President Muhammadu Buhari is currently in Washington DC meeting with world leaders from 55 other countries for the 2016 World Nuclear Security Summit convened by the US President, Barack Obama. The event seeks “to provide a forum for leaders to engage with each other and reinforce our commitment at the highest levels to securing nuclear materials,” says a statement on the official website.
The Summit comes against the backdrop of global unease after terror attacks in Belgium, rising nuclear provocations from North Korea and the stubborn terrorist pall of ISIS, Boko Haram and other such spectres across the globe. With Boko Haram on its hands, Nigeria’s President has perhaps more than enough reasons to be bothered about the looming possibility of nuclear terrorism. In the lead up to the Summit, the White House had admitted that terrorists could lay their hands on some 2,000 metric tonnes of nuclear material found in both civil and military nuclear facilities around the world. In its latest Nuclear Security Index which tracks the safety of weapons-usable nuclear materials, anti-proliferation watchdog, Nuclear Threat Initiative, said that since the last Summit in 2014, there has been no improvement in a range of measures including on-site physical protection, security during transport and the ability to recover lost radioactive materials. Further fuelling this fear of nuclear terrorism is a recent video footage by investigators of last’s year Paris attacks which shows a Belgian nuclear expert at the home of one of the key suspects.
Although the Summit agenda does not specifically mention Boko Haram, part of the Summit will focus on ISIS, and we cannot afford to be naïve about the linkages. A White House statement puts it this way: “We know that terrorists have the intent and the capability to turn these raw materials into a nuclear device if they were to gain access to them,” adding that such an incident would “create political, economic, social, psychological and environmental havoc around the world, no matter where the attack occurs.” What the foregoing means is that this Summit has been convened because leaders of the industrialised world who have already travelled the nuclear road are not only aware of the possibility of terrorists laying their hands on nuclear materials but also terribly afraid of its horrendous implications.
That is why I think President Buhari is attending this Summit for the wrong reasons. In Nigeria, gaining the kind of access referred to above would be a walk in the park. However, a statement by presidential spokesman, Femi Adesina, indicates that the President is attending the Summit to reaffirm Nigeria’s stance that global nuclear security concerns should be addressed without jeopardising the indisputable right of Nigeria and other countries to harness nuclear energy and technology for socio-economic development. This statement goes to confirm recent indications that Nigeria’s government is serious about adopting the nuclear option to address the country’s energy challenges, despite warnings against the move and in spite of the benefit of global trends. At a meeting in Abuja earlier this month, President Buhari told the visiting Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, that the Federal Government would welcome greater support from the agency for Nigeria’s aspiration to begin the generation of electricity with nuclear energy. Last year, the Nigerian Atomic Energy Commission had announced that it had entered an agreement with Rosatom of Russia to cooperate on the design, construction, operation and decommissioning of its first nuclear facility in 2025 to produce 1,200mw of electricity with plan to increase installed capacity to four nuclear plants producing a total capacity of 4,800 megawatts by 2035. According to the commission, the first two facilities are proposed for Itu, Akwa Ibom State and Ajaokuta, Kogi State.
This writer works for an energy and environmental advocacy group, Policy Alert, which had repeatedly warned that the Federal Government’s plans did not conform to international standards guiding the implementation of civil nuclear programmes across the globe. Such standards impose collective safeguards and serve as a check on the quality, health, security and environmental safety of the proposed projects. The projects will put several communities and the lives of millions of people at risk. The government is also not clear on its plans to address civil liability issues in line with the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. In a country like Nigeria with a poor track record in the management of technology and other infrastructure across the country, we have every reason to be disturbed. Our findings in those communities indicate that the principle of free, prior and informed consent was disregarded in reaching the decision to earmark the communities for this project.
In addition to the secrecy that has surrounded Nigeria’s energy plans; several commentaries seem to ignore the economic dimension. Nuclear energy is widely seen as not being economically competitive as capital costs remain very high, cost and timeline overruns are common, and the relatively long construction period before revenue is returned means that risks are increased and servicing of capital costs is often transferred to utility consumers. Not so good for Nigeria in this season of privatized energy poverty!
Nuclear plants are dangerous to human populations and the environment. Nuclear contamination, radiation and accidents are ever-present dangers. The 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima disasters are classic examples. We cannot also neglect the risk of nuclear material theft by desperate terrorists and rogue insiders in the military and nuclear agencies. Besides, the process of de-commissioning a nuclear facility (or returning it back to its safe mode after it has outlived its usefulness) can be more expensive, dangerous and complicated than what went into its construction.
Nuclear business is certainly not a terrain for diplomatic bravado. Yes, Nigeria has a right like every other nation to utilize nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, but we must be reminded that every right comes with certain responsibilities. Has Nigeria demonstrated sufficient responsibility in managing even less dangerous technologies in the past? If we eventually build the proposed nuclear plants, how secure will those facilities be in a country where terrorists have been known to access and undermine military strongholds? Can Nigeria’s government be trusted to secure nuclear material from Boko Haram or other terrorists when it has failed at lesser tasks in the past? Nuclear technology is very serious business and for those who play in that league, safety is the name of the game. I do not think Nigeria’s safety and security standards right now qualify us for this league. As a people, we are still very backward with regards to maintenance culture. The story of NigComSat-1 which almost became a disaster readily comes to mind. Corruption also poses a clear and present danger as mismanagement or diversion of maintenance funds can be the only difference between a safe facility and a monumental disaster.
Nigeria is positioning as a civil nuclear wannabe at a time the world is cleaning up. More and more countries are dumping nuclear energy and embracing renewables, and Nigeria cannot afford this jump on an abandoned wagon. This Summit has been convened because developed countries with nuclear capabilities are afraid of the implications of that capacity in the face of rising global terror. Yes, they’re very afraid. Already, the Belgian government is evacuating Belgium’s two nuclear power plants in the wake of the last week’s terror attacks in Brussels. Other countries such as Germany and Sweden are phasing out nuclear power while Austria, Switzerland, Spain and a few others have discontinued the construction of new facilities.
Granted, Nigeria’s nuclear ambitions remain limited to peaceful purposes, to wit, the generation of electricity. But the reality of the country’s vulnerability due to corruption, poor maintenance culture, carelessness, mismanagement, weak homeland security and a host of other factors render the venture not just laughable, but suicidal!
PUNCH
END
Be the first to comment