Do these nominees’ past and present embody the Nigeria we aspire to be? Will they command respect in foreign capitals, or will they invite skepticism?
By Peter Imini
The long-awaited list of Nigeria’s ambassadorial nominees has finally been released, ending nearly two years of diplomatic vacancies across 109 foreign missions. President Bola Tinubu’s submission of 65 names to the Senate for confirmation was meant to signal a rejuvenation of Nigeria’s foreign policy apparatus. Yet, rather than inspiring confidence, the list has ignited a firestorm of debate, centering on a critical question: Should individuals clouded by controversy represent the nation on the global stage?
At a time when Nigeria is grappling with a challenging international image—battling perceptions of insecurity, economic instability, and governance issues—the role of an ambassador has never been more crucial. These individuals are not merely administrators; they are the face of Nigeria, its chief storytellers, and first-line defenders of its interests. They must possess unimpeachable integrity, diplomatic finesse, and a credible history that commands respect. A closer look at some nominees, however, suggests that political calculation may have trumped these essential criteria.
The Shadow of Unresolved Allegations
Among the most glaring concerns are nominees with unresolved serious allegations hanging over them. Take, for instance, Ayodele Oke, former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency. His nomination is inextricably linked to the infamous $43 million discovered in an Ikoyi apartment in 2017—funds his agency claimed were for covert operations but were widely viewed as a case of brazen looting. Indicted by a presidential panel and once declared wanted by the EFCC on charges of money laundering, Oke’s subsequent clearance and nomination raise profound questions about the message being sent. Appointing a figure associated with one of the country’s most spectacular corruption scandals to a prestigious diplomatic post risks telling the world that Nigeria winks at grave financial misconduct.
Similarly, the nomination of Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (retd.), the former Sole Administrator of Rivers State, is fraught with contention. His six-month tenure is under a cloud, with petitions before the ICPC alleging mismanagement of N283 billion in state funds. While he denies wrongdoing and argues that probing him equates to probing the presidency that appointed him, the very existence of such a massive, unresolved allegation makes him a vulnerable representative. Host nations conduct their own due diligence, and an ambassador arriving with a backdrop of financial scandal undermines their authority from day one.
The Spectre of Forensic Indictment
Perhaps even more damning are nominations backed by formal audit reports. Okezie Ikpeazu, former Governor of Abia State, was explicitly indicted by a detailed KPMG forensic audit commissioned by his successor. The report alleged a staggering N1.9 trillion was mismanaged or diverted during his administration, citing payments for non-existent projects and unauthorized withdrawals. That this report has been handed to the EFCC for potential prosecution, yet Ikpeazu finds himself nominated for an ambassadorship, creates a bewildering paradox. It suggests that serious audit findings, instead of leading to accountability, can be sidestepped with a political appointment. What credibility will such an ambassador have when advocating for foreign investment and transparency?
The Problem of Volatile Partisanship
Beyond financial controversies, the list includes individuals known for extreme political rhetoric, marking a sharp pivot from their very public pasts. Reno Omokri and Femi Fani-Kayode were among President Tinubu’s most vitriolic critics. Omokri once labeled the President a “drug lord,” leading protests against him internationally, while Fani-Kayode’s past statements—calling Tinubu “the biggest traitor ever known” and a man of “bad health and always on drugs”—are a matter of public record.
Their nominations, seen widely as rewards for political defection and newfound loyalty, pose a different kind of risk. Diplomacy requires consistency, discretion, and a measured temperament. An ambassador’s past incendiary comments, especially those targeting their own head of state or making unsubstantiated claims, can be easily weaponized by foreign interlocutors. As highlighted in a petition against Omokri, there is a genuine fear that such figures could “de-market” Nigeria, becoming liabilities rather than assets. Their sudden ideological U-turns also call into question the core principles they would champion abroad.
A Systemic Failure of Merit and Balance?
The outcry transcends individual nominees. Critics like Senator Ali Ndume point to a blatant disregard for the federal character principle, with lopsided representation favoring some zones over others. This feeds into deeper ethnic and geopolitical tensions at a time when national unity is fragile. Furthermore, the critique from seasoned diplomats like Ambassador Yemi Faronbi cuts to the heart of the matter: the systematic sidelining of career foreign service officers. These professionals spend decades mastering the arts of negotiation, protocol, and international law. When ambassadorial posts are predominantly treated as “spoils of war” for political allies, it erodes institutional memory, demoralizes the diplomatic corps, and sacrifices competence for patronage.
The Senate’s role is now paramount. Its spokesperson has stated that no formal petitions have been received yet, but the committee must look beyond paperwork. The court of public opinion and the weight of media investigations are legitimate sources for scrutiny. The one-week timeline for screening, as lamented by Ambassador Faronbi, risks a “garbage in, garbage out” scenario, where profound questions are glossed over in a rush to confirm.
The Stakes for Nigeria’s Global Standing
The fundamental issue is one of values and symbolism. Ambassadors personify their nation. In nominating figures trailed by allegations of corruption, financial impropriety, and volatile partisanship, Nigeria risks projecting an image of a nation that does not take accountability seriously. It tells international partners that the same governance deficiencies plaguing the domestic sphere are entrenched at the highest levels of foreign representation.
In an era where global diplomacy is increasingly about building trust, attracting investment, and rallying support for shared challenges, Nigeria needs its best, brightest, and most reputable minds on the front lines. It needs diplomats whose personal histories are strengths, not vulnerabilities to be exploited by adversaries.
The Senate has a solemn duty. It must look beyond party affiliations and ask: Does this nominee’s past and present embody the Nigeria we aspire to be? Will they command respect in foreign capitals, or will they invite skepticism? The confirmation process is not a rubber stamp; it is the last line of defense for the nation’s dignity abroad. To approve nominees whose controversies are a matter of public record would be to willingly lower Nigeria’s flag in the eyes of the world. The question is not just whether these individuals can serve, but whether, in doing so, they would ultimately serve Nigeria’s true interests.