The President’s Ambassadorial List -By IfeanyiChukwu Afuba

Four days after release of President Bola Tinubu’s nominees for appointment as ambassadors, the hullabaloo ignited by the list is yet to wane. It’s difficult to find any administrative procedure that generated as much furore in recent times. The harsh criticism of the 32 man ambassadorial list leaves you wondering if the angry comments were about a proposal to divide Nigeria into six countries. A retired Permanent Secretary, Ambassador Joseph Keshi wrote off some nominees as having no business with “diplomatic service.” The PDP called for withdrawal of the list for failing democratic and moral test. For 2023 Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, some of the nominations were “shocking.” Quite significantly, a member of the ruling party and former presidential campaign spokesman, Josef Onoh registered an even stronger objection. Onoh wasted no time in forwarding a petition to the Senate alleging past acts of treachery against Bola Ahmed Tinubu by a candidate from the south – south. While the list features different shades of controversial public figures, three particular nominations stand out for their contentious reception.

Outrage over the serial unsuitability for appointment as heads of diplomatic missions appears to have some merit. A former INEC chief’s burden from the 2003 general election continues to follow him in the court of public opinion. Many Nigerians are not convinced that the electronic blackout which occured in the course of the presidential poll was accidental. The consequences of yet another bungled election cannot be over emphasised. Internally, Nigeria’s electoral and succession crises polarises the population. Externally, the shadow of instability diminishes and demarkets the country. Who wants to invest in a highly volatile State? And, conceding that there are small, inconsequential States that will not reject our ambassador – designates, what message is sent out by stigma – laden, state honours?
It is to be noted though that the APC government and supporters do not share the impression of a flawed 2023 poll. But their approval of the ballot has to contend with the assessment of independent observers. The international community is not only familiar with the poverty of Nigeria’s democracy values but has means of verifying adherence to standard processes. Just as with the current denials of threat to Christianity, global monitors are still able to establish a pattern of persecution against the Church in Nigeria.
By no means do these observations discount the reality of the environment under which the electoral body operates. A non autonomous INEC is vulnerable to the vast power of the presidency. But an INEC leadership committed to Nigeria, rather than the government, can make a lot of difference. And there is the option of resignation when faced with unacceptable demands.

On the part of the social media – active nominees, there’s a propaganda issue. The candidates have since come to be associated with the noise factor; the concept of ringing bell. Their public engagement is often an overflow of reactions. But it’s not only an overflow of words. It is also about riot of words. In their differing styles and approaches, the political cum media activists display a pugnacious bent in their defence of government. More often than not, the choice of language is uncivil, disrespectful, abusive. You can easily detect sneering intolerance of the opposition in it all. How would this indulgent disposition fit into the etiquettes of the diplomatic world? Aggressive behaviour and uncouth language are not the stuff of country image makers, which ambassadors are projected to be. Nor can the quarrelsomeness of two of the nominees be excused on the ground of media hazard. Minister of Information, Idris Mohammed and Special Adviser on Public Communication, Mr Sunday Dare are also engaged in regime dialogue. What makes the difference is the professionalism and sense of public service that attends their intervention.

The task for the President is to strike a healthy balance between the needs of the country and his leadership agenda. Clearly, the system creates room for political interest in foreign policy administration. The concept of non career ambassador functions to accommodate this dimension of statecraft. Many people see the President’s ambassadorial list as a reward register. The beneficiaries are believed to be those who have made notable contributions in cash or kind to the present dispensation. Political patronage remains a universal language of power and for the President’s supporters, eligibility of appointees is his prerogative. The Senate is expected to ratify the appointments without the least alteration. By the climate and circumstances of Nigeria’s democracy, the legislature is still subservient to the executive. To the shock of some observers, a former presidential media aide who was informally known as Special Assistant on Abuse was cleared for ministerial appointment by the Senate. His penchant for ranting was so revolting that any self – respecting institution would have thrown out the application instantly but it was granted. Those who argue that Tinubu should have used contracts and consultancy to reward deficient loyalists have probably not adverted to other possible considerations behind the ambassadorial move.

In the prelude to collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Russian leader, Boris Yeltsin, was the outstanding player in the new power dynamics. He was virtually in rivalry with Mr Mikhail Gorbachev for control of Soviet Union’s depleting power base. Once, the half – hearted coup of August 1991 could not run on Russian territory, it was a given that the attempted putsch could not progress anywhere else in the communist state. But it was not just the size and resources of Russia that made Boris Yeltsin formidable. He was considered a strong student of power by his own right. His incremental challenge of Gorbachev’s authority was sure – footed and impactful. Reflecting on the assertive path of Yeltsin at the time, an international analyst considered the response that could have been his lot in the hey days of the Soviet Union.

He would probably have been shot on a dark corner of a Moscow street one cold, winter night. It was thought that a decision on forced removal from party post fitted Nikita Khrushchev’s rulership. Leonid Brezhnev would have sent Yeltsin to Siberia. Brezhnev’s successor, Yuri Andropov would have made him ambassador to Burkina Faso! And there I paused; marveling at the witticism of the thought. The analogy of ambassadorial appointment as containment, indeed, punishment for power ambition, was particularly striking. Burkina Faso today can still be described as an impoverished, backward, underdeveloped state. By 1985, the year Andropov’s headship of the Soviet Union ended, it was third world of the third world! Of no strategic geo – political, mineral or maritime importance, appointment to such a remote, semi rural outpost was not just redundant, but tellingly punitive.

Ambassadorial posting then, could be a form of exile. Exile, in this context, goes beyond physical distance from home. The motive behind the alienation from home front largely determines what kind of exile. For most low – level political actors, ambassadorial rank is a welcome elevation, regardless of posting. But for the principal calling the shots, the calculation tends between ideal and pragmatic. Tinubu, widely credited with gift of networking and reward for loyalty, does not fit a leader to use diplomatic assignment as punishment. A shrewd student of power, Tinubu seems to be repositioning towards actualising 2027. Before America’s recent interest in Nigeria’s insecurity situation, the President already looked unstoppable, with opposition leaders unable to secure political parties where they will run. Now, his camp is faced with uncertainty by prospects of America’s further involvement. It seems the case that Tinubu seeks to present a new face for his government; one that is accommodating and conciliatory. To that end, the President probably resolved to deal with the noise factor diminishing the presidency. How best to offload the rabble rousers, the discredited polemicists, the reversible propagandists, the scandal – plagued big names – without appearing to kick them out? Ambassadorial exile seems to offer a good solution. If that is the reckoning, two more candidates are recommended for the clinical transfer. One is the professor of sectarian rites concern who will not give Nigerians breathing space until his religious dreams are cast in iron in the Constitution. The other is a bearded peace maker whose prayers at forest shrines, but for Nigerians’ faithlessness, would have made bandits humane and lovable. Their ambassadorial migration will save the polity from noise and advocacy pollution and help the President concentrate on governance.