This time, perhaps, is the most of the troubling and worrisome of times in the life of the Nigerian born crack international technocrat and president of the Abidjan based African Development Bank, Akinwumi Adesina, who has stuck out his neck to seek a second term of five years as the president of the 56-year old Africa’s foremost multilateral financial institution.
This is on the account of the allegation of ethical breaches that have been oxymoronically levelled against him in spite of his gargantuan achievement of steering the bank from a capital base of $98 billion in 2015 to a remarkable financial plateau of $208 billion at the moment, by snaky whistle-blowers bent on truncating his noble and humble bid for a second term.
A lay person in international relations and international affairs might be wondering why the USA has to poke nose into what ordinarily ought to be a pure African affair.
Though I had earlier acknowledged America as a stakeholder in the bank, to further illuminate this discourse, let me briefly examine the history of the bank, its structures and modus operandi and in the process lay bare, the American and other foreign veins and blood running in the bank and which have given America the effrontery to make this parochial move.
In the early 1960’s, there was the crave by African states to unite on both political and economic fronts for greater development. This desire culminated in the draft of two charters: one that established the Organization of African Unity in 1963 (now African Union) and the second that birthed the AfDB in 1964.
More specifically, the agreement that birthed the bank came into force on September 10,1964 under the aegis of the United Nations Commission for Africa. It commenced operations two years after its establishment.
In 1982, it opened its regional door to non-African stakeholders which stand today at 27 countries namely, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States of America.
The bank runs on three arms namely, the AfDB, the African Development Fund (ADF) and the Nigerian Trust Fund (NTF). The ADF was created in1972 but did not begin operation until 1974. It makes development funds available on concessional terms to poor countries which are unable to borrow from the bank on the non-concessional terms.
It is made up of the AfDB 24 non-African countries. UK is its largest shareholder with 14% followed by the U.S. with 6.5 % and Japan , 5.4%.The ADF raises its funds through contributions by members and periodic replacements by non-African members.
It lends without interests but it takes service charge of 0.75%, a commitment fee of 0.5%. Its repayment period is 50 years with a grace period of 10 years. The Nigerian Trust Fund (NTF) was established in 1976 by the Nigerian government.
The aim was to provide financial succour to the poorest members of the AfDB. It commenced operation with an initial capital of $80 million. Its loan attracts 4% interest rate, while repayment and grace periods are fixed at 25 years and five years respectively.
The bank is headed by a president who presides over both the boards of AfDB and ADF. The bank is controlled by a board of executive directors comprising the representatives of member countries. The voting power for arriving at decisions is shared on the basis of members capital contributions(shares).
As at present, the shares configuration of the bank shows 60% and 40% to African and non-African members respectively. Nigeria is the largest African shareholder of the bank with 9% of the voting strength and followed by the U.S. which wields 6.5% of the voting strength.
This American voting strength, combined with its soft power and influence over African and non-African members of the bank, form the basis of America’s affront on the bank particularly this campaign of pulling down Adesina without following due process.
Assessed against the objectives of the bank, Adesina has been adjudged by African countries to have performed very well. Hence their unanimous support for his second term bid.
This being the case, African countries should assert themselves and insist on due process in this matter, even though it is an African that will still head the bank should Adesina be convinced of genuine cause to drop his second term bid for the presidency of the bank.
In any event, the American stance on this matter should dawn the truth on African leaders that, without necessarily running autarkic economies, they have to heed the persistent call that, Africa must look in-ward for the resources to run its economic destiny.
Africa, we all know is a rich continent. Indeed, the resources that African leaders steal and stash away in Europe and America, are more than sufficient to run AfDB without having to create dependency syndrome and hampering the “Africaness” of the bank through heavy reliance on foreign capital participation.
Furthermore, the manner in which African countries fall for the great powers’ “pay check diplomacy”, particularly that of China, should be checked. As it has proved over the years, foreign aid has not only kept us in perpetual debt and subjugation, but has equally undermined Africa’s security and political stability and also robbed us of our pride as a people.
Or, what assertion can we make if America whose foreign policy objective has always been America first, is the soul of an African bank? It can only be to the extent to which America permits it.
What is our pride if China was the country that donated the headquarters building of the African Union? If any at all, it is just any amount of respect the Chinese can give in pretence.
- Dr. Ademola Adebisi writes from the Federal College of Agriculture, Akure, Ondo State.
