How politically controversial nominees, from partisan enforcers to disputed institutional leaders, undermine Nigeria’s diplomatic credibility and why the Senate must reclaim its constitutional oversight role.
Nigeria’s latest ambassadorial nominations reveal something deeper than a routine administrative action. They expose a recurring structural flaw in our governance culture: the persistent elevation of presidential preference over national interest. At a time when Nigeria’s global reputation is fragile, when economic diplomacy is central to national survival, and when millions of Nigerians abroad face rising vulnerabilities, from immigration crackdowns to xenophobic policing, diplomatic appointments can no longer be treated as political compensation packages.
This moment must be understood against the backdrop of the foreign-policy vacuum I analysed in my Business a.m. backpage column published on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, titled “Nigeria’s Diplomacy Without Diplomats: A Foreign Policy Vacuum in an Era of Global Recalibration.” In that piece, I warned that Nigeria was navigating global upheaval without the diplomatic presence necessary to interpret, defend, or project its interests. That vacuum, created by the recall of all ambassadors in September 2023 and the absence of replacements for nearly two years has now resurfaced as context for an even deeper institutional dysfunction.
On September 2, 2023, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu recalled all Nigerian ambassadors and high commissioners, directing them to formally disengage from their host governments by October 31, 2023. It was presented as a strategic recalibration. Instead, it triggered a paralysis with few parallels in Nigeria’s diplomatic history.
For two years, Nigeria’s foreign missions operated without substantive heads. Embassies, critical instruments of national representation, became administrative shells, visible but voiceless. Charge d’affaires and consular officers did their best, but without the political authority or diplomatic weight required to negotiate, intervene, or advocate meaningfully on behalf of the country.
This vacuum mattered. It mattered because 2024 and 2025 were not ordinary years. ECOWAS teetered on the brink. The Sahel realigned toward new geopolitical sponsors. BRICS expanded aggressively. Global migration politics hardened. Investment competition intensified. And the world braced for the return of Donald Trump to the White House. Through it all, Nigeria, the supposed giant of Africa, was diplomatically absent. The cost of that absence cannot be overstated.
On 4 December 2025, at 8:59 p.m., the federal government finally released the full list of 68 ambassadorial nominees, forwarding them to the Senate for confirmation. After more than two years without ambassadors, that list should have been a moment of clarity and correction, a declaration that Nigeria was ready to re-engage the world with seriousness, competence, and strategic intent. Especially given President Donald Trump’s decision to classify the Republic as a Country of Particular Concern, an action that has ignited intense national and international conversations. Instead, it raised more questions than it answered.
A country recovering from a diplomatic blackout should not present a list that appears shaped more by domestic political considerations than by national purpose. Yet, the composition of the nominees suggests that presidential preference still prevails over the attributes required for effective global representation.
To appreciate the gravity of what is at stake, we must recognise that ambassadors are not ornamental figures. They are not emissaries of presidential affection. They do not serve at the pleasure of political reward structures.
Ambassadors are, in the purest sense, the Nigerian state projected abroad. Their posture becomes the national posture. Their words become state policy. Their missteps ripple into bilateral consequences.
The Nigerian in distress at Heathrow or Johannesburg does not meet “Mr. President’s friend.” They meet Nigeria. The multinational investor in Singapore does not negotiate with a political appointee; they negotiate with Nigeria. Diplomatic credibility is not a courtesy. It is a national currency.
The vigorous public debate around names like Reno Omokri and Femi Fani-Kayode underscores why ambassadorial appointments must never be treated as political concessions. The issue is not whether they ultimately get confirmed; it is that their names were included on the list transmitted to the Senate in the first place. Their appearance on that list, and the public controversy that followed, exposes how Nigeria continues to blur the line between political visibility and diplomatic suitability.
Both men are prominent political communicators. Both are deeply polarising. Their public profiles, built on partisan combat, digital aggression, and emotionally charged rhetoric, may yield domestic relevance, but diplomacy demands the opposite: restraint, emotional intelligence, measured communication, and the ability to build trust across ideological divides.
An ambassador’s digital record is now part of their diplomatic dossier. Host countries monitor public behaviour. Diaspora communities judge accessibility and temperament. A single impulsive post can trigger diplomatic strain or diaspora panic.
