By Olu Fasan
In the end, Nigeria’s obsequious Senate lived up to its reputation.
Toadyish as ever, it supinely rubber-stamped President Bola Tinubu’s tacky list of ambassadorial nominees without as much as a whimper.
Last week, following the infamous and shameful “bow and go” practice it has adopted in approving President Tinubu’s political appointees, the Senate waived through his ambassadorial nominees without questioning. The perverse implication of nominating controversial figures, and of clearing them without scrutiny, is that the President and the Senate both believe that anybody, just anybody, however questionable their pedigree, provided they are in the President’s good graces, can represent this country as an ambassador in a foreign land. That’s a disservice to Nigeria!
Being a diplomat is not a run-of-the-mill job; it comes with well-defined attributes, including perceptiveness, integrity and discretion. Thus, any serious country would only send the right people – morally, intellectually and temperamentally – to represent its interests in a foreign country, and to act as the embodiment of the image it wishes to promote abroad. Under the Vienna Convention, ambassadors enjoy diplomatic immunity and are accorded diplomatic niceties as a mark of respect for their countries’ sovereignty.
In truth, however, a country is usually as valuable in diplomatic circles and in foreign ministries as the quality of its ambassadors. For instance, if a country has a bad reputation but sends formidable and respected figures overseas as its ambassadors, those diplomats could, to some extent, sway international opinion in the country’s favour. But if that country sends “ambassadors” whose integrity is questionable, whose past is mud-encrusted and mired by moral and ethical deficiencies, those “diplomats” would simply reinforce the country’s bad reputation; instead of re-marketing their country, they would further de-market it.
That’s why no country should be frivolous about the kind of people it sends to represent it abroad. Strangely, someone recently argued that President Tinubu merely exercised his constitutional authority to appoint ambassadors and that, subject to the Senate’s approval, he could send anyone he likes, even his “janitor or mechanic”, to represent Nigeria in any foreign country. But that view implies that being a president means you can treat Nigeria as your personal fiefdom or private enterprise, ruling it arrogantly without accountability and responsiveness to public opinion.
But sovereignty belongs to the people. The elected president is only a custodian of that sovereignty, who exercises it on behalf of the people, and must, in trust, protect its soul and moral values. Thus, when the President nominates anyone to represent Nigeria as an ambassador, he does so on behalf of Nigerians, and the question he must ponder is whether his choices are the best he could possibly make, based on sound judgements; and whether they would serve Nigeria’s best interests.
But for President Tinubu, self-interested political calculations trump everything else. He exercises arbitrary powers with political undercurrents but without consideration of their moral challenges. Apparently, his philosophical standpoint is that there’s no morality in politics, and such amoral, value-free mindset arguably produced the controversial ambassadorial appointees now foisted on Nigeria.
A former diplomat, Ambassador Joe Keshi, reportedly described the ambassadorial list as comprising “the good, the bad and the ugly.” Unfortunately, the bad and the ugly dominated the list, largely intended to reward cronies and hangers-on, and return political favours. But while prebendal presidents always use public offices for patronage politics and political rewards, diplomatic postings for questionable figures should be a definite no-no. For integrity, trustworthiness, self-restraint, discretion and moral courage are some of the hallmarks of ambassadors, career or non-career. Unfortunately, these are not qualities that some of Tinubu’s ambassadors possess.
In defending the controversial ambassadorial list, the presidency cited a “combination of loyalty, national service and strategic competence” for the choices. But unpacking these criteria, one must wonder what qualified some of the appointees that disqualified far more talented, suitable and credible Nigerians. Let’s consider the criteria in turn, vis-à-vis some of President Tinubu’s ambassadors.
Take loyalty. What loyalty test did Reno Omokri pass? He once described Tinubu in unflattering terms and questioned the source of his wealth, only to ingratiate himself with him in power. What about Femi Fani-Kayode? Well, he called Tinubu unprintable names for years, questioning his age, health and stability. However, during the 2023 presidential election, he did a U-turn and plumped for Tinubu.
Indeed, he did so with such ferocity that the British High Commission in Nigeria threatened him with a visa ban for his inflammatory and inciting comments. Is that the loyalty test he passed? What about Professor Mahmoud Yakubu, the former chairman of INEC? What loyalty test did he pass to become an ambassador shortly after leaving INEC? Is it the fact that he appallingly bungled the 2023 presidential election? The “loyalty” criterion seemingly favours those willing to fight dirty for Tinubu’s electoral fortunes, motivated by convenience or opportunism. It’s a dog whistle and a recruiting signal for 2027!
What about national service? Well, few Nigerians would agree with Tinubu’s characterisation of the “national service” that qualified Omokri, Fani-Kayode and Professor Yakubu for diplomatic postings. Indeed, what “national service” qualified many of the other ambassadors-designate, including spouses of party chieftains and political jobbers, but disqualified several patently more able and more patriotic Nigerians? Truth is, just as the loyalty criterion is self-serving, the national service test is self-seeking.
Finally, “strategic competence”. What strategic competence qualifies Omokri as a diplomat? Is it his rabid anti-Igbo sentiment, exemplified by the constant stream of anti-Igbo diatribe in his tweets. How would Ambassador Omokri treat Igbos in his country of posting? Is it strategic competence to lack discretion, tolerance and cultural sensitivity, key diplomatic attributes? What about Fani-Kayode? Without a doubt, he is an eloquent communicator. But he’s a maverick and lacks basic diplomatic skills like circumspection.
For instance, Fani-Kayode’s anti-American and anti-Western views are well known, frequently expressed in his long tweets. If he’s posted to any Western country, the media there would get under his skin so quickly. And given his very short fuse, he could explode and embarrass Nigeria. Now, is there anyone who would say Professor Yakubu is gifted with strategic competence, when he couldn’t conduct a credible presidential election? Should he, too, be sent to a Western democracy, he could be dogged by questions from Western journalists about his woeful handling of the 2023 presidential election. An obvious distraction from his diplomatic task.
President Tinubu spent nearly two and a half years in office without appointing ambassadors. But after President Trump’s threatened Nigeria with “guns-a-blazing” over alleged Christian genocide, and Nigeria’s inept diplomacy was blamed for Trump’s sabre-rattling, Tinubu rushed out the list of ambassadorial nominees he kept under wraps for months. Sadly, most of the nominees on that list, which the Senate unquestioningly approved, are so tenth-rate and abysmal that Nigeria is worse off diplomatically than when it had no ambassadors, leaving its inept diplomacy far more maladroit. Well, using diplomatic postings so perversely, I would argue, is a betrayal of the national interest!
Dr. Fasan is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment