Author: Matthew T. Page
Affiliated organization: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Type of publication: Report
Date of publication: July 2021
Introduction
Broadly defined, Nigeria’s civil society landscape is one of the most expansive in the world, encompassing religious bodies, ethnic and subethnic associations, village cooperatives, occupation-based groups, student and alumni entities, charities and foundations, as well as a broad range of advocacy and development-focused NGOs, both international and domestic. Even during long periods of military rule, the country’s NGO sector remained surprisingly resilient and independent of government control. Since the end of military rule in 1999, it has grown into what is now the strongest part of the country’s shaky democratic life.
Yet Nigeria’s civic space has shrunk in recent years as its government has become increasingly illiberal, heavy-handed, and self-serving. Its kleptocratic elites have grown less tolerant of civil society voices, especially those pushing for better governance, greater accountability, and respect for human rights. In a bid to shore up their legitimacy, silence their critics, and expand their patronage networks, Nigeria’s ruling elites have fueled the rise of pro-government NGOs: sycophantic surrogates masquerading as civil society groups. In doing so, they resemble their uniformed predecessors who, in the 1990s, tried to stymie democratization using pro-government NGOs as a tool.
In recent years, at least 360 different pro-government NGOs have made headlines with their anti-democratic rhetoric and vocal praise for the regime. They constitute a substantial fake civil society operating alongside legitimate civil society. Roughly 90 percent of these groups started operating after President Muhammadu Buhari took office in 2015, suggesting a strong correlation between his ascension to the presidency and their explosive growth. The vast majority are “briefcase” NGOs: unregistered entities that lack any discernible track record and frequently make only one or two appearances (such as a press conference or a public protest) before evaporating. Moreover, most are controlled by a small number of pro-government NGO “masterminds,” who are linked to each other and to the Buhari regime by overlapping personal networks
A Brief History of Nigeria’s
Pro-government NGOs
As ubiquitous as pro-government NGOs have become in recent years, they are not a new phenomenon in Nigeria. In the 1990s, under military rule, pro-government NGOs were not merely noisy competitors in civil society spaces, but instead were formidable antagonists able to affect real-world politics. Several such groups—most notably Youths Earnestly Ask for Abacha (YEAA) and the Association for a Better Nigeria (ABN)—played a prominent role in blunting grassroots opposition to authoritarian rule. Suspiciously well-resourced and amplified by state-run media, these entities acted as a counterweight to pro-democracy NGOs like the Civil Liberties Organization, Constitutional Rights Project, and the Transition Monitoring Group, many of whom were sustained by international support. In the words of one scholar, as the Nigerian state became “increasingly resentful” of these NGOs’ efforts, “it tried simultaneously to pacify and co-opt the phalanx of social forces that were ranged against it.
Pro-Government NGOs: A Recognition Guide
What distinguishes Nigeria’s pro-government NGOs from its many legitimate non-governmental and civil society organizations? Certain key characteristics and behaviors are specific to pro-government NGOs, and can be used to identify them. These traits include sycophancy, a readiness to use ad hominem attacks, illiberalism, a penchant for holding identically staged press conferences, ephemerality, legitimacy-seeking, opaque funding, overt partisanship, and ties to little-known news platforms and think tanks. The majority of pro-government NGOs active since 2015 also share another surprising characteristic: links to the southern part of Benue State, in central Nigeria. This collection of common identifiers does not mean, however, that all pro-government NGOs look and act the same. Some specialize in defending the government’s track record on particular issues (for example, human rights or corruption), while others’ activities are more opportunistic and disjointed. Some seem more attuned to the news cycle than others, swiftly leaping to the defense of scandal-hit officials or government entities. It is unclear whether this responsiveness stems from their existing ties to those officials or is part of an attempt to cultivate high-level demand for their services by demonstrating a capacity to draw attention.
