What Nigeria’s latest ambassadorial picks reveal

As President Bola Tinubu unveils yet another roster of ambassadorial nominees, many of whom critics deem unqualified or ill-suited, a broader concern emerges. This is not just about who will represent Nigeria abroad; it underscores a deeper, systemic issue across many African states – a chronic leadership deficit rooted in weak institutions, unchecked patronage, and an all-too-familiar pattern of mediocrity at the top. The consequences for governance, development and Africa’s global standing are profound.

When ambassadorial appointments are perceived as ethnic favours, political rewards, or career parachutes rather than merit-based selections, the first casualty is credibility. Diplomacy demands distinction, competence and professionalism. Appointing individuals with questionable track records, little diplomatic experience or limited institutional understanding signals to the world that national representation is transactional, not strategic. For a country like Nigeria, one of Africa’s largest economies and the continent’s most populous nation, this undermines not just diplomatic clout, but also investor confidence, foreign relations and institutional trust.

Read also: FULL LIST: Tinubu appoints Ibas, Dambazau, 68 others for ambassadorial positions

But the problem transcends Nigeria. Many African nations continue to suffer from a systemic quality-of-leadership crisis that persists despite decades of formal reforms and democratisation.

Since the wave of democratisation in the 1990s and 2000s swept across Africa, formal structures such as multi-party elections, constitutions and term limits became common. Yet, governance seldom improved in any substantial way. As many scholars now argue, the challenge is not the absence of institutions but their weakness and the personality-driven, neo-patrimonial politics that hollow them out from within.

The result is obvious: institutions become facades. Elections become rituals. Parliaments rubber-stamp executive decisions. Courts are compromised, and the instruments of accountability, designed to constrain power and protect citizens, are rendered toothless.

Power in much of Africa remains deeply personal. State offices are treated as conquered territories. Resources are distributed along ethnic, regional or patronage lines. Meritocracy is often sacrificed at the altar of loyalty.

In such contexts, public institutions fail to deliver. Infrastructure remains dilapidated, education and health systems underperform, unemployment persists, and corruption thrives. Citizens, often young, increasingly connected and impatient, grow disillusioned. Recent years have seen a rise in coups, authoritarian retrenchment and a steady decline in public trust and democratic satisfaction across the continent.

When leaders consistently appoint the same cadre of untested or underperforming individuals into positions of power, whether in foreign missions or domestic ministries, the cost is borne twice over – by the state and by its people.

“When leaders consistently appoint the same cadre of untested or underperforming individuals into positions of power, whether in foreign missions or domestic ministries, the cost is borne twice over – by the state and by its people.”

Instead of staffing key roles with professionals who can reform and strengthen institutions, patronage perpetuates weak systems, leading to eventual institutional decay. As a result, policy implementation remains erratic, accountability remains elusive, and reforms weaken.

Qualified technocrats and civil servants lose faith in the system; either they exit public service or become apathetic. Young Nigerians and Africans with ambition begin to look elsewhere, abroad or to the private sector, leaving governance to the complacent and the connected.

Competent diplomacy requires tact, cultural awareness and policy understanding. When nations appoint political loyalists instead of professionals, the quality of representation drops; relationships sour, negotiations weaken, and national interests suffer, ultimately leading to reduced international leverage.

As we know, weak leadership signals broader dysfunction. An ambassadorial list may appear symbolic, but it reflects the logic of governance at large. If top positions are doled out as patronage, where does that leave merit, integrity and public service at lower levels? The rot goes deep.

Breaking this cycle will require more than superficial reforms. It demands a structural and cultural reorientation, both within ruling elites and among citizens.

African leaders must consider institutional integrity first and stop treating institutions as window-dressing. Parliaments, judiciaries, public service commissions and oversight agencies must be empowered, independent and filled on merit. Weak formal institutions not only fuel corruption, they also erode state capacity and breed cynicism.

Appointments, especially to sensitive roles like foreign service, security, finance and public infrastructure, must be based on competence, track record and professional suitability. Countries must institutionalise transparent recruitment and promotion systems that reward expertise over ethnicity or loyalty.

Ultimately, also, citizens have a role to play. Public awareness, media scrutiny and civic activism can exert pressure on governments to desist from high-stakes patronage. Civil society and the media should demand transparency in the criteria for sensitive appointments such as ambassadors, just as Nigerians did during the release of the list of pardoned convicts.

Long-term change will require investing in leadership training, ethical education and mentorship. Africa must revive civic education, promote ethical public service values, and encourage young people to see governance as a vocation, not just another path to wealth.

Policies should be judged by impact – infrastructure built, health outcomes improved, poverty reduced, citizens secured, etc. Leaders should be held accountable through performance metrics, not simply by rhetoric or electoral popularity.

Read also: Nigeria redefines ambassadorship, the Matawalle question, and lawmakers’ wishy-washy constituency projects.

The recent ambassadorial list of Nigeria is more than just a headline. It is a symptom of a broader disease afflicting many African states – a leadership deficit that privileges patronage over professionalism, loyalty over competence, and symbolism over substance.

Unless African leaders and citizens commit to genuine institutional reform, meritocracy and accountability, the cycle will continue. Diplomats will remain unprepared, institutions unresponsive, and the vacant spaces of governance filled by another generation of weak, personally driven leaders.

For Africa to realise its enormous human, natural and demographic potential, it must first reconcile with this uncomfortable truth – leadership matters. The future of Nigeria in particular and the continent in general will not be determined by elections alone but by who we entrust with power and whether they choose to serve the common good or themselves.

Only then will ambassadorial appointments, ministerial selections, and public service promotions cease to be exercises in patronage and begin to reflect a commitment to competence, integrity, and genuine national development.

comment is free

Send 800word comments to [email protected]

Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date