Follow Us on Google
-
Absence of envoys in critical nations weakening relations with international community, diplomats say
By Omoniyi Salaudeen and Aidoghie Paulinus, Abuja
The on-going diplomatic tension between the US and Nigeria has intensified criticism against President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over the prolonged absence of Nigerian ambassadors in key diplomatic missions worldwide.
The criticism centres on the fact that a diplomatic vacuum created by the long delay in appointments was acutely felt during the events leading to Nigeria’s designation as a Country of Particular Concern and the subsequent threat of military action issued by President Donald Trump. Over two years ago, precisely in September 2023, President Tinubu ordered the recall of all 109 Nigerian ambassadors, career and non-career. Since then, most of Nigeria’s missions worldwide, including the strategic embassy in the United States, have been run by lower-ranking officials called Chargés d’Affaires or senior mission officers. The prevailing argument is that the current diplomatic crisis highlights how the delay in political appointments is now posing a direct threat to Nigeria’s national interest and sovereignty. Critics, including civil society groups and former diplomats, argue that the absence of substantive, politically appointed ambassadors has gravely weakened Nigeria’s ability to respond to the US threat.
According to experts, Chargés d’Affaires, while managing day-to-day affairs, lack the political clout and direct access to foreign heads of government, key lawmakers, and policymakers that a Senate-confirmed Ambassador who represents the President possesses. Now, the widely held public opinion is that controversy over Christian persecution has been fuelled by a lack of lobbying efforts in the US Congress. Without a full ambassador in Washington DC, analysts say, Nigeria is seen as having missed a critical opportunity to engage in proactive, high-level lobbying to counter the negative narratives that led to Trump’s public threat and the CPC designation. It is believed that the two-year delay portrays Nigeria as a country with a diplomatic drift, unable to project a strong, coherent foreign policy posture when faced with pressure from a powerful strategic partner like the United States.
In the opinion of many stakeholders, a designated ambassador could have immediately engaged with the US State Department and White House to provide detailed, verifiable facts on Nigeria’s complex security situation, rather than relying solely on press statements from Abuja.
Prof Bolaji Akinyemi, former Minister of External Affairs, has been one of the most prominent critics, stressing that diplomacy requires constant, high-level personal contact that a Charge d’Affaires cannot provide. His words: “I think the President owes us really an explanation. This delay cannot be attributed to a lack of funding. Governments gauge a nation’s sentiment and assess their own performance by the presence of fully functioning embassies.
“The absence of ambassadors does not deny us information. But diplomacy runs on ambassadorial contact, the interaction between governments and ambassadors. We need to fill the vacant posts. Ambassadors should return to their posts as soon as possible.”
A Diplomatic Relations Specialist, Dr. Folawiyo Olajoku, also corroborated Akinyemi’s argument, saying the absence of career diplomats hinders Nigeria’s ability to coordinate international security.
“Chargés d’affaires and other lower-level diplomatic staff are handling day-to-day operations, but they lack the authority to engage with foreign leaders at the same level as ambassadors. This limitation hinders Nigeria’s ability to protect its interests, secure trade deals, and coordinate international security efforts.
“Junior diplomats or Charge de Affaires cannot take the place of ambassadors as they are limited in his access and recognition. This inexplicable absence of representation has affected the quality of our engagement and relationships with the countries hosting our missions all over the world,” he stated.
Alleged panic move to restate ambassadors
There are strong indications that the Presidency is attempting to fast-track or finalise the ambassadorial list to mitigate the tension with the US. Authoritative sources indicate that the long-awaited list of ambassadorial nominees is currently undergoing a final, rigorous review by the Federal Government to ensure it is updated and reflects only qualified, available candidates. Security agencies, particularly the Department of State Services (DSS), reportedly concluded the vetting and background checks on a number of the political and career nominees earlier this year. The delay itself necessitated a review, as some initially shortlisted career diplomats require replacement before the list is submitted to the National Assembly. The final hurdle remains the transmission of the consolidated list to the Senate for screening and confirmation—a step the Presidency has been expected to take for several months.
Critics see the speed-up as a direct, panicked reaction to the diplomatic crisis caused by Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the continuation of the US listing of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) on religious freedom. They argued that the government should have acted decisively long before a crisis forced its hand. According to them, the absence of a strong diplomatic front means Nigeria is less able to protect its image and interests abroad, making it vulnerable to external political pressure and negative international narratives.
While the move to finally appoint ambassadors is welcome, they believe that the sequence of events confirms that the administration only acted when its back was against the wall in a high-stakes diplomatic confrontation.
List of losses
As controversy surrounding the US military threat rages, former Nigerian envoys have explained the damaging effects of the prolonged absence of ambassadors in foreign missions on Nigeria’s image abroad. They maintained that the presence of an ambassador in Washington DC could have helped Nigeria in resolving the issues precipitating the threat of military action by the United States.
In an interview with Sunday Sun, a former Chargé d’Affaires, Embassy of Nigeria in Mexico and Singapore, Ambassador Ogbole Amedu Ode, noted that the non-appointment and deployment of principal envoys at the ambassadorial level by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to man the nation’s key diplomatic missions had dragged on for more than two years.
Ode, a former Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said after the recall of the principal envoys, it was expected that by now, their successors would have duties in the various diplomatic capitals across the world. “That is not the case right now. As stated earlier, it might look as if it does not matter, but in the strict hierarchical order of the world of diplomacy, seniority in rank or position, Nigeria may be missing out.
