Why President Tinubu must reject media trial of ambassadorial nominees

On November 26, 2025, President Bola Tinubu forwarded a list of three ambassadorial nominees to the Senate for confirmation. Among the nominees is Ambassador Ayodele Oke, CFR, former Director General of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) who headed the Agency between 2013 and 2017. During this period, he faced allegations of corrupt enrichment, which turned out to be unproven.

Predictably, political buccaneers and some misinformed elements in the civil society are beginning to push back against Ambassador Oke’s nomination, referencing the unproven allegations. While understandable, those seeking to deny this celebrated national intelligence chief and outstanding international public servant are ignorant of the basic facts of this unfortunate saga. Here are the facts. Ambassador Oke was accused, duly investigated, and ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing. On  June 9, 2023, Justice C. J. Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos, struck out all charges against him on grounds of national security imperatives and mutual agreement between the prosecution and defence teams to discontinue a case that should never have happened in the first place. The termination of the charges against Ambassador Oke received political validation following President Muhammadu Buhari’s concurrence with the legal and national security dimensions of the case.

The cornerstone of any just and democratic society is the principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. A formal, final exoneration, whether an acquittal, dismissal, or quashing of charges, is the ultimate declaration of legal innocence. To continue treating an accused “guilty,” despite a final legal verdict affirming innocence is to subvert the constitutional process and the authority of the judiciary. In our democracy, innocence, once established by law, must be upheld. Ambassador Oke’s exoneration means there is no current legal or constitutional barrier to his holding public office again because his past indictment was based on allegations that have now been legally disproven. In this moment, Ambassador Oke’s legal standing is the same as any other citizen of Nigeria with a clean record.

Society and the government have a moral obligation to treat citizens fairly, especially those who have been subjected to the most severe allegations of public misconduct. Allowing a vile and orchestrated media campaign to succeed would establish a dangerous precedent where accusation alone turns to permanent punishment, regardless of the facts or legal outcome. This would be profoundly unfair. A government should be free to appoint the most qualified individuals to high office and few come close to this eminently qualified nominee in national security and diplomatic governance.

To withdraw the nomination or disqualify the nominee due to recycled, disproven allegations would politicise the outcome of judicial proceedings. Worse, this would send a dangerous message that one can always weaponise unproven allegations against an accused, effectively overriding the judiciary’s fact-finding role. It goes without saying such an outcome will encourage detractors to mount similar campaigns against any perceived political enemy, regardless of evidence.

By standing firm, the government will be demonstrating its confidence in the justice system and its own nominating authority. It holds detractors, the ignorant and the misinformed accountable to the facts of the legal outcome, not just emotional rhetoric. Standing firm demonstrates strength and stability in governance. After a verdict of complete innocence, the conversation ought to focus on a public official’s current suitability, vision, and future contributions to his country, not on past allegations that have been disproven.

The decision to stand by the ambassadorial nomination of this public officer is a powerful affirmation that in a state governed by law, the legal verdict must prevail over public opinion and political pressure. After all, Ambassador Oke’s exoneration fully restores his legal and moral right to public service. To surrender to a media campaign based on disproven allegations is to undermine the rule of law, perpetuate a grave injustice, and erode the integrity of the public service nominating process.

The nomination of Ambassador should stand because an accusation is neither guilt nor conviction. After a final and decisive verdict of innocence, the nominee is legally innocent and morally vindicated. His fitness for office must be judged on his current merit and the final judicial outcome, not on the weaponization of past, failed accusations. His current legal standing is the same as any other citizen with unblemished record.  It would therefore be grave injustice to subject Ambassador Oke to a misguided media trial on the same disproven charges.  This outstanding public servant has paid his due to the system by enduring a lengthy and traumatic legal process. He should not be forced to relive the punishment after being declared innocent.

The government must be resolute and reject a media trial that could rob our country of the services of one of its finest diplomats. By standing firm and guiding the nomination through the confirmation process, the government will be making a powerful statement that it favours meritocracy, respects the rule of law, values public service, and is willing to stand by an individual who has been unjustly accused. In times like this, our government must show political and moral courage in the face of an emotional, but factually bankrupt, media frenzy.

Amb Awanen, PhD, mni is a retired Career Ambassador and Mene Eedee 1 Bera in Gokana Local Government Area, Rivers State.

Nigerians can now invest ₦2.5 million on premium domains and profit about ₦17-₦25 million. All earnings paid in US Dollars. Rather than wonder, click here to find out how it works.

Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.