This is not about personal hostility. It is about public confidence. Nigerians abroad must be able to approach their ambassador without fear of political judgement. Host countries must trust that Nigeria’s envoy is a serious, stable figure capable of representing 220 million citizens.
Another name that surfaced in public discourse is Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, the recently retired INEC chairman. Regardless of where one stands on the contested narratives surrounding the 2023 elections, the fact remains that his tenure ended amidst national debate over electoral credibility.
In diplomacy, perception matters as much as fact. A nominee whose public image is still tied to unresolved national controversies, fairly or unfairly, cannot immediately transition into the role of a country’s chief representative abroad. Nigeria cannot afford an ambassador whose presence reopens domestic wounds or invites external scrutiny.
This is not a judgement on Yakubu’s character. It is recognition that ambassadors must be figures capable of unifying, not dividing; calming, not inflaming; representing, not reminding.
The deeper institutional failure does not rest solely at the feet of the Presidency. It lies with the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which has steadily abdicated its constitutional duty.
Under Section 171(2) (c) of the 1999 Constitution, the Senate is empowered, and expected, to scrutinise ambassadorial nominees. Confirmation hearings were designed as guardrails against excess, not photo opportunities for visiting appointees.
Yet, recent Senate confirmations have become rubber stamps, except that of the newly appointed Minister of Defence. Too many nominees glide through without rigorous questioning. Too many lawmakers treat confirmation as a political courtesy owed to the President rather than a constitutional duty owed to the Republic.
The consequences of this dereliction are exported abroad. It is in foreign capitals, not in Abuja, that Nigeria pays for weak Senate oversight. And it is the Nigerian citizen abroad, not the elected senator, who feels the cost.
Diplomacy today is vastly different from what it was a decade ago. Host countries now demand credible partners in migration enforcement, counter-terrorism, trade negotiations, and digital regulation. National reputations increasingly shape visa access, student enrolment, investment inflows, and the treatment of diaspora communities. Nigerians abroad are facing heightened immigration enforcement at the very moment global investment competition has become cutthroat. Xenophobia and racial profiling are on the rise, global politics is increasingly volatile and transactional, and digital diplomacy now requires disciplined, measured communicators. In such a world, Nigeria must not send envoys who trigger anxiety rather than confidence.
Nigeria must make a decisive shift. Ambassadorial appointments must be grounded in competence, emotional stability, non-partisanship, moral authority, public trust, a genuine understanding of global diplomacy, and the capacity to manage crises under pressure. These qualities are not optional; they are the minimum requirements for representing a nation of more than 200 million people in an increasingly unforgiving world. This is not an attack on presidential authority; it is a defence of the Republic. The President nominates, but the Senate must refine, because the Constitution intentionally created that balance to prevent the concentration of power and to ensure the nation is represented by its best.
Nigeria cannot protect its diaspora, attract investment, negotiate favourable bilateral agreements, or participate meaningfully in global affairs if its diplomatic corps continues to be shaped by personal loyalty rather than national need. The consequences of such choices are real: families stranded, investors discouraged, host governments unconvinced, and Nigeria’s global reputation weakened.
The world is shifting rapidly. Reputation now determines economic opportunity, and credibility has become geopolitical currency. In an era where nations are judged instantly, through headlines, diplomatic signals, and digital footprints, Nigeria cannot afford to be represented by individuals who undermine, rather than enhance, its standing. Nigerians abroad depend on a state that can show up when it matters, one capable of engaging host governments with clarity, tact, and professionalism, not a state distracted by the dramas, controversies, or excesses of its appointees. Diplomacy is not a platform for experimentation, sentimentality, or domestic political reward.
Nigeria has already paid heavily for more than two years without ambassadors; the vacuum weakened relationships, stalled negotiations, and left citizens vulnerable. It must not now pay again for ambassadors chosen for the wrong reasons. The Republic must choose competence over comfort, national interest over presidential preference, and seriousness over symbolism. Our foreign policy posture must reflect discipline, vision, continuity, and responsibility, values that strengthen a nation’s voice in a noisy world.
Nigeria cannot afford diplomacy by indulgence, not now, and not in this world.
business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
