Special to USAfrica magazine (Houston) and USAfricaonline.com, the first Africa-owned, US-based newspaper published on the Internet.
Amarike Akpoke is a Contributing Analyst to USAfricaonline.com
The recent diplomatic exchange between U.S. President Joe Biden and Nigerian President Bola Tinubu, following the release of Binance executive Tigran Gambaryan, raises pertinent questions about sovereignty, judicial autonomy, and the strength of Nigeria’s diplomacy. While gratitude was expressed for Gambaryan’s release, the surrounding circumstances of his detention, diplomatic pressure, and the silence from Nigeria’s side regarding what President Tinubu conveyed in response, call for further scrutiny.
Tigran Gambaryan’s eight-month detention on money laundering charges, stemming from a Nigerian government crackdown on crypto-currency activities, attracted substantial attention from U.S. lawmakers and diplomats. Amid claims of his declining health and accusations of unfair detention, U.S. authorities lobbied intensively for his release. While this intervention ultimately led to his discharge by a Federal High Court in Abuja, it also shines a light on how Nigeria handles international pressure when a high-profile foreign national is involved.
On the surface, Biden’s expression of gratitude to Tinubu might seem like a routine diplomatic gesture. However, the subtle diplomatic niceties surrounding Gambaryan’s case reveal a more complex story. Nigeria’s judiciary is meant to operate independently, yet the pressure exerted by the U.S. appears to have played a pivotal role in the executive intervention that eventually facilitated Gambaryan’s release. This development not only casts doubts on the impartiality of the Nigerian judicial system but also raises concerns about how readily Nigeria may capitulate under diplomatic pressure, particularly when the pressure emanates from a global power like the U.S.
Another facet of this situation is the glaring disparity in treatment between Gambaryan and Nigerian citizens entangled in legal battles abroad, particularly in the U.S. There is an urgent need to question why Nigerian leaders rarely, if ever, intervene with the same urgency for Nigerian nationals abroad. If Biden can leverage diplomatic channels to secure Gambaryan’s release, why has Nigeria historically not applied similar vigour in defending the rights and interests of its citizens facing detention or deportation in the U.S. or elsewhere? A genuine partnership must be reciprocal, yet Nigerian citizens are often left to navigate foreign legal systems on their own.
A case in point is the recent charges of fraud brought against Dr. Allen Onyema, Chairman of Air Peace, and his Chief of Finance, Mrs. Ejiro Eghagha, by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which have sparked significant debate and raised suspicions of a possible witch-hunt. Air Peace, under Onyema’s leadership, has carved a formidable presence in African aviation, establishing itself as a critical player on the continent and beyond. However, given the nature and timing of these charges, some see this as an attempt to stymie the rise of African excellence on the global stage, particularly in industries long dominated by Western players.
The DOJ’s accusations include alleged fraudulent transactions and obstruction of justice. Specifically, Onyema is alleged to have used Air Peace as a cover for fraud within the U.S. banking system and to have attempted to obstruct the government’s investigation. These charges follow earlier accusations of bank fraud and money laundering. However, as Onyema and Air Peace management assert their innocence, a question arises: could this be more than a straightforward legal matter? Could it be an effort to undermine Onyema’s growing success and visibility?
Onyema has, over the years, symbolized a new face of African entrepreneurship, making bold moves in a sector often sidelined for African players. From repatriating stranded Nigerians during the COVID-19 pandemic to airlifting Nigerian citizens out of conflict zones, Onyema’s contributions have transcended mere business interests. He has become an emblem of national pride and resilience. His company, Air Peace, offers a tangible example of African success, challenging global aviation’s status quo by proving that an African airline can provide efficient and safe service on par with Western airlines.
The Western world’s reluctance to embrace competitors from the Global South, particularly in sensitive industries like aviation, is not unprecedented. Africa’s attempts to establish independence in various sectors, whether in telecommunications, manufacturing, or now aviation, have often been met with barriers, not from the market but from political and legal angles. The U.S. has been known to flex its legal muscle in cases involving non-American entities, often using federal laws and investigation channels to protect what it views as American interests. Could the charges against Onyema be more about preserving a Western aviation monopoly than actual misconduct?
If there is an element of overreach, it wouldn’t be the first time Western institutions have attempted to derail African successes. The charges, which Air Peace management claims stem from past accusations, could be seen as a tactic to tarnish Onyema’s image and destabilize his company. This potential “witch-hunt” theory takes into account not only the charges themselves but the potential message being sent, which is that competition from Africa will not be tolerated in certain arenas.
As Allen Onyema, the visionary behind Air Peace, faces protracted litigation in the United States, Nigeria’s seeming indifference to supporting one of its most patriotic citizens provokes deep feelings. Onyema’s record of humanitarian actions speaks volumes. He has repeatedly sent Air Peace aircraft to rescue stranded Nigerians from perilous situations abroad, whether during the COVID-19 lockdown, the Ukrainian conflict, or other crises. These acts of goodwill, funded at his own expense, underscore Onyema’s commitment to Nigeria’s citizens. And yet, as he faces legal battles in the U.S., there has been an unsettling silence from the Nigerian government, a kind of deafening silence that contrasts starkly with the recent U.S. intervention on behalf of its own citizen, Tigran Gambaryan, in Nigeria.