In the words of one scholar, as the Nigerian state became “increasingly resentful” of these NGOs’ efforts, “it tried simultaneously to pacify and co-opt the phalanx of social forces that were ranged against it
Sycophancy
Nigeria’s pro-government NGOs are not subtle: their effusive, over-the-top praise of senior government officials and the military sets them apart from mainstream civil society groups. Although legitimate NGOs sometimes commend the Nigerian government for taking constructive policy decisions, appointing respected technocrats, or passing legislation that aligns with their values, they generally strive to ensure such feedback is substantive and nonpartisan. Pro-government NGOs, in contrast, signal their loyalty and support for the government, ruling party, and military as loudly and frequently as possible.
Since 2015, pro-government NGOs have showered Buhari, his government, the military, and its service chiefs with adulation. In late 2020, for example, one such group issued a press release to “applaud the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari for the giant strides recorded in the improvement of security in Nigeria” and make the false claim that the military “has been able to restore normalcy in North West” and has incapacitated Boko Haram “in almost all the states in North-East Nigeria. In early 2020, another briefcase NGO “network” lauded Buhari for his “courageous and fearless posture in speaking the truth no matter the situation. His commitment is unwavering and an indication that, in a matter of time, the menace of Boko Haram would come to an end.” Around the same time, a third pro-government NGO likewise hailed the Nigerian Army’s widely criticized “super camp” strategy—which entailed a withdrawal from a wide network of forward operating bases to a smaller number of highly fortified compounds—as a “magic wand” in the fight against Boko Haram.
Some specialize in defending the government’s track record on particular issues (for example, human rights or corruption), while others’ activities are more opportunistic and disjointed
Ad Hominem Attacks
Even as Nigeria’s pro-government NGOs praise key members of the current regime, they also direct stinging ad hominem attacks on the critics or perceived opponents of Buhari, the military, or senior government officials. This rhetoric has three main aims. First, it is used to discredit and delegitimize outside criticism by painting it as partisan, unpatriotic, or driven by ulterior motives. Second, it is employed to intimidate and silence legitimate activists, credible domestic and international NGOs, foreign governments, and the media. Finally, it helps to shift responsibility for Nigeria’s worsening security situation and other governance failures away from top officials onto malign external influences.
Pro-government NGOs’ attacks, whether independently initiated or guided by top officials, provide a useful window into the zeitgeist of Nigeria’s ruling elites, revealing which critiques they find most unsettling. They tend to target a similar set of perceived adversaries. These include Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for their work on human rights
abuses in Nigeria; Transparency International, especially its annual Corruption Perception Index, in which Nigeria consistently ranks poorly; international media organizations such as CNN, the BBC, and Reuters; and anti-government groups such as the Islamic Movement of Nigeria and the Indigenous People of Biafra.
In late 2020, for example, one such group issued a press release to “applaud the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari for the giant strides recorded in the improvement of security in Nigeria” and make the false claim that the military “has been able to restore normalcy in North West” and has incapacitated Boko Haram “in almost all the states in North-East Nigeria
Ephemerality
Many of Nigeria’s pro-government NGOs exist only in name, popping up for a few weeks before disappearing altogether. Out of the 360-plus pro-government groups identified through this research, more than 290 held just one or two press conferences in total. Fewer than 7 percent are registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission, as all NGOs are legally required to do. Likewise, very few possess any discernible digital footprint (website, Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn profile) or operate from a brick-and-mortar address.
Despite their ephemerality, pro-government NGOs are quick to label those who criticize government policies and actions as fake activists. In one such statement, a briefcase group lamented that: [We are] baffled at the eagerness some Nigerians housed under Nigeria’s reigning modern camps for idlers parading as CSOs [civil society organizations]/activists. They easily render themselves as personality attack dogs and weapons of blackmail for equally dubious characters for peanuts. They flaunt the emblem of disgusting, unscrupulous and unconscionable characters. Outside their overt partisan proclivities is the tendency of unbated exhibition of unrestrained hatred against the anti-corruption campaigns of President Muhammadu Buhari and any of his appointee [sic] who toes this path. Even as this rhetoric seeks to delegitimize those civil society activists who question the conduct of Nigeria’s often venal and increasingly authoritarian ruling class, it draws attention to the fact that most pro-government NGOs are themselves ephemeral constructs.
