Five years ago, a lawyer invited me to join a private WhatsApp group dedicated to Nigerian professionals from different fields. I joined out of deep respect for this lawyer. The engagements were stimulating, and I was pleased to be part of such a group.
Following my access to some declassified CIA documents, I wrote and circulated a piece on the group’s platform, urging Nigerians to probe our human rights activists for their roles in how foreign powers orchestrated the removal of certain leaders, including General Sani Abacha and Chief MKO Abiola. Since I mentioned the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi in the same opinion piece, many lawyers on the platform lambasted me, challenging my right to ‘desecrate’ Gani’s name. I pleaded that I was not accusing the late human rights activist of any crime but merely suggesting that his organization and others that spearheaded democratic agitation during the military years might have received funding from CIA operatives and shell companies.
As studies have shown, agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—which has played a significant role in shaping Nigeria’s economic and political landscape—often acted as fronts for the CIA. From the mid-1980s onwards, USAID was instrumental in advancing economic liberalization and democratic change in Nigeria. While USAID presents itself as a development agency dedicated to poverty alleviation, democracy promotion, and economic growth, its interventions have frequently aligned with broader U.S. strategic interests rather than Nigeria’s long-term development goals. The agency’s influence has been both economic and political, shaping key areas such as economic liberalization, governance, civil society, and democratic transitions.
Below, I critically examine how USAID influenced and, in many ways, hijacked Nigeria’s economic and political trajectory through its support for neoliberal economic policies, its role in shaping civil society organizations (CSOs), and its involvement in Nigeria’s democratic transition. By analyzing USAID’s actions, we uncover how the agency functioned as an instrument of Western control, fostering dependency rather than genuine self-sufficiency.
USAID and Nigeria’s Economic Dependence
USAID’s economic influence in Nigeria became particularly pronounced in the mid-1980s with the introduction of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs). These programs, promoted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank with USAID’s backing, sought to liberalize Nigeria’s economy, reduce government intervention, and promote free-market policies. However, rather than fostering economic growth, SAPs exacerbated poverty, widened inequality, and weakened Nigeria’s industrial base.
Through its support for SAPs, USAID reinforced Nigeria’s economic dependence in multiple ways. One of the most significant was the aggressive promotion of privatization. Under SAPs, USAID advocated for the sale of state-owned enterprises to private investors, many of whom were foreign corporations. This led to the loss of control over critical industries such as energy, banking, and telecommunications, effectively handing over vital economic sectors to multinational interests. As historian William Easterly (2006) notes, privatization in Africa, as dictated by international donors, often served external interests rather than the needs of the local population.
USAID also played a role in trade liberalization, pressuring Nigeria to lower tariffs and remove trade restrictions. This facilitated the influx of foreign goods, crippling local industries that could not compete with subsidized imports from Western countries. The consequence was a hollowing out of Nigeria’s domestic manufacturing sector, leading to job losses and increased reliance on imported goods. Scholars like Chabal and Daloz (1999) have argued that the forced liberalization of African economies by Western agencies left many states weaker rather than stronger, as domestic industries collapsed under the pressure of globalization.
Agriculture, another crucial sector, was also shaped by USAID’s policies in ways that prioritized foreign interests. Instead of supporting food security and self-sufficient agriculture, USAID-backed programs encouraged the cultivation of cash crops for export. This shift meant that Nigeria remained dependent on imported food, making the country vulnerable to global food price fluctuations. As McMichael (2012) explains, such agricultural policies often serve the interests of Western agribusiness rather than the food security of developing nations.
While these policies were framed as necessary for economic modernization, they largely favored multinational corporations and Western financial institutions at the expense of Nigerian economic sovereignty.
Read Also: The Role of USAID in Africa: Insights from White Malice
USAID and Political Manipulation in Nigeria
Beyond economic interventions, USAID played a critical role in shaping Nigeria’s political landscape through its support for civil society organizations (CSOs). While these organizations contributed to resisting military rule and advocating for democracy, their funding often came with political strings attached.
One of the ways USAID exercised influence was through shaping the narrative of political activism. USAID-funded organizations such as the Transition Monitoring Group (TMG) and the Constitutional Rights Project (CRP) became vocal advocates for democracy, but their activism was often directed towards leaders and policies that conflicted with U.S. interests. Scholars such as Mamdani (1996) have pointed out that international donors selectively support civil society actors who align with their political objectives, rather than those who genuinely represent grassroots interests.
