Nigerians, political parties, and civil society organizations have reacted to the appointment of ambassadors-designate to Nigeria’s foreign missions and multilateral posts.
On Friday, March 6, President Bola Tinubu authorized the appointment of 65 ambassadors-designate to Nigeria’s overseas missions and multilateral postings, including the United Nations.
Recall that 34 non-career ambassadors and 31 career diplomats were earlier confirmed in December by the Senate after the president nominated them.
However, the publication elicited reactions, most notably significant criticism from Nigerians and political groups, particularly the African Democratic Congress (ADC), who labeled the list as a “diplomatic blunder” and “evidence of incompetence”.
Bayo Onile, a socio-political analyst, responded to the posting by claiming that some ambassadors-designate, including Femi-Fani Kayode and Reno Omokri, were awarded for political allegiance rather than diplomatic expertise.
Onile also raised concern about earlier utterances attributed to the duo that undermined or mocked the President’s respected seat.
According to Onile, certain ambassadors, such as Femi Fani-Kayode, were recruited for political gain, while others, such as Reno Omokri, were recruited to swap sides.
On the other hand, Onile urged ambassadors-designate to demonstrate diplomatic expertise and work tirelessly for Nigeria’s growth and progress.
According to legal practitioner Peter Durodola, some ambassadors-designate do not have clean criminal records.
Durodola stated that others had previously served as governors and senators and were suspected of corruption or misappropriation of funds.
He also voiced concern about the Department of State Services’ incapacity to adequately vet and screen the list before it was distributed to foreign missions.
“It will be an embarrassment if hosts return ambassadors-designated to home countries on the basis of being involved in money laundering” , Durodola stated.
Ken Nicholas, another legal practitioner, described the posting of ambassador-designates as a result of regional imbalance, abuse of federal character, and brazen disregard for diplomatic skills.
He accused Tinubu’s administration of using diplomatic posts as ornaments in a market of shamelessness.
In a similar vein, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) issued a statement denouncing President Bola Tinubu’s administration for the posting of ambassadors-designate, calling it a “diplomatic blunder” and proof of incompetence.
According to Bolaji Abdullahi, ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, the government announced 65 ambassadorial posts without obtaining the necessary approval from host nations, which violates recognized diplomatic protocol under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
The ADC questioned the announcement’s timing, which came more than three months after Senate confirmation, and raised alarm about its incomplete nature, with 44 foreign missions still without ambassadors.
The full statement read:
After nearly three years in office, and three months after the Senate confirmation of the ambassadors, today’s announcement by the State House puts the cart before the horse and demonstrates the Tinubu administration’s inability to grasp the basic protocol of diplomatic relations.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, particularly Article 4, a sending state must first obtain the consent, known as agrément, of the receiving state before officially appointing or announcing a head of mission. Requests for agrément are a foundational principle of international diplomacy and are normally done through diplomatic channels.
By announcing appointments and then requesting consent, it indicates that the government does not know what it is doing. You cannot announce postings and say in the same statement that you are just requesting agrément. This absurdity becomes even more apparent when one considers that the receiving country reserves the right to accept or reject a nomination after conducting its due diligence. It is in order to save the sending country the embarrassment that a rejection may cause that the process is usually done behind the scenes. But this government does not get it.
After the blunder of similarly announcing postings to the UK, the United States and France last year, including sending an unscreened ambassador to Turkey, we would have expected the government to learn its lessons and course-correct.
Characteristically, the Tinubu government appears more concerned with responding to political pressure than doing the right thing. The question to ask is: why did it take the government more than three months after nominating these ambassadors before now requesting consent? We also note how conspicuously silent the government is on the US mission.
Equally troubling is the incomplete nature of the announcement itself. Nigeria maintains 109 diplomatic missions around the world, yet the government has only announced 65 ambassadors. What happens to the remaining 44 missions? Are those posts to remain vacant indefinitely while Nigeria’s diplomatic presence continues to shrink at a time of rising global uncertainty? Is Nigeria closing down or degrading these missions? What strategy would have informed this choice?
The Tinubu government has 449 days left. And like we have repeatedly warned, this may be the first administration in Nigeria so incompetent that it could not even appoint ambassadors at a time Nigeria needs to sit at the table at the highest levels of global governance. The damage that would do to the country is indeed hard to contemplate.