Despite their ephemerality, pro-government NGOs are quick to label those who criticize government policies and actions as fake activists
Legitimacy-Seeking
Even Nigeria’s shortest-lived pro-government NGOs go to great and often obvious lengths to appear legitimate. Their leaders may give themselves dubious honorifics, such as comrade, high chief, sir, or prince, or misuse real-world professional titles like ambassador or professor. Some groups attempt to bolster their credibility by presenting themselves as the voice of particular professional or social groups, such as lawyers, unemployed youth, or Nigerians living in the diaspora. To convey a corporate identity and make their press conferences more eye-catching, pro-government NGOs may employ matching, branded, or color-coordinated clothing for public events. Pro-government NGOs also seek to exaggerate their importance by impersonating genuine stakeholders or portraying themselves as nationwide coalitions of dozens—even hundreds—of unnamed civil society groups. In doing so, they seek to attach more credibility and legitimacy to their statements, implying that they represent the views of a wider social or geographical constituency. Out of the more than 360 pro-government NGOs identified for this paper, 96 had “coalition” in their name. Identifying as a coalition also imitates a strategy used by legitimate civil society groups, who sometimes form temporary coalitions to speak collectively or lobby the government on specific issues, especially during elections.
Opaque Funding
Murky financing is another common feature of Nigeria’s pro-government NGOs. Legitimate NGOs of all sizes need funds to operate, organize events, conduct training and research, pay staff, and rent office space. Most legitimate NGOs are supported either directly by grants or task-specific contracts from international development agencies and charitable foundations, or indirectly via partnerships with larger NGOs. Many disclose their funders on their website, at their events, or in their annual reports. Most international donors likewise publish details of the projects and organizations they fund.
Pro-government NGOs, by contrast, do not reveal their funding sources. Since these groups’ activities run counter to—and often explicitly oppose—the values of international donors and legitimate domestic NGOs, it can be assumed that they do not receive funds from these sources. Instead, they almost certainly are bankrolled by government entities, the military, or ruling party supporters. Although the scope and scale of this funding is a mystery, some of it likely originates from “security votes”—corruption-prone slush funds budgeted for the use of top federal, state, and security officials—or through public relations spending by SAs attached to top officials. According to sources interviewed for this paper, SAs play a key role in doing business with pro-government NGOs. Most senior officials have several such SAs, all of whom are working-level staffers.
In some cases, they will look for individuals who have a reputation for creating and effectively mobilizing briefcase pro-government NGOs and negotiate a fee for their services
Sometimes, briefcase NGO entrepreneurs will approach an SA to market their services. In most instances, however, an SA will seek out briefcase NGO operators, having convinced their principal that they have a public relations problem that can be countered using surrogates. SAs most likely to engage with surrogates include those whose portfolios cover political affairs, media, digital/new media, domestic affairs, public relations, and legal matters. SAs typically use funds gleaned from their ministry or agency’s operating budget to pay surrogates to generate positive media attention or wage attacks on behalf of their principal. In some cases, they will look for individuals who have a reputation for creating and effectively mobilizing briefcase pro-government NGOs and negotiate a fee for their services. Thus, in many respects, SAs’ use of pro-government NGOs is akin to their use of public relations consultants, sympathetic journalists, or social media warriors to help shape narratives and refute accusations of corruption or underperformance.
Ties to News Sites and “Think Tanks”
Pro-government NGOs thrive on the coverage their statements, press conferences, and public protests receive from a dozen or so of Nigeria’s newest and least-known media platforms. Some of these platforms are owned or operated by the leaders of pro-government NGOs or their close associates. Etuk Bassey Williams, for example, who leads the Coalition of Civil Society Groups—a prominent pro-military NGO—is the CEO of Al Jazirah News, a platform that affords generous coverage to his and many other pro-government NGOs.
