with you, Ambassador Campbell. 

Ambassador CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, and most basically, the reform of the Independent 

National Electoral Commission is far more than simply removing 

a corrupt individual or two at the top of it. It needs to be restructured in such a way that it is completely independent from the Executive, and it needs to have its own source of funding. It has neither, at present. 

Second, there needs to be some kind of realistic timeline to address elections in April 2011. Nigeria’s an enormous country and 

has 150 million people in it. The sheer physical challenges of carVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:06 Oct 19, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\61669.TXT MIKEB
36 

rying out elections in an environment like that requires an enormous amount of advanced planning. As far as I can tell, there’s no 

planning being done at all. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Dr. Lewis. 

Dr. LEWIS. Well, I would certainly agree with those concerns. The 

Electoral Reform Commission that was chartered by President 

Yar’Adua in 2007 was an excellent group of individuals and they 

came forward with excellent recommendations for moving the election process and the electoral process forward. Unfortunately, once 

the paper was published, there was no action on the recommendations. 

There does need to be, in my view, a root and branch reorganization of INEC from the top—much of the Commissioners, the leadership—there are many good people who are dedicated civil servants 

at the grassroots in the line departments of INEC, but also many 

people that do not need to be there. 

It needs good leadership, it needs independent funding. Some of 

these things can be improvised, even in advance of the necessary 

legislative changes by a dedicated President if he is serious about 

making the change. 

There are serious questions about the registry, about the logistics 

of the election, and the planning really needed to start quite a 

while ago. But even if it starts today and it’s not enough time, we 

have about a year to election season, and serious dedicated work 

could produce a much better election than we have seen in 2007, 

2003. 

Finally, I would say that consultation with the political parties 

in an atmosphere of transparency and an invitation for civil society 

and independent electoral observers to be part of the process would 

also improve the transparency of the process and create a much 

better environment. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Ribadu. 

Mr. RIBADU. Thank you. 

First and foremost, I think, is to get appropriate law on the 

ground. The Commission Report is a very good report that if it’s 

passed into law it will give opportunity for the change we are talking about, one. 

Two, it’s important to get people of integrity to supervise and run 

the elections. At this moment, we do not have that. 

Three, civil societies are extremely important. They are vehicles 

of change in elections like Nigeria. They need to be empowered. 

Governments fail. They need to engage the civil societies. And I 

think already we have a very vibrant civil society that is waiting 

for that in Nigeria. 

Four, elections is not just about the INEC, it also involves other 

institutions, what is up with the law enforcement, the police, the 

Secret Service. If they are not in a good, proper position to support 

and supervise and ensure security and order. Whatever other 

changes are taking place any other place will not be able to make 

a difference. The law enforcement has to change, as well, for us to 

see the difference. 

37 

Of course, we need a fair, level, playing ground for all. A situation where government parties continue to do what they like and 

all of us at a disadvantage will make it impossible for a free and 

fair election. Conscious efforts must be made to protect the opposition, those people who are not in control of government and authority. And I believe it can be done. 

The moment that the world has said enough is enough, the time 

has come for the views and the opinions of Nigerians to become 

something that is meaningful that can reflect exactly what they are 

to be, I think it will change. Say we are not going to tolerate, 

again, any government that is going to come through any dubious 

affront—you are not going to tolerate and accept stealing of elections. 

If—we have seen it happen in a couple of other African countries 

where you can see clearly fraudulent elections taking place. And at 

the end of the day, they will come in and negotiate and remain. 

Two or three African countries today is a reflection of that, and you 

have not seen the end of the problems. 

I think time has come when the world will see it and then the 

United States will take the lead, that it is time for you to say that 

you are going to stand on the side of the people, not the few individuals who continue to do what they like just simply because they 

have the means and the control of the governments. 

I think this is the message that can change, if it very clear— 

clearly stated—that it is now over, you are not going to get away 

with it, we are not going to agree to you stealing the elections and 

cheating your own people. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, sir. 

Ambassador Campbell, in your testimony you noted that many 

Nigerians believe that military coup’s alleged plan for December 

31, 2009, and January 15, 2010, were averted because senior officials feared international disapproval. Nigeria’s military has long 

played a role in trying to—a role, an often troublesome role in the 

country’s political process. What’s their current role in the current 

situation? Under what conditions, if any, could you envision the 

military or some segment of the military attempting to stage a 

coup and what should the United States and other international 

stakeholders be doing now to obviously discourage such actions? 

Ambassador CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I could take the last question first. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Go ahead. 

Ambassador CAMPBELL. What we need to do is reiterate over and 

over and over again and through every method we can the 

unacceptability of military intervention, and we should support the 

efforts of groups like the African Union, for example, that is making a very strong stand against military coups. 

As to what the role is of the military at the present time in Nigeria, it is extremely murky, it is extremely unclear. For example, the 

Nigerian press is already reporting that the military played an important role in getting the National Assembly to finally move to 

vote Goodluck Jonathan as Acting President. 

We do know that in early January, the military—not the civilian 

government—the military banned any military movements in the 

38 

country right down to an individual level, which meant clearly 

somebody was nervous about something. 

Thank you. 

Oh, one other thing if I may add, the kind of elephant in the living room, from my perspective, is the coup in Niger. The border between Nigeria and Niger is a line in the sand, it’s the same people 

on both sides. The coup in Niger was carried out by relatively 

young officers, majors, lieutenant colonels, colonels—people who 

are an entire generation younger than those who run the Nigerian 

military forces. Nigerian officers with whom we have very little 

contact. So, I have got no idea what’s running through their minds. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Ambassador, again, in your testimony you 

said at the Binational Commission that we formed as a result of 

Secretary Clinton’s trip to Nigeria, I’d like to hear just your 

thoughts on this Commission once it’s fully operative—operational—could it enhance and strengthen the United States-Nigeria 

relationship? 

Ambassador CAMPBELL. Absolutely. The Binational Commission 

is a means or a method. It provides a structure or a framework 

whereby the two governments can set up working groups to address issues of specific concern. 

For example, a Binational Commission would be a way to 

strengthen provisions and procedures having to do with money 

laundering. But there’s a whole host of things that a Binational 

Commission can address. That’s why it’s such a useful tool. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

That will be the conclusion of the hearing, but let me just say 

how pleased I am that you joined us today and helped us. I really 

wanted to hold this hearing, I have been working on the issue of 

our relationship with Nigeria since 1993, including the days of 

Sunni Abacha and sometimes we’ve had to put enormous pressure, 

sometimes we’ve been able to reach out. I want to be accurate in 

the kind of steps we take to press the right levers at the right time, 

we’re getting some good, specific suggestions here, but there can be 

no doubt that I and the members of the committee want very much 

to have a very strong relationship with Nigeria, and in particular 

the people of Nigeria, who are suffering from many of the problems 

that we’ve talked about today. 

Thanks so much, that concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