NIGERIA AND THE DIPLOMATIC ARENA

The prolonged absence of ambassadors in strategic capitals of the world  have  created a diplomatic vacuum at a critical moment, contends Kalu Okoronkwo

Over the weekend, a quiet but damning revelation in Sunday Punch, landed like a tonardo: several countries are reportedly uneasy about receiving newly appointed Nigerian Ambassadors and High Commissioners barely a year to the end of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s tenure. It is the kind of diplomatic embarrassment that does not trend on social media yet resonates loudly in foreign capitals and an unmistakable signal that Nigeria, once Africa’s diplomatic anchor, is now struggling for recognition in global politics.

If true, (and there is every reason to believe it is), then Nigeria is sinking deeper into diplomatic quagmire. The Tinubu administration has operated without ambassadors for almost three years to the consternation of most Nigerians. At a time Nigeria needs to engage on all fronts as a result of serious domestic challenges: insecurity, economy, etc., our Missions abroad are left unmanned.  In diplomatic practice, the appointment of Ambassadors is not a casual domestic affair. It requires painstaking processes to ensure that the best hands are appointed to ensure effective representation. When they are posted, a formal consent of the receiving state is required through the presentation of Letter of Credence to the President or head of government of the host country.

Under Article 4 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, no Ambassador can be accredited without the prior consent (agreement) of the receiving state. Crucially, the Convention imposes no obligation on the host country to justify a refusal. A nominee may therefore be rejected outright and without explanation, whether due to concerns about competence, political history, perceived hostility, prior public statements, intelligence assessments, age or health considerations, or even the timing and expected tenure of the appointment.

To announce ambassadorial postings so late in the life of an administration betrays not only lack of urgency, but confusion; not strategy, but an alarming absence of statecraft.

In September 2023, Nigeria’s foreign policy machinery lurched into deep uncertainty when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu ordered the recall of all Nigerian Ambassadors and High Commissioners worldwide. In one sweeping move, 109 envoys representing Africa’s most populous nation across 76 embassies, 22 high commissions, and several consulates were withdrawn.

Ordinarily, the recall of envoys is part of routine diplomatic management and a chance to refresh and reposition personnel. But what followed in Nigeria was anything but routine. Nearly two years later, most of those missions still lacked substantive replacements. In their place, diplomatic representation fell to chargés d’affaires and senior mission officers who, though often experienced, lack the authority, access, and ceremonial standing of fully accredited Ambassadors and High Commissioners.

The result has been a strategic vacuum in Nigeria’s foreign policy and a lacuna that not only weakened its ability to advance national interests but also exposed a fundamental failure of statecraft at a moment when the global environment demands active diplomacy.

President Tinubu’s decision to recall ambassadors in 2023 was publicly framed as part of a review of Nigeria’s foreign engagements and a reset of its diplomatic agenda. What was not clear at the time and remains glaring worrisome to discerning minds, is the absence of urgency in replacing those envoys. Multiple reports still described Nigerian Missions as rudderless without an ambassador. Out of the hundreds appointed and cleared by the Senate recently, only four have been posted leaving a bemused nation wondering why this inexplicable  inertia in diplomatic affairs.

Diplomats and analysts have repeatedly warned that without ambassadors, Nigeria’s Missions will  struggle to engage host governments at the highest levels, participate fully in bilateral and multilateral negotiations, follow through on critical economic, security, and cultural agreements, support citizens abroad in times of crisis, and attract investment or promote trade.

The absence of full Ambassadors particularly worsened visa disputes and slowed business facilitation with key partners such as the United States and the United Arab Emirates, a situation commentators argue might have been mitigated with effective diplomatic representation. One foreign policy expert put it succinctly: “Junior diplomats or chargés d’affaires simply do not have the access or influence that fully accredited ambassadors possess. Nigeria is losing out.”

For Nigeria, this is more than a procedural lapse; it is a reputational wound. A country once regarded as a middle power in global politics and the undisputed numero uno in Africa, now projects uncertainty and unseriousness. Diplomacy, after all, is not just about presence; it is about perception. And the prevailing perception of Nigeria among comity of nations is a state unsure of its priorities and blind to fast-paced changes in global politics.

This drift did not occur overnight. It reflects a deeper malaise within Nigeria’s political leadership, an insularity that mistakes domestic political logic for global reality. Too many of those entrusted with power are insufficiently grounded in governance and poorly versed in diplomatic norms. Nigeria increasingly operates in a parallel universe, assuming the rest of the world functions or malfunctions the way it does. It does not, and it never has.