This selective advocacy highlights a critical question. If the U.S. can unabashedly lobby persistently for Gambaryan’s release, why has Nigeria not demonstrated the same commitment to supporting Onyema? In Gambaryan’s case, the U.S. government pulled no diplomatic punches, with American officials lobbying Nigeria unceasingly for his release. Despite Nigeria’s concerns over the impact of his alleged shady financial activities on the country’s economy, the U.S. maintained pressure, ultimately securing his freedom. This determination from a global power is not unprecedented, as the U.S. has a track record of rigorously defending its citizens’ interests abroad. It is a principle Nigeria, too, must uphold, especially when one of its own faces the risk of reputational damage that could impact not just him, but the country’s standing in the international arena. President Bola Tinubu’s administration must understand that reciprocal diplomatic intervention is a matter of national integrity and pride. Onyema’s contributions have helped bolster Nigeria’s global image, and his private-sector-driven patriotism deserves public-sector support.
The United States’ swift response on behalf of Gambaryan exemplifies how a government should rally behind its citizens in foreign jurisdictions. In contrast, Nigeria’s lack of visible support for Onyema’s legal defence is disappointing, especially given the stakes. Rather than extending a hand to a citizen who has repeatedly put his resources toward national causes, Nigeria risks sending a signal that its citizens are left to fend for themselves when facing international legal entanglements.
Moreover, Onyema’s case is emblematic of the challenges faced by many Nigerian business leaders operating on the global stage. Should Nigeria’s silence persist, it may discourage others from similar patriotic ventures, fearing they could also be abandoned if international challenges arise. A clear message must be sent, that Nigeria values and will protect its citizens who embody the spirit of service, particularly those who have proven their loyalty through substantial actions.
It is time for President Tinubu to take a stand. Just as President Joe Biden reached out in defence of Gambaryan, President Tinubu should advocate vigorously for Onyema, initiating discussions to ensure he receives a fair and just legal process. Nigeria’s diplomatic apparatus must demonstrate the same commitment to its citizens abroad that it expects in return, establishing a precedent that Nigerian nationals are not expendable in the eyes of their government. Ultimately, Nigeria’s foreign policy and diplomatic strategy must evolve to recognize the contributions and welfare of Nigerians like Allen Onyema, who have gone above and beyond in their service to the nation. Nigeria owes it to Onyema, and to all Nigerians, to defend its citizens abroad with the same vigour that other nations show for theirs. If the U.S. can intervene to protect its citizens, Nigeria should not shy away from doing the same. For Onyema, and for Nigeria, such advocacy is not just an option; it is a duty.
While due legal process must run its course, Nigeria and indeed Africa must remain vigilant. Onyema, through Air Peace, has demonstrated that Africans can compete globally and excel, raising the standards of service and self-sufficiency. His legal struggles, if unjustified, could serve as a cautionary tale for other African entrepreneurs daring to reach the global stage. This situation calls for critical reflection and an unequivocal stance from African leaders in protecting the continent’s own and supporting the rise of businesses that contribute meaningfully to its progress.
The courts will decide Onyema’s fate, but the broader context of African entrepreneurship facing external pressures must not be overlooked. A fair trial, without political motivations, is essential. In the meantime, Nigeria and other African nations must rally around enterprises like Air Peace, which have the potential to redefine Africa’s economic narrative. If this is indeed a witch-hunt, Africa must not be silent.
Another troubling aspect of Biden’s ‘thank-you’ call is the statement issued by the family of Gambaryan referring to his “unlawful detention,” which, while expressing relief, indirectly criticized Nigeria’s justice system. Given the influence of international advocacy and public pressure on this case, it is deeply disconcerting that the Nigerian government has yet to issue a counterstatement clarifying its position. Are accusations of unlawful detention justified, or are they merely part of a narrative tailored to prompt sympathy and expedite Gambaryan’s release? What is more? The Foreign Affairs Minister, Yusuf Tuggar, shared Biden’s message to Tinubu, but notably absent from his briefing was any mention of Tinubu’s response. Was this silence a calculated decision to avoid complicating relations, or does it reflect a lack of assertiveness in Nigeria’s foreign policy? The absence of a robust defence of Nigeria’s judicial decisions in the face of international criticism is unsettling, as it reinforces the perception that Nigeria’s judiciary is susceptible to external influence.
This episode exposes a number of critical questions. First, does Nigeria’s judicial system possess the fortitude to uphold its decisions in the face of foreign influence, particularly from nations with vested interests? Second, how does Nigeria plan to address the glaring imbalance in the diplomatic treatment of its citizens abroad? And lastly, if the federal government yields to external pressure in high-profile cases, what does this imply for Nigeria’s sovereignty and the integrity of its judicial institutions?
On a final note, while diplomatic relations are essential, Nigeria’s government must also set clear boundaries to safeguard judicial autonomy and national pride. President Tinubu’s administration has a responsibility to its citizens, both domestically and abroad, and should advocate with the same fervour for Nigerians facing legal challenges internationally. Diplomatic advocacy should be a two-way street; otherwise, it risks becoming a form of interference. For a nation eager to see its entrepreneurs thrive internationally, the current legal battles of Air Peace executives in the U.S courts, with little apparent support from Nigeria to mitigate what could be construed as a witch-hunt targeting his growing influence on the global aviation stage, could be quite disturbing.
If Nigeria is to build a reputation as a nation that protects its own, then it must make the same level of commitment that the U.S. has shown in pushing advocacy for Gambaryan’s release. Supporting Onyema is not merely about assisting a single businessman; it is about reinforcing a message to the world that Nigeria stands by its citizens and will fiercely advocate their rights and dignity, no matter where they are. Nigeria must not be a passive observer when the credibility of one of its most dedicated citizens is under threat on foreign soil. The stakes are too high to ignore. Nigeria deserves leaders who will defend its sovereignty and stand up for its citizens with the same conviction that President Biden has demonstrated for Americans abroad. This is the reciprocal diplomatic commitment Nigerians deserve, especially in times of trial.