“For example, in PBAT’s state visits to France and South Africa, it is pertinent that substantive heads of mission are on the ground in order to be granted the level of courtesies that are required in an outing such as it is found on the occasion of state visits.
“Viewed from the perspective of the raging controversy over the designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern by the Trump administration, the absence of substantive heads of mission in our mission, brings to the fore, the imperative of ensuring that there’s no lacuna for a prolonged period of time in diplomacy management process. It is highly likely that with an astute diplomat in the saddle in Washington DC as Ambassador, he or she would have deployed his or her diplomatic skills to water down Trump’s eventual pronouncement on our country,” Ode stated.
He said at the level of career diplomats who had been expecting their maiden outing as ambassadors, the delay was already impinging on their morale and their productivity. “For them, time is of the essence to fulfil their career objectives. In fact, we recently lost one of them to the cold hands of death,” Ode added.
Also speaking, a former Charge d’Affaires, Embassy of Nigeria in Algeria, Ambassador Gani Lawal, described the absence of ambassadors in many countries as an ill wind that blows no good to any country, saying it is like shooting one’s self in the foot.
Other News
He succinctly put his argument thus: “Having an ambassador in any country serves five main reasons. “It is making a bold statement that you are part of and present in the international community.
“It accentuates the respect, recognition and affinity you have for your host country.
“It also enhances your relationship with the host country and makes relationship smooth, warm and cordial.
“It allows both countries to get things done quickly, decisively, factual and devoid of any guesswork in terms of information sharing.
“It leverages the status of citizens of both countries living in each other’s space.”
Flowing from the advantages, Lawal said, one could imagine the disadvantages that not having ambassadors in a particular country could have on a nation.
“An ambassador is a principal representative of a sending country that enjoys shared status with the head of state of that country. That explains the latitude, privileges and position that an ambassador holds in the host countries such that his statements and actions reflects the love, friendship and behaviour of his country and by extension, its head of state. Countries view downgrading your embassy representation to the status of charge d’affaires with contempt and denigration,” he explained.
The President and Founder of the Association of Foreign Relations Professionals of Nigeria (AFRPN), a think-tank of foreign relations practitioners both serving and retired that offers opinion to government on foreign policy, further said that one can then imagine how a country without an ambassador will be treated or what will be its lot in the community of nations when decisions are being made. “It’s like not being at the dinner table where the food is being served, which means you either get the poor part of the food or the remnants.
“Ambassadors are the foot-soldiers and watchdogs of their countries in implementation of decisions, memorandums, agreements and rules that govern the relationship of countries among each other. They oil and personify the diplomatic courtesies countries enjoy among each other.
“So, not having an ambassador can be said to have played a vital role in designating Nigeria wrongly as a CPC when there is no credible platform to correct a wrong impression being created as a result of wrongly perceived media frenzy, propaganda, misrepresentation, mischaracterisation, disinformation, de-marketing or ill will born by adversaries of Nigeria, both from within and without.
“Imagine the good image, commercial and investment friendly environment the Tinubu government might be building for Nigeria, all will come to naught without his ambassadors evangelising the ingredients or marketing the wares of such efforts,” he added.
Lawal maintained that the Federal Government was missing the very vital and important reasons embassies were created in countries’ capitals around the world. “Imagine the information traffic, body language, positive dialogue and vivid demonstration of the real facts through lectures and engagement with stakeholders in various countries that would have followed any idea of Christian genocide. Were Nigerian ambassadors in place to exchange factual and highly confidential information with their hosts on the subject as opposed to media frenzy, second-hand and pirated opinions on the subject, Nigeria would not have earned this wrong credentials from US, UK and recently Canada.
“Even if the agenda of US is towards another aim, the campaign of Nigerian ambassadors around the world would have put paid to such agenda,” Lawal concluded.
Dissent views
However, a former Commandant of Army Signals and Commander of Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) General Ishola Williams, in his response to the discourse, expressed disagreement, saying the presence of an Ambassador in the US would not have changed Trump’s mind about his decision to designate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern.
Speaking with Sunday Sun in a telephone interview, he said: “I don’t buy what people are saying. I disagree completely. Why I disagree is that even if we have an Ambassador in Washington in this regime, there is no way that Ambassador could have stopped the threat from President Trump. Right from his first term, Trump has told the whole world that he represents Evangelical Christians in the United States. And those Evangelical Christians have representatives in Nigeria who have been writing to the US. Nigerians in the US have also been writing to the White House for the past ten years or so. So, this is not something new, it is something that has been on-going for so long.
“Evangelical Christians in America are now more influential than at any other time under President Trump. People also forget that before Trump made his decision, there must have been advisers who are convinced from the report they got about the killings that have been going on for the past ten years or more.
“During the time of Jonathan, Tinubu as an opposition spokesman condemned the killings. So, what are we talking about? This is not the case of Ambassadors.
“Secondly, in the United States, lobbying is part of the ecosystem. So, if we have an Ambassador there and we don’t have lobbying on the part of the government, it won’t change anything. If you want your voice to be heard, you have to lobby the congressmen and the White House. We haven’t got that.
“Again, American government has been working with Nigeria on intelligence. But when they discovered that intelligence they were giving to Nigerian military force was being leaked to Boko Haram, they stopped. I don’t know what is wrong with us in Nigeria, we appear like people who do not think. We have refused to apply the right solution.
“To me, there seems to be a conspiracy at the level of government. It is only political solution that can solve the problem. Gunmi has told the whole world that security agents know where the bandits are. So, what are we talking about?”
