President Bola Tinubu, on Friday, March 6, approved the deployment of 65 ambassadors-designate and high commissioners to various countries and the United Nations barely two years without substantive heads of Nigeria’s foreign missions.
The deployment, however, appears to have generated controversy, according to a new PUNCH story, which claims that new diplomatic barriers have developed for Nigeria after some of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s newly chosen ambassadors were reportedly rejected by several host countries.
According to the newspaper, several of the new envoys encountered stumbling blocks, including India, where there is a restriction that an administration cannot send ambassadors if it has been in power for less than two years.
The report quoted sources familiar with the matter as saying the “Federal Government was already receiving signals from New Delhi and possibly other countries’ capitals about their reluctance to grant agrément.”
Agrément is the formal instrument of approval issued by a receiving country to accept a diplomat deployed by the sending country, and it is required before a diplomat can begin performing his duties.
Nigerians, particularly professionals, have responded to India and other nations’ rejection of envoys.
Professor Babafemi Badejo, a prominent international relations specialist, responded to the situation by explaining that the Vienna Convention requires sending governments to get an Agrément from the receiving country before dispatching an ambassador.
“I do not know if an Agrément had been obtained from India before announcing who was going there,” he said.
He further stated that India doesn’t owe Nigeria an explanation for rejecting the High Commissioner-designate, citing possible reasons such as political timing or concerns about the nominee’s personality.
He downplayed the development, claiming, “the strategic relationship between India and Nigeria is deeper than one person being rejected and the relationship will survive this development.
He criticised the Tinubu administration for not doing well on the issue of deployment of Ambassadors, especially the President’s alleged opaque style of operating foreign relations without accredited representatives for years, and now waking up to this responsibility in the dying hours of his time in office.
“He may be convinced that he will win the next election. But it’s a possibility for other countries. Some countries may have a policy of receiving Ambassadors who are only serving for just about a year,” Badejo added.
Sola Bolaji, a communication expert, while conversing with WITHIN NIGERIA described the rejection as a lapse, which may leave Nigeria’s diplomatic corps in limbo, with the current envoys’ terms potentially expiring before the next administration takes office.
“The only possible reprieve would be if President Bola Tinubu secures a second term, allowing the envoys to remain in their positions”, he said.
He also slammed the Tinubu-led administration for its “administrative lapse” and ignorance of diplomatic protocol, questioning how Abuja failed to grasp this fundamental aspect of international relations.
Abidemi Adebamiwa, a journalist, told WITHIN NIGERIA that the rejection of Nigeria’s High Commissioner-designate to India should be viewed through the lens of diplomatic discretion, rather than a snub.
The journalist, who doubles as an analyst, noted that every sovereign nation has the right to decide who represents another country diplomatically.
“If a country has an internal policy on timing of ambassadorial appointments, particularly when the sending government has less than two years left, it is within its rights to apply that policy,” he said.
He criticized the handling of the process, saying diplomacy shouldn’t be politicized and shouldn’t wait until the last minute or after international scrutiny.
“Diplomacy shouldn’t be politically handled. It should be separated from politics,” Adebarinwa emphasized.
Ogunwoye Samson, a UK-based international relations expert, told WITHIN NIGERIA that India’s rejection of Nigeria’s ambassador-designate is a routine exercise of diplomatic prerogative.
He stated that countries have the right to decide who represents another nation, and India’s decision is likely based on internal policies.
He noted various reasons for such rejections, including the ambassador’s personality, bilateral relations, and internal politics.
“India’s decision isn’t unusual; it’s probably based on their home policies,” he added.
The analyst explained that with Nigeria’s current leadership having less than two years in office, India might be avoiding potential disruptions if a new government recalls the ambassador in 2027.
“It’s a practical consideration, not an ill-conceived move,” Samson said.
He cited a precedent: Iran rejected a British ambassador in 2002, citing alleged Israeli ties, and Britain couldn’t contest it.
“Host countries have rights too. Nigeria should engage in diplomatic talks to find a way forward,” Samson advised.