Instead, they represent a meaningful threat to Nigeria’s democratic development, social cohesion, and long-term stability. These groups’ infiltration of one of Nigerian democracy’s few remaining strongholds—its dynamic and independent civil society space—is accelerating
Well-established media outlets also print articles featuring the activities of pro-government NGOs. It is unclear why these platforms’ career journalists do not carry out due diligence on unfamiliar NGOs or ask tough questions about their sponsors or biases. In many instances, mainstream media platforms will publish pro-government NGOs’ press statements verbatim without placing their remarks in context or seeking opposing viewpoints. Such stories could be the product of brown-envelope journalism, a widespread practice in Nigeria in which reporters accept, or even solicit, cash in exchange for placing stories. In a 2013 study, more than 75 percent of journalists surveyed admitted to accepting such gifts, sometimes euphemistically called transport money or kola nut.
Emulating their legitimate counterparts, pro-government NGOs also draw upon the work of a small number of sympathetic “think tanks” whose research—invariably unpublished—validates their views. One such entity is the Centre for International and Strategic Studies (not to be confused with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a reputable Washington, DC–based think tank). The organization does not appear to have any fulltime staff, a physical address, or a website where its analysis and other information about it and its roster of experts can be accessed.82 In January 2020, it hosted a book launch for Terrance Kuanum, an associate of Philip Agbese (see below) and spokesman for Global Amnesty Watch, a strongly pro-military NGO.83 Another briefcase think tank, the Centre for Counter-Terrorism and Preventive Diplomacy, is linked to a person named as an attorney for the Save Humanity Advocacy Centre, another prolific pro-military NGO.
Pro-Government NGO Leaders: A Closer Look
Given the ephemeral nature of many of Nigeria’s pro-government NGOs, it makes sense to look at a few prominent leaders linked to some of the subsector’s most enduring groups. Analyzing their activities and behaviors will help reveal how pro-government NGOs function and how their harmful impact on democracy, governance, and human rights in Nigeria can be addressed.
Philip Agbese: The Politician
If Nigeria’s pro-government NGOs were a constellation, Philip Agbese would be its North Star. Dynamic, articulate, and well-networked, Agbese is connected either directly or indirectly to more than forty such groups. An ethnic Idoma from southern Benue State, Agbese obtained a law degree from Middlesex University in the United Kingdom.86 He is also an aspiring APC politician. In 2020, he launched his 2023 campaign for the House of Representatives after abandoning a mooted Senate bid. Agbese is also keen to earn a reputation for philanthropy by donating money to his community and pledging to pay to send three top undergraduates from his prospective constituency to earn master’s degrees in the United Kingdom.
In a 2013 study, more than 75 percent of journalists surveyed admitted to accepting such gifts, sometimes euphemistically called transport money or kola nut
When not campaigning, Agbese writes for various media outlets, including his own online platform TheNigerian News. His articles focus on complimenting Buhari and government policies, lauding the military, and needling his own opponents. Agbese even wrote an grandiloquent op-ed to deny “blackmailing diatribes” made by “pseudo-activist[s]” that accused him of being sponsored by President Muhammadu Buhari . . . and the Chief of Army Staff and leader of the counter-insurgency operations in Nigeria, Lt. Gen. Tukur Yusufu Buratai, my most admirable Nigerian in recent times[,] of being commissioned to spearhead the campaign against the expulsion of Amnesty International (AI) in Nigeria.” He also claimed that he is “not one of those publishers who will send out my reporters or go to solicit for help from anyone because I support the Nigerian Army or President Buhari’s government. I do it very honestly and from the bottom of my heart.”
