Can Nigeria Afford $2bn Yearly To Fight Niger?—CPPE Gives Seven Reasons Why Military Attack Is Almost Impossible

The Centre For the Promotion of Private Enterprises (CPPE) has said that it will cost Nigeria at least $2bn annually to execute a war campaign in Niger Republic.

The Chief Executive Officer of the CPPE, Muda Yusuf made the disclosure in a reaction sent to THE WHISTLER.

Nigeria and the Economic Community of West African (ECOWAS) States are exploring military options to sack the coup regime led by General Abdourahmane Tchian.

President Mohamed Bazoum was overthrown on July 26 2023 by Tchiani-led military.

Tchiani has declared a no-fly zone in Niger and has rejected all diplomatic efforts to restore democracy in the country.

Yusuf said the last intervention Nigeria did in Sierra Leone cost it $4bn and lost 700 soldiers during war.

According to him, Nigeria is not fiscally prepared for a reoccurrence of such.

Yususf also noted how ECOMOG intervention in Liberia cost Nigeria $8bn and 80 per cent of the 16,000 troops were Nigerian soldiers.

“It will be difficult to accommodate such huge financial commitment at this time without putting a serious strain on our fiscal operations and foreign reserves,” he said.

He explained seven reasons why military action will take a toll on the Nigerian economy.

Here Are Seven Reasons Why Nigeria May Not Attack Niger

1. Nigeria’s current balance of payment position is weak and may not be able to support any major military engagement outside our shores. Our external sector is fragile, posing a profound challenge of currency volatility.
2. The worsening of the external sector would adversely impact investors confidence , weaken growth prospects and decelerate the pace of economic recovery.
3. In a war situation, there are inherent risks of destruction of assets, damage to infrastructures, disruption of the livelihoods of innocent citizens, softening of investors’ confidence, deceleration of investment growth, aggravation of country risk and the dampening of GDP growth prospects.
4. Recent reforms by the current administration have impacted positively on the fiscal consolidation efforts. Prospects of fiscal deficit reduction in the near term looks very bright. However, in the event of a military intervention in Niger, these gains may be eroded. The reason being that we would see an escalation in the defense budget which would trigger a surge in fiscal deficit, worsening of inflationary pressures and a spike in debt levels and related debt service burden.
5. Resources that would have been used for the funding of critical infrastructures such as roads, electricity, education health railway system would be deployed to funding military operations. While it may be easy to determine the commencement of a military campaign, it is often difficult to predict the duration, scope, intensity, dimension and the ultimate cost. Military operations are typically dynamic. Underlying assumptions may change as the military operations progress. And this may have significant budget implications.
6. If Nigeria decides to go ahead with a military campaign in Niger, our defense spending may have to increase substantially possibly by 100% or more. Over 70% of the spending would have to be foreign exchange. Though the military option would be an ECOWAS decision, the burden of prosecuting the operation would have to be borne substantially by Nigeria. These are scenarios we need to worry about.
7. Characteristically, it is difficult to predict what the scope of a military engagement because of the dynamic nature of such operations. Extant strategies may therefore not capture all the variables, many of which may unforeseen. The ECOMOG story is a classic example.