Muhammadu Buhari’s inauguration as Nigeria’s president
presents new opportunities for reinvigorating relations between
Nigeria and South Africa, the continent’s biggest economies.
Since the 1990s, the collective leadership of Nigeria and South
Africa has been vital in providing the foundations for African
renewal, the creation of institutions on the continent and the
mobilisation of African voices in the global arena.

The hallmark of this leadership was demonstrated during the
time of former presidents Thabo Mbeki (1999-2008) and
Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007). Both were instrumental in
crafting the current African security and development
frameworks.

These frameworks have frayed and lost direction on the watch of
Goodluck Jonathan and Jacob Zuma.

The African Union remains underfunded and has made paltry
efforts to generate additional resources. The flagship African
Peer Review Mechanism program has no money to conduct
country reviews to gauge adherence to good governance but it is
not too late to return to the quest for African prosperity,
security and dignity under a Buhari-Zuma leadership.
Mbeki and Obasanjo led confidently on continental
affairs because they were elected by comfortable
majorities

Efforts to find multilateral approaches and reverse Africa’s
international decline hinge, more than ever before, on vigorous
leadership, backed by solid domestic support for promoting
Africa’s development. Without domestic backing on African
issues, Nigeria and South Africa will not succeed in projecting
their power on the continent.

The Mbeki-Obasanjo alliance was propelled by the demands of
the early 2000s, particularly the need to reshape African
institutions in the direction of renewed mandates and
responsibilities.

These goals were achieved with the formation of the African
Union in 2002, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development,
and the African Peer Review Mechanism, the voluntary body for
assessing Africa’s performance.

Mbeki and Obasanjo led confidently on continental affairs
because they were elected by comfortable majorities at home
and had solid control of their political parties.

In contrast, Jonathan’s regime collapsed partly because he lost
control over his People’s Democratic Party. Under his
presidency, Nigeria was gradually descending into state failure,
with dire consequences for the region.

Zuma has faced a fractious African National Congress, but so far
has survived internal challenges to his leadership.
Buhari’s electoral victory reinforces the consolidation of Nigeria’s
credential as Africa’s largest democracy. This victory should
embolden him as he confronts the menace of Boko Haram and
much-needed military reforms to restore Nigeria’s role as a force
for stabilisation in West Africa.

Zuma is still distracted by the Nkandla scandal involving public
money being spent on his family home. Questions over the
expenditure have led to unruly scenes in Parliament but Zuma
should seize the chance to reinvent himself as an African
statesman by reaching out to Buhari in new initiatives to address
the malaise facing African institutions.

The resurgent Nigeria and South Africa should make no
pretences to hegemony – that crude inclination toward unilateral
approaches.

Leadership on African issues needs to be collective and
consensus-based, reflecting the realities of scarce resources in
the context of complex and multifaceted needs.
Although both countries will not replicate the strengths and
advantages of the Mbeki-Obasanjo era, they have no choice but
to improvise on strategies to check the steady deterioration of
institutions and frameworks.

South Africa and Nigeria can provide optimal leadership when
they work with other like-minded African countries in peace
making, peacekeeping and peace-building initiatives.
Leadership often entails sub-contracting roles to regional
institutions which are better at galvanising political attention
and resources.

The priority for both countries should be to return to the
agenda of strengthening the security and economic capacities of
bodies such as the Southern African Development Community,
the Economic Community of West African States, and the East
African Community.

More importantly, the African Union has wandered off-course in
recent years because of a lack of clear direction. Some of its
core institutions, such as the African Peer Review Mechanism,
are in profound crisis due to a lack of funding and waning
resolve about their continuation.

Buhari and Zuma should organise an urgent conference in Africa
to raise funds to rescue peer review from collapse. There should
also be pressure on all countries that have not signed up to do
so before the end of 2016.

The question that remains is how will Africa forge common
governance values when half of the African Union member
states are afraid to be reviewed by their peers? Reinvigorating
the mechanism is necessary to boost the frameworks of the
African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance which
came into force in 2012. The charter needs champions.
There are already severe reversals in democratic gains. Burundi
and South Sudan are good examples.

Africa and the international community invested considerable
resources in the stabilisation in Burundi and South Sudan. The
negotiation of pacts paved the way for democracy and power
sharing, paving the way for the return of peace and stability but
erratic elites are single-mindedly leading these countries back
into civil wars.

Nigeria and South Africa should lead from the front in defending
the sanctity of democratic values and practices in Africa.
As part of fresh commitments to end impunity and enhance
accountability and justice, Nigeria and South Africa need to
marshal the authority to repair Africa’s relations with the
International Criminal Court.

The African Union is not the ideal forum for Africa to pronounce
itself on the court. While there are genuine complaints about
the court’s role in Africa, the African Union has taken unhelpful
positions on African cases that have potentially undermined its
reputation and stature.

The majority of countries that signed up to the Rome Statute
that created the court are African. These countries have
signalled their distinctive domestic value systems that
distinguish them from countries that have procrastinated on
joining it.

Nigeria and South Africa are parties to the court. They need to
bring the African Union to order on the subject.

www.sabc.co.za/news/a/41b6e980489ee952a6a9aea96652ae2c/-

Its hard for a free country (Nigeria) to forge an alliance with a white supremacist country and government( south africa)