The consequences are tangible: Nigeria has lost both substance and stature. The prolonged absence of ambassadors in strategic capitals like Washington DC,  London, Moscow, Tel Aviv, Pretoria, Brussels, etc,  have  created a diplomatic vacuum at a critical moment. That vacuum weakened Nigeria’s ability to shape narratives, influence decisions, and defend its interests, including on sensitive security matters such as foreign military cooperation to combat banditry and terrorism in Nigeria. In diplomacy, absence is never neutral; it is costly.

The diplomatic silence did not go unnoticed at home. Political parties, foreign policy experts, and civil society organisations described the prolonged absence of ambassadors as embarrassing and detrimental to national interests. The African Democratic Congress, for instance, warned that continued delay could prompt partner nations to downgrade their own diplomatic presence in Nigeria, a symbolic but damaging blow to national prestige.

Even national councils committed to peace and stability urged the Tinubu administration to expedite ambassadorial appointments and posting, cautioning that decades of painstaking diplomatic capital could be squandered through neglect at critical junctures.

To grasp what is at stake, one must understand that ambassadors are more than ceremonial figures. They are the primary instruments of state presence abroad: the conduits for negotiation, representation, citizen protection, and economic engagement.

History offers sobering lessons. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Britain’s experiment with “splendid isolation,” marked by limited diplomatic engagement, left it vulnerable to shifting alliances and strategic miscalculations. In more recent times, prolonged ambassadorship vacancies in key regions, including Africa under some U.S. administrations, have been cited as compounding difficulties in trade negotiations and conflict mediation. These cases underscore a simple truth: diplomacy is not optional. It is the fabric through which international cooperation, investment, security partnerships, and crisis management are woven.

Nigeria’s diplomatic decline is therefore not merely symbolic; it carries concrete consequences. Economic diplomacy is weakened as opportunities slip away and give competitors advantage. Security vulnerabilities increase as intelligence-sharing and cooperation suffer. International negotiation falters as Nigeria’s voice in forums such as the UN, AU, ECOWAS, and bilateral platforms is diluted. Citizens abroad are underserved, as Missions without full heads struggle with consular protection and visa facilitation. As one analyst observed, “the absence of Ambassadors is more than an inconvenience; it undermines the very deals and dialogues that define successful diplomacy.”

If timely ambassadorial appointments were not a priority for the new administration of Bola Tinubu in 2023, prudence demanded continuity. Allowing ambassadors appointed by the previous government to remain on their posts during the early phase of the Tinubu presidency would have preserved institutional memory and strategic presence. Instead, their wholesale recall in 2023 created a dangerous lacuna and one no leader conversant in statecraft would knowingly expose the country to. Governance was sacrificed on the altar of political disruption.

This is where the height  of political buccaneering become evident. Governance is not theatre and statecraft is not symbolism. Nations pay dearly when political calculations override institutional wisdom, particularly in foreign policy, where errors are amplified and forgiveness is scarce.

Now that the ambassadorial list has finally emerged, a more troubling question confronts the nation: have any lessons been learned? While a handful of nominees inspire confidence, the overall calibre ranges uncomfortably from the pedestrian to the outright ridiculous. This outcome is predictable in a system where political loyalty eclipses competence and appointments serve patronage before national interest.

The politicisation of governance has exacted its ultimate toll on the slow erosion of merit. In diplomacy, that erosion is especially devastating. It strips a country of coherence, credibility, and voice. Nigeria’s descent from continental vanguard to diplomatic afterthought was not imposed from without; it was engineered from within.

Nigeria’s global influence once rested on a proud tradition of proactive diplomacy, mediating conflicts, championing African causes, and shaping regional responses. Today, its diplomatic apparatus risks falling silent precisely when global tensions, competition for investment, and security challenges are intensifying.

The Tinubu presidency’s diplomatic lacuna: from recall without replacement, to controversial nominations, should serve as a wake-up call. Without ambassadors empowered to speak for Nigeria, its foreign policy risks becoming a faint echo rather than a commanding voice on the world stage.

The path forward is clear: restore Nigeria’s full diplomatic presence, ensure nominations reflect competence and strategic alignment, and reaffirm the centrality of diplomacy to statecraft. Only then can Nigeria reclaim the influence it once wielded and safeguard the interests of its citizens in an unforgiving global arena.

In this slow erosion of influence, prestige, and power, there are no winners. We are all the losers.

Okoronkwo is a communications strategist, a leadership and good governance advocate