Bosede Ajibola: The Princess
Princess Bosede Ajibola is perhaps one of the most militant and highly specialized brief case NGO operators in Nigeria. In less than three years, she has made a name for herself by aggressively defending the conduct of Nigeria’s military, praising its service chiefs, and attacking its perceived domestic and international critics. Nevertheless, Ajibola’s background and personal connections are unclear, as she has no digital footprint beyond her media appearances, protest marches, and the occasional op-ed. Ajibola first appeared in the public arena in early 2019 when, under the auspices of nine different briefcase NGOs, she made a series of partisan, pro-government media forays.
In 2020, he launched his 2023 campaign for the House of Representatives after abandoning a mooted Senate bid
By early 2020, she had established her brand and settled on her primary mouthpiece: the pro-military Centre for African Liberation and Socio-Economic Rights (CALSER). Using CALSER as a platform, she subsequently held near-weekly press conferences praising the army, condemning international NGOs, and attacking the governor of Borno State for daring to criticize the military’s conduct in his state. Ajibola also excels at organizing demonstrations. In December 2019, for example, she used a briefcase group called the Movement Against Slavery and Terrorism to lead street protests against the French government, accusing them of “providing logistic support under the cover of humanitarian ‘whatever’ to the Boko Haram fighters” and blaming them for the “resurgence of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria.” Departing from her prepared script, she also claimed that: “A cargo plane was intercepted . . . in Mali, and it was all African children. Some of them were Nigerian children. And they were taken there for what? For their pedophile people to destroy the destiny of these children, and then after these children die, they harvest human organs for their own children. No child is better than any other child! We say no to France!” This extreme rhetoric echoes that used by other far-right conspiracy theorists, such as Q-Anon adherents, who frequently accuse their opponents of child trafficking and organ harvesting.
Policy Implications and Recommendations
Riding higher than at any time since the end of military rule, Nigeria’s pro-government NGOs are not a harmless nuisance or amusing political sideshow. Instead, they represent a meaningful threat to Nigeria’s democratic development, social cohesion, and long-term stability. These groups’ infiltration of one of Nigerian democracy’s few remaining strongholds—its dynamic and independent civil society space—is accelerating. Its pace and scope have reached a point that should concern and prompt pushback from legitimate civil society actors, responsible media practitioners, reform-minded government officials, and international voices.
- Emboldens bad actors. Pro-government NGOs’ illiberal rhetoric undermines domestic and international efforts to press Buhari, his military leaders, and police commanders to improve their dreadful human rights record. Their unstinting praise for the country’s leadership also makes it harder for legitimate civil society groups to hold the government accountable, advocate against problematic policies, and push for greater transparency and public oversight. In doing so, pro-government NGOs help protect Nigeria’s most abusive, illiberal, and corrupt public officials by attacking their adversaries.
- Discredits the NGO sector. The proliferation of pro-government NGOs has had a corrosive effect on Nigeria’s civil society sector by undermining its collective legitimacy. In this sense, pro-government groups succeed even when they fail, because their very existence validates the cynicism many Nigerians feel toward domestic NGOs. As Daniel Jordan Smith notes, a large proportion Nigeria’s NGOs of were created in response to the growing availability of donor monies, contributing to the average citizen’s belief that NGOs were somehow linked to a world of “fraud, deceit, and corruption.”
- Skews public narratives. Pro-government NGOs’ partnerships with little-known media outlets and ready access to more established news platforms ensures that their anti-democratic rhetoric can reach a disproportionately wide audience. The verbatim coverage these outlets afford pro-government groups’ performative press conferences suggests that they may be the result of brown-envelope journalism. Regardless, these groups’ ability to negatively influence public narratives around democracy, good governance, and human rights is a cause for concern.
Negates international assistance. Nigeria’s legitimate civil society sector is the primary conduit for international assistance focused on democracy, good governance, and human rights promotion. Pro-government groups, in contrast, are authoritarian-leaning and frequently target internationally supported civil society groups. Their activities therefore negate a substantial amount of international assistance, meaning that donors’ investments have less impact than anticipated.