The Troubling Impact of Career Politicians As Ambassadors

After a 600-day hiatus following the recall of envoys in 2023, Nigeria’s recent ambassadorial nominations have sparked debate. The touted list includes former governors Okezie Ikpeazu (Abia) and Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi (Enugu), ex-senator Shehu Sani, controversial media personality Reno Omokri, polarizing politician Femi Fani-Kayode, and former Lagos deputy governor Femi Pedro, and while the inclusion of GTBank founder Fola Adeola, a respected technocrat with a legacy of excellence offers hope, offers a glimmer of hope, the list is dominated by career politicians whose credentials for diplomacy are dubious. Many of these individuals lack foreign policy expertise and carry baggage, including allegations of corruption or partisan divisiveness, and their inclusion reflects political patronage rather than merit, undermining Nigeria’s diplomatic needs.

The need for strategic diplomatic figures cannot be overemphasised. Nigeria’s foreign policy has been inconsistent. This is highlighted in its relationship with Niger Republic, a neighbor embroiled in political turmoil since the 2023 coup. Despite Nigeria’s role as a regional stabilizer—providing subsidized petrol and electricity to Niger—the latter has reciprocated with hostility, imposing stringent visa restrictions on Nigerians. This paradox highlights the consequences of a weak diplomatic strategy.

Nigeria’s fuel subsidies to Niger, estimated at $2 billion annually, are a lifeline for the landlocked nation. Similarly, Nigeria supplies 70% of Niger’s electricity through the Niger Delta Power Holding Company. Yet Niger’s military junta has barred Nigerian travelers, citing “security concerns,” while allowing free movement to other ECOWAS nationals. This imbalance reveals Nigeria’s failure to leverage its economic support for diplomatic gains. A skilled ambassador could negotiate reciprocal benefits, such as eased travel restrictions or joint security efforts against Sahelian terrorism or sue for the release of their imprisoned President, Mohamed Bazoum. Instead, Nigeria’s reliance on politically motivated envoys who often lack the expertise to navigate such complexities perpetuates the status quo.

The Niger debacle also reflects broader regional tensions. While Nigeria leads ECOWAS in advocating for democratic restoration in Niger, its ambassadorial appointments signal a lack of seriousness. A technocratic envoy with expertise in conflict resolution and economic diplomacy could mediate more effectively, balancing regional solidarity with national interests. Nigeria’s foreign policy risks becoming a patchwork of contradictions without such strategic appointments.

Globally, ambassadorial appointments are strategic decisions. Countries like the United States, China, and Rwanda prioritize envoys with niche expertise. Economists for trade hubs, security experts for conflict zones, or technocrats for multilateral institutions. For example, the U.S. often appoints seasoned diplomats (Linda Thomas-Greenfield to the UN) or sectoral experts (climate envoys like John Kerry) to advance specific agendas. Similarly, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame has deployed lawyers and economists to key posts to attract investment and reshape the country’s global image.

In contrast, Nigeria’s approach under President Tinubu appears myopic. By rewarding allies like Femi Pedro, whose tenure as Lagos deputy governor saw limited economic innovation or Shehu Sani, a grassroots activist with no foreign policy pedigree, the government undermines the strategic essence of diplomacy. Ambassadors are not ceremonial figures; they are frontline negotiators who must understand global markets, security dynamics, and cultural nuances. Sending underqualified envoys to critical posts—such as the U.S., China, or the UN—jeopardizes Nigeria’s ability to secure favorable trade deals, attract foreign investment, or advocate for better diplomatic deals.

The Tinubu administration’s pattern of nepotism further exacerbates this issue, and the alleged names suggest that many nominees have personal ties to the president or his political network, reinforcing perceptions of a “jobs-for-the-boys” system. This practice contradicts Tinubu’s inaugural pledge to “renew hope” through competent governance.

Nigeria stands at a crossroads. Its ambitions to lead Africa economically and politically hinge on a robust foreign policy apparatus. Yet, the current ambassadorial list—with its emphasis on political patronage—suggests a troubling indifference to diplomatic excellence. The Tinubu administration must recognize that embassies are not retirement homes for loyalists but strategic outposts for national advancement, and while the inclusion of Fola Adeola offers a glimmer of hope, the time for half-measures is over; Nigeria’s future as a global player demands diplomatic heads with skin in the diplomatic game.