One of the major talking points in Africa currently is the fatal shooting by the Nigerian military of 69 young men and women demonstrating against the excesses of a police unit set up to combat robbery.

When the shootings occurred, the unit had been disbanded, but that was not enough to mollify the demonstrators, who were spurred on by this ‘victory’ to press government to accede to other demands. But, proving that a leopard never changes its spots, President Muhammadu Buhari, who, in a previous incarnation, was a military head of State, deployed trigger-happy soldiers to quell the demonstrations.

The killings were condemned by foreigners and citizens alike. Among the most strident Nigerian critics has been musician Burna Boy. He has gone to the extent of calling on the international community to impose sanctions on the powers-that-be in his motherland. These are the so-called targeted sanctions, meant to dissuade political leaders from being nasty to citizens and engaging in other forms of bad behaviour.

It’s not too difficult to understand the rationale behind Burna Boy’s plea. Buhari is known to spend extended periods in London, seeking medical attention. So, the realisation that he could be barred from travelling to London – or any other major capital – to receive treatment would make Buhari think twice before ordering the army to once again open fire on unarmed civilians or commit other human rights violations.

But do targeted sanctions produce the desired results?

What has happened in Zimbabwe over the past two decades should provide the answer. Many would recall how, in 2000, the late Robert Mugabe grabbed farmland from white citizens, ostensibly to redress land dispossession during colonial times. Mugabe also unleashed a reign of terror on supporters of a then upstart opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change.

All this prompted the US and the European Union (EU) to impose travel restrictions on Mugabe and his shopaholic wife, as well as his entire coterie. Their assets in the sanctions-imposing nations were frozen. Further, US and EU firms were forbidden from transacting with a handful of Zimbabwean parastatals deemed to be Mugabe’s enablers, such as arms manufacturer Zimbabwe Defence Industries.

But the Mugabes and their cronies were not really fazed by the targeted sanctions. To satiate her penchant for shopping, the First Lady started making frequent visits to Dubai and other places instead of Harrods, in London. The Mugabes even enrolled their daughter at a university in Hong Kong, while their sons were sent to Johannesburg, where they became notorious for drinking.

Economically, Mugabe adopted a ‘Look East’ policy, which resulted in China, especially, becoming Zimbabwe’s major benefactor.

Mugabe actually became a progressively worse leader in the post-2000 era, which proves that the targeted sanctions did not achieve the desired result.

Indeed, the current Zimbabwe government of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, just like the Mugabe administration before it, has turned the sanctions issue to its advantage. All the country’s ills – a shrinking economy, unemployment, shortages of cash and other essentials, and a dearth of foreign direct investment – are blamed on sanctions, never mind the fact that the sanctions are not aimed at the entire economy, but at specific individuals and State-owned enterprises.

The tragedy is that political leaders in the Southern African Development Community region have swallowed this dishonesty. Only late last month, marches were held in several capitals across the region to demand the lifting of the sanctions, which, according to the organisers, are hitting ordinary Zimbabweans hard. Even President Cyril Ramaphosa has parroted this line a few times. The real issue is the Zimbabwe government’s incompetence, not the so-called sanctions.