Nigeria becomes 19th African country to gain full membership of the AIIB
Nigeria has officially secured full membership in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), following approval by the Federal Executive Council (FEC) in Abuja.
Nigeria has secured full membership in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)
The membership allows Nigeria to access global infrastructure financing and diversify its development funding sources.
The AIIB, headquartered in Asia, supports sustainable infrastructure development and has a $100 billion capital base with global membership.
The move positions Nigeria as a non-regional member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), granting it broader access to global infrastructure financing and aligning with its strategic goals for economic growth and international investment partnerships.
Nigeria's membership in the infrastructure bank makes it the 19th African country to bag full membership.
As of 2021, Nigeria was listed as a prospective member.
Having now completed the legal, administrative, and financial processes necessary for accession, the country has become a full member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
As of today, 22 African countries have been approved as members, with 19 holding full membership and 3 designated as prospective members.
What Nigeria stands to benefit
During the Federal Executive Council meeting at the State House in Abuja, Minister of Finance, Wale Edun highlighted the significance of this development, stating,
" We've concluded that process now, and we are fully fledged members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is set up to promote infrastructure development and generally sustained economic growth in all its members."
Edun noted that despite the AIIB being headquartered in Asia, it welcomes non-regional members committed to sustainable infrastructure expansion.
China's stake in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is evident in its role as a top donor, giving it the largest voting share at 26.58%. India (7.59%), Russia (5.97%), Germany (4.15%), South Korea (3.49%), and Australia (3.45%) follow.
As the U.S. pulls back from its donor role in Africa, China is expanding its influence through infrastructure financing across the continent.
Nigeria's initial commitment involved subscribing to 50 shares valued at $100,000 each, totaling $5 million.
Nigeria's accession to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) represents a strategic step in diversifying its development financing sources, especially as the United States moves to end contributions to the African Development Fund (ADF), a key arm of the African Development Bank.
As one of Africa's largest economies, Nigeria stands to gain significantly from AIIB membership, both financially and geopolitically.
This membership is expected to unlock financing opportunities for key infrastructure projects and accelerate economic transformation across various sectors.
With a capital base of $100 billion and global membership, the AIIB offers Nigeria access to substantial funding for infrastructure, less dependent on Western political shifts.
As of today, the AIIB has 19 African countries designated as full members, which include the following countries listed in the table below.
S/N Country Membership Date
1 Algeria Dec 27, 2019
2 Benin May 25, 2020
3 Côte d'Ivoire Feb 26, 2020
4 Djibouti Sept 5, 2024
5 Egypt Aug 4, 2016
6 Ethiopia May 13, 2017
7 Ghana Feb 21, 2020
8 Guinea Jul 12, 2019
9 Kenya Sept 4, 2024
10 Liberia Jan 4, 2021
11 Libya Sep 12, 2023
12 Madagascar Jun 25, 2018
13 Morocco May 4, 2022
14 Rwanda Apr 16, 2020
15 South Africa Nov 24, 2023
16 Sudan Sep 13, 2018
17 Togo Dec 19, 2023
18 Tunisia Apr 29, 2022
19 Nigeria 2025
20 Tanzania Pending
21 Senegal Pending
22 Mauritana Pending
Tanzania, Mauritania, and Senegal were still listed as prospective members according to information sourced from the bank's website.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia's State Duma passes bill to create state messaging app as it considers blocking WhatsApp
The State Duma, the lower chamber of Russia's parliament, passed a bill on June 10 to create a new messaging app, the so-called "national messenger," the Duma's press service reported, as the Kremlin tries to reduce its dependency on WhatsApp and Telegram The new app "combines the features of a messenger and the functions of government services," a statement read. The news comes as Russia tries to reduce citizens' access to foreign messengers and other online services in favor of domestic applications. The new online platform is needed to increase "the availability of governmental services" and "strengthen the protection of information exchanged among users," according to the bill. The new application will be integrated into Russian state and municipal databases, and private information can be transferred with the user's consent, particularly for "identification, signing contracts, paying for services or goods." Documents submitted through the "national messenger" will be equated to paper originals. The system will also allow users to certify documents with their electronic signatures. The Russian messenger will include all "educational services and chats that educational institutions of all levels currently use." The Russian government will choose a company to develop the application. In March 2022, the Russian government blocked Facebook and Instagram. Two years later, Russia's communications regulator, Roskomnadzor, announced the blocking of Viber and Signal apps. The Russian government is also considering blocking WhatsApp, an app owned by Meta, a company labeled as an "extremist organization" in Russia. In July 2024, Russia's communications regulator, Roskomnadzor, began throttling YouTube speeds, initially blaming technical issues caused by wear and tear on Google's servers. Google dismissed the claim, while Russian lawmaker Alexander Khinshtein later confirmed the slowdowns were intentional. Read also: In African universities, Russia's war against Ukraine finds new supporters We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer's Chagos ‘surrender' will fund tax cuts for Mauritians
