“Two Years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Under President Tinubu Administration: An Informed Commentary” by Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Foreign Affairs & International Relations is an exercise in gloss and self-justification at a moment when reality is increasingly stubborn. On its face, the article reads like a paean to the foreign-policy ambitions of Bola Ahmed Tinubu: a long laundry list of lofty goals, lofty visits, promises, and supposed “gains.” But in doing so, it fails the most basic test of serious commentary: matching rhetoric with reality. It pretends that delay, dysfunction, and political theatre are signs of “strategic diplomacy” rather than evidence of drift, neglect, and opportunism. In effect, the piece is not a balanced assessment; it is a shielding device, deployed at a moment when the foreign-policy machinery is under the spotlight precisely because of glaring missteps. Most notably: the tardy and deeply controversial ambassadorial list that Tinubu has only now submitted to the Senate, nearly two years after recalling virtually all previous envoys.
The Ambassadorial Vacuum: A Glaring Blindspot
EnikanolaIye’s article mentions in passing that “the appointment of Ambassadors … is the exclusive prerogative of the President” – and seems to treat the two-year delay as an acceptable lull, perhaps even a prudent reset. That rationale is badly out of sync with reality. In truth, the delay has left Nigeria’s foreign missions under-hydrated, undermining their diplomatic weight and leaving many with only chargés d’affaires or consuls-general: career diplomats or interim officials with limited capacity to engage host-country governments at the highest level. Over 100 missions abroad, many of which remain without substantive leadership; how is that “vibrant diplomacy”? Worse still, as one veteran former envoy put it, such prolonged vacancies can be interpreted abroad as a downgrading of Nigeria’s diplomatic commitment. A foreign policy that cannot even staff its embassies with credible, confirmed ambassadors, is not “active global engagement.” It is negligence.
The New List: Politics, Patronage and Diplomatic Risk
Now that the presidency has belatedly transmitted a list of nominees; the first full batch in nearly two years, the public outcry has been fierce. Opponents and seasoned analysts alike have described the list as “scandalous,” “reprehensible,” and a “diplomatic all-time low.” Why? Because the names include political operatives, controversial public figures, and individuals widely perceived as lacking integrity.
In other words: the very people whose appointment would have signaled a clean, merit-based, internationally credible civil diplomatic service. Instead, the list reeks of patronage, rewarding loyalists and political associates rather than selecting envoys on the basis of competence, diplomatic gravitas, or moral standing. By foisting such nominees on the Senate, the administration is effectively telling the world: “We value political loyalty over diplomatic credibility.” That’s not leadership. That’s a blow to Nigeria’s brand abroad.
Thin Excuses, Real Consequences: The “Funding” Rationale Falls Apart
The article and its author presuppose that financial constraints justify the long delay in ambassadorial appointments. But that excuse is unconvincing, and insufficient. As reported by multiple sources, the administration did appoint consuls-general and chargés d’affaires many months ago. If Nigeria could fund and sustain those interim arrangements, it could equally have nominated full ambassadors, especially given that ambassadors are constitutionally necessary for proper diplomatic representation. The problem, critics suggest, is not absolute lack of funds; it is a lack of prioritization.
Meanwhile, the vacuum has had real diplomatic costs: missions abroad have struggled to engage at the highest level; some foreign partners and multilateral bodies have quietly taken note of Nigeria’s weakened representation. In short: by delaying and mis-managing appointments, the administration has undermined Nigeria’s foreign-policy infrastructure, even while claiming global “visibility and credibility.”
Gas-lighting Through Grand Tours: Diplomacy ≠ Photo-Ops
EnikanolaIye lauds Tinubu’s numerous foreign trips and the signing of memoranda of understanding — a staple of the “economic diplomacy” narrative. Yet this glosses over an obvious truth: diplomacy is not measured in selfies, press releases, or air-miles accumulated. It is measured in sustained engagement, capacity to negotiate, and credible representation. Without functioning embassies, without trusted envoys, without experienced ambassadors; all the MoUs and summit selfies in the world amount to hollow gestures. The foreign-policy machinery is building castles in the air, while the foundations rot.
Why This Matters — For Nigeria and Its Standing Abroad
• Diplomatic Credibility: Sending “controversial figures” as ambassadors risks tarnishing Nigeria’s global reputation. Diplomacy requires respect; nominees with tainted political records are liabilities, not assets.
• Institutional Erosion: The long delay and questionable selections undermine the professional diplomatic corps, demoralize career diplomats, and send a message that political loyalty trumps merit.
• Strategic Failures: In a volatile region — with coups, shifting alignments, global economic uncertainty, and security crises — Nigeria needs stable, credible, proactive representation abroad. A hollowed-out diplomatic service is ill-equipped to deliver.
• Narrative Discrepancy: The administration’s rhetoric about “strategic autonomy,” “economic diplomacy,” and “global engagement” now rings hollow, because those aims require more than speeches and photo-ops; they require functioning institutions.
Conclusion: This Commentary is a Shield, not a Scorecard
The article by Sola Enikanolaiye is not a sober, balanced appraisal; it is apologetics, dressed up as achievement. It ignores glaring failures and substitutes optimism for substance. It treats delays and mismanagement as strategic patience, and patronage as prudent selection. At a moment when Nigeria’s foreign-policy machinery is crumbling through neglect and nepotism, we need hard truths, not cheerleading. If foreign policy is to be more than empty rhetoric, the Tinubu administration must stop rewarding political cronies, start filling its embassies with capable, credible diplomats, and restore, rather than degrade Nigeria’s standing abroad. For now, the only claim to “wins” in this administration’s foreign policy is a list of trips, some MoUs, and the recycling of partisan foot-soldiers into the diplomatic corps. That is not diplomacy. It is marketing. And on the world stage, marketing only goes so far.
