By Umar Sani Daura
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent submission of 32 ambassadorial nominees to the Senate for confirmation has ignited a fierce national debate, drawing sharp criticism from political opponents and raising significant concerns about Nigeria’s foreign service integrity. The list, comprising 15 Career Ambassadors and 17 Non-Career Ambassadors, features several controversial figures whose past public pronouncements and political affiliations have placed them under intense scrutiny.
At the heart of the controversy are the nominations of prominent personalities like former presidential aide Reno Omokri and former Aviation Minister Femi Fani-Kayode. Both individuals were known as vocal and often virulent critics of President Tinubu during the 2023 election cycle.
The nomination of Reno Omokri has been particularly startling. Only a short while ago, Omokri, a former PDP stalwart, publicly referred to President Tinubu as a “drug dealer” and, in an interview with Seun Okinbaloye, he emphatically stated: “It will never happen. I can never work with him”, referring to president Bola Tinubu.
However, upon his nomination as a non-career ambassador, Omokri took to his X handle to express his “profound gratitude” to the President, claiming that Tinubu had “taught him the virtue of forgiveness.” This dramatic political U-turn has been met with widespread accusations of opportunism, fueling the narrative that the appointments are more of a reward system than a commitment to diplomatic excellence. Similarly, the inclusion of Femi Fani-Kayode, another former fierce critic, is being questioned, highlighting the apparent prioritisation of political recompense over diplomatic gravitas. The list also includes former INEC Chairman Prof. Mahmud Yakubu.
The major opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), has vehemently rejected the list, calling on President Tinubu to withdraw the ambassadorial nominees immediately. The PDP described the composition of the list as a “diplomatic all time low,” further denouncing it as a “Mickey of the countries foreign service and an embarrassment to the nation diplomatic tradition.” This condemnation reflects a deep concern that Nigeria’s global standing could be compromised by representatives whose public records lack the necessary integrity and gravitas for the diplomatic corps.
The debate over the appointees is compounded by the pre-existing, dire state of Nigeria’s diplomatic missions globally. With 35 appointments made out of 109 missions, the country has been operating without substantive envoys for nearly two years.
More critically, there are alarming reports that Nigerian diplomats are not adequately paid, and the Federal Government has consistently failed to provide essential support for foreign missions. Instances of missions having their electricity and water cut off due to non-payment have been cited, a clear indictment of the government’s inadequate funding and support for its global representatives.
In September 2025, Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs admitted that multiple missions abroad face unpaid rent, salary arrears, and debts to landlords and service providers. The ministry’s spokesperson confirmed that financial limitations have restricted the smooth running of embassies and consulates, including obligations to pay for rent, electricity, and water.
Critics argue that before appointing controversial personalities, the government must address the foundational issues. The foreign service needs proper funding and provision of all necessary requirements to showcase and protect the dignity of that office—the absence of which is already a significant national embarrassment.
All nominees must pass through a rigorous multi-stage clearance process, which serves as the final safeguard for the nation’s diplomatic image.
The process includes, Security Screening, Senate Confirmation and Host Country Approval. The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs must write to the host country for her approval, and the host nation has the right to reject an undesirable character..
The requirement for the host country to approve a nominee—a process where a country can essentially say, “we don’t want so so character”—adds a layer of international scrutiny. This final check raises the prospect that some of the more controversial nominees may not make it to their assigned posts, potentially creating further diplomatic embarrassment for Nigeria.
Well, as the Senate prepares to commence screening, the nation is watching to see whether political loyalties will prevail or if the integrity of Nigeria’s foreign policy will be upheld.