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos 'surrender' deal will fund tax cuts for Mauritians, it has emerged. The Mauritian government has said it would use almost £500 million in payments under the terms of the Chagos agreement to pay off its national debt. This will allow ministers to abolish income tax entirely for 81 per cent of employed Mauritians, and raise minimum salaries. Sir Keir has been criticised over the deal, which will cost the UK up to £30 billion over a 99-year period, including rent payments to use a joint US-UK military base on the Chagos Islands and creating a pot of development spending for Mauritius. Conservative and Reform MPs have said the 'surrender' of the islands, which have been owned by the UK since before Mauritius was granted independence in 1968, was unnecessary and expensive. The terms of the deal include rent payments of £165 million a year for the next three years for the Diego Garcia military base, which has been used for bombing runs by Britain and America in the Middle East. Mauritian leaders celebrated the deal as the 'decolonisation' of the Chagos Islands, which lie at the centre of the Indian Ocean and are uninhabited except for military personnel. Navin Ramgoolam, the Mauritian prime minister, has now announced that the money paid by the UK will help Mauritius cut taxes, so that 81 per cent of people in the African island nation will not pay any income tax. It comes despite warnings that Britons face tax hikes in Rachel Reeves's Budget this autumn, which is now thought to contain a black hole tens of billions of pounds large. The Mauritian reforms were announced in a budget speech by Mr Ramgoolam last Wednesday, when he said that the UK's Chagos payments for the next three years would be used to help pay off the country's national debt, which has reached 90 per cent of GDP. He said that to reach a long-term debt level of 60 per cent, the government would adjust 'both the expenditure side and the revenue side of the budget', and raise the minimum salary before an employee pays income tax to £8,073 a year. That increase, of 28 per cent, will scrap income tax entirely for 44,000 people and reduce levies on all other earners. 'As a result of the measures I have introduced, 81 per cent of employees in our country will not pay any income tax,' he said, adding that he had also decided to cut VAT on some food products. After three years, British payments for the Chagos Islands will be used for a 'future fund' to 'create wealth for future generations', Mr Ramgoolam said. Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said the announcement showed that Mauritius had taken the 'feeble and pathetic' Sir Keir 'for a ride'. 'The only people benefiting from Labour's higher taxes are the people of Mauritius,' she said. 'While causing a financial black hole in Britain, whacking up our taxes and planning further tax raids, Labour's Chagos surrender deal means families in Mauritius will see their taxes cut at our expense. 'This is an insult to hard-working British people who have once again been betrayed by Keir Starmer with millions more paying more in tax.' Announcing the deal last month, Sir Keir claimed that the deal would have a 'net cost' of £3.4 billion, with annual payments averaging £101 million a year. But documents later published by the Foreign Office showed the UK had agreed to pay as much as £30 billion over 99 years, with most of the payments increased in line with inflation. A last-minute legal challenge succeeded in delaying the signing of the deal by several hours, but was ultimately dismissed by the High Court. It comes as an expert panel commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council said that the deal should be suspended after complaints that it did not respect the rights of the native Chagossians. 'We call for the ratification of the agreement to be suspended, and for a new agreement to be negotiated that fully guarantees the rights of the Chagossian people to return to all islands of the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia,' they said. The Government has been approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
In African universities, Russia's war against Ukraine finds new supporters
The halls of academia have long been considered sanctuaries of critical thinking, intellectual discourse, and the pursuit of truth. Universities across the globe pride themselves on fostering environments where diverse perspectives can be examined, debated, and understood through the lens of scholarly rigor. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed a troubling trend within certain African academic institutions: a marked bias toward Russian narratives that undermines the very principles of academic integrity and intellectual honesty that universities claim to uphold. This bias is not merely an abstract concern about geopolitical alignment; it represents a fundamental betrayal of the educational mission that universities exist to fulfill. When academic institutions abandon objectivity in favor of political positioning, they fail their students, their communities, and the broader pursuit of knowledge that defines higher education. The stakes could not be higher as universities shape the minds of future leaders, policymakers, and citizens who will navigate an increasingly complex global landscape. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. Across various African universities, a concerning pattern has emerged since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rather than maintaining the scholarly distance necessary for objective analysis, numerous institutions have embraced narratives that closely align with Russian state propaganda. This manifests in multiple ways: academic conferences that present one-sided perspectives on the conflict, research publications that uncritically amplify Moscow's justifications for the war, and classroom discussions that frame the invasion through the lens of Western imperialism rather than examining it as a clear violation of international law. Read also: Ukraine must look beyond the EU for its agricultural future The roots of this bias are complex and multifaceted. Historical ties between the Soviet Union and various African nations during the Cold War era have created lingering sympathies that some academics appear unable to separate from contemporary realities. Additionally, legitimate grievances about Western colonial history and ongoing concerns about neocolonialism have been exploited to create false equivalencies between Russian aggression and Western influence. Some academics have conflated criticism of Western policies with support for Russian actions, creating a dangerous intellectual blind spot. Economic factors also play a role. Russian investment in African educational infrastructure, scholarship programs, and research partnerships have created institutional relationships that some universities appear reluctant to jeopardize through objective analysis of Russian actions. This economic dependence has compromised academic freedom, creating situations where financial considerations override scholarly integrity. The influence of Russian state media and disinformation campaigns cannot be overlooked. RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik have specifically targeted African audiences with sophisticated propaganda operations designed to shape public opinion. Unfortunately, some academics have proven susceptible to these narratives, either through genuine belief or through a misguided sense that amplifying Russian perspectives represents intellectual diversity. When universities abandon objectivity, the consequences extend far beyond the ivory tower. Students who receive biased education are ill-equipped to understand complex global issues, make informed decisions as citizens, or contribute meaningfully to policy discussions. They graduate with skewed worldviews that may influence their professional and personal choices for decades to come. The credibility of African scholarship suffers when institutions are perceived as politically motivated rather than academically rigorous. This damages the reputation of African universities in international academic circles, potentially limiting collaboration opportunities, research partnerships, and the mobility of African scholars. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. Perhaps most importantly, bias in academia contributes to the broader information warfare that authoritarian regimes wage against democratic values and international law. Universities that should serve as bastions of critical thinking instead become unwitting participants in propaganda campaigns designed to undermine global stability and human rights. The situation becomes particularly problematic when considering the humanitarian dimensions of Russia's war against Ukraine. Hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure have been deliberately targeted by Russian forces, creating a refugee crisis that has displaced millions of people. When universities fail to acknowledge these realities or attempt to justify them through geopolitical frameworks, they implicitly endorse violence against civilians and violations of international humanitarian law. African universities must recommit to their fundamental mission of pursuing truth through rigorous scholarship rather than serving as vehicles for political propaganda. This transformation requires several concrete steps. First, universities must establish clear guidelines for faculty regarding the difference between legitimate academic analysis and political advocacy. While scholars should be free to examine controversial topics from multiple perspectives, they must do so within frameworks that respect evidence, logic, and established principles of international law. Second, African universities must diversify their funding sources and partnership arrangements to reduce dependence on any single country or ideological bloc. The current situation, where some institutions appear reluctant to criticize Russian actions due to financial relationships, represents an unacceptable compromise of academic independence. Read also: Hiding in plain sight — how Russia's cultural centers continue to operate in US, Europe despite espionage claims Third, universities must invest in media literacy and critical thinking education for both faculty and students. The susceptibility of some academics to Russian disinformation campaigns reveals significant gaps in the ability to evaluate sources, identify propaganda techniques, and distinguish between credible and manipulated information. Fourth, African universities must strengthen their commitment to international academic standards and peer review processes. When scholars publish work that fails to meet basic standards of evidence and argumentation, it reflects poorly on the entire African academic community. Rigorous peer review can help ensure that African scholarship maintains the quality necessary for international respect and collaboration. The pro-Russian bias evident in some African universities represents more than just a misguided political position; it constitutes a surrender of intellectual independence to foreign propaganda. This is particularly ironic given that many of these same institutions pride themselves on their commitment to African independence and self-determination. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. It means acknowledging uncomfortable truths about allies while maintaining the ability to critique opponents fairly. Most importantly, it means refusing to sacrifice scholarly integrity for political convenience. African universities have a proud tradition of intellectual leadership, from their role in anti-colonial movements to their contributions to post-independence development. This legacy is endangered when institutions abandon their commitment to truth in favor of political positioning. The current moment represents a critical test of whether African higher education will live up to its historical role as a force for enlightenment and progress. The stakes extend beyond the immediate question of how to analyze Russia's war against Ukraine. Universities that compromise their integrity on this issue signal their willingness to subordinate academic standards to political considerations more broadly. This has implications for everything from scientific research to economic analysis to social policy development. African universities stand at a crossroads. They can continue down the path of political bias, sacrificing their integrity for short-term political or economic gains, or they can lead by example by recommitting to the principles of scholarly objectivity and intellectual honesty that define higher education at its best. The choice is not merely about how to analyze one particular conflict; it is about the fundamental purpose and character of African higher education. Universities that choose bias over objectivity risk becoming irrelevant to serious academic discourse and ineffective in their mission to educate future leaders. The world needs African universities that can contribute meaningfully to global conversations about complex issues. This requires institutions that maintain high scholarly standards, resist political pressure, and commit themselves to the pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads. Read also: Can South Africa lead the charge for nuclear safety in Ukraine? Submit an Opinion Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