Selective support for human rights further exposed the political nature of USAID’s involvement. While USAID-backed CSOs condemned military regimes and electoral fraud, they were largely silent on the economic injustices perpetuated by Western-led neoliberal policies. This selective advocacy created a skewed perception of governance challenges, focusing on political rights while neglecting economic exploitation. As Ferguson (1994) argues, development agencies often frame governance issues in ways that deflect attention from global economic inequalities.
USAID also engaged in electoral influence by funding election monitoring efforts in the late 1990s to support Nigeria’s transition to democracy. However, there were concerns that this funding was used to manipulate electoral processes in favor of pro-Western candidates. Scholars such as Robinson (1996) have critiqued USAID’s role in election support across Africa, noting that its involvement often serves strategic U.S. interests rather than genuine democratic consolidation.
By financing and amplifying certain voices within Nigeria’s civil society, USAID exerted indirect but significant control over the country’s political discourse, ensuring that governance reforms aligned with Western preferences.
The Neoliberal Trap: USAID’s Role in Weakening Nigeria’s Sovereignty
Beyond its direct involvement in shaping Nigeria’s economy and politics, USAID’s aid model itself functioned as a tool for economic colonization. The agency’s funding strategies ensured that Nigeria remained dependent on foreign assistance rather than building its own institutions for long-term development.
A major aspect of this economic colonization was tied aid and conditionality. Much of USAID’s financial assistance required Nigeria to purchase American goods and services, reinforcing trade imbalances. Scholars such as Moyo (2009) have criticized this form of aid, arguing that it entrenches dependency rather than fostering real economic independence.
USAID, in partnership with the World Bank and IMF, also promoted policies that trapped Nigeria in a cycle of debt, making it more reliant on international financial institutions. Debt dependency became a tool through which Nigeria’s economic policies were dictated from Washington rather than formulated based on national interests. According to Stiglitz (2002), this approach reflects a broader pattern in which international financial institutions impose policies that benefit creditors rather than debtor nations.
Furthermore, by channeling funds through foreign consultants and international NGOs, USAID weakened Nigerian institutions that could have developed indigenous solutions to the country’s challenges. This externalization of development expertise left Nigerian professionals sidelined, further reinforcing dependency on Western expertise and resources.
USAID’s Role in Nigeria’s Democratic Transition: A Trojan Horse?
The transition from military rule to democracy in 1999 is often credited as a success story of USAID-backed democracy promotion programs. However, beneath the surface, the agency’s role in engineering Nigeria’s political landscape to align with Western interests cannot be ignored.
USAID played a role in ensuring that “acceptable” candidates, particularly those who favored Western economic policies and diplomatic ties, were best positioned to win elections. This strategy mirrored similar interventions in other African countries where international donors backed candidates who would maintain neoliberal economic frameworks (Carothers, 1999).
Additionally, USAID helped design aspects of Nigeria’s democratic institutions, embedding policies that favored economic liberalization and foreign investment at the heart of Nigeria’s governance structures. This institutional engineering ensured that even with democratic governance, economic sovereignty remained constrained.
Through funding media organizations and journalist training programs, USAID shaped public narratives in a way that aligned with Western perspectives on governance and economic reform. As Herman and Chomsky (1988) argue, international media interventions often reflect geopolitical interests, influencing how democracy is conceptualized and practiced in developing nations.
While the transition to democracy was important, USAID’s involvement ensured that Nigeria’s democracy served Western economic and strategic interests as much as (if not more than) the Nigerian people.
Conclusion: The Hijacking of Nigeria’s Development
USAID’s role in Nigeria from 1985 to 1999 was not one of neutral assistance but of strategic intervention designed to align Nigeria’s economy and politics with U.S. interests. By promoting neoliberal economic policies, funding civil society organizations for political leverage, and shaping Nigeria’s democratic transition, USAID ensured that Nigeria’s sovereignty remained compromised.
While USAID’s work contributed to certain governance reforms and institutional improvements, its broader impact reveals a pattern of economic manipulation, political engineering, and external dependency. If Nigeria is to regain full control of its development trajectory, it must critically assess the influence of external actors like USAID and prioritize policies that serve national rather than foreign interests.
Be First to Comment