It has been nearly two years since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu recalled all 109 Nigerian ambassadors — a move that affected 76 embassies, 22 high commissions, and 11 consulates worldwide. The mass recall, announced on September 2, 2023, was unprecedented in scope. What is more troubling is that, to this day, the majority of those positions remain unfilled.
In global diplomatic practice, ambassadorial recalls are normal after a change in government. New administrations often bring in loyalists or career officers who reflect their foreign policy priorities. But such changes are typically staggered to avoid leaving missions leaderless for long. Even during leadership upheavals in other countries, only a fraction of envoys are replaced at once — never all at the same time, and certainly not for this long.
The Nigerian case is therefore extraordinary, not because ambassadors were recalled, but because no replacements were sent for nearly two years. This prolonged vacuum is not just an administrative oversight — it is a political choice. And like most deliberate choices in politics, it serves certain interests while harming others.
Power: Keeping the Diplomatic Corps Weak
Ambassadors are more than ceremonial representatives. They are the President’s chief envoys abroad, tasked with protecting national interests, building alliances, and negotiating deals. In many countries, they are also political heavyweights with the autonomy to engage with foreign leaders, investors, and security agencies.
By leaving these posts vacant, the government keeps foreign missions weak and fully dependent on directives from Abuja. Without full ambassadors, the highest-ranking officials in most missions are chargés d’affaires or consuls-general — respected professionals, but with far less clout and no political mandate to speak directly to heads of state or ministers abroad.
The practical effect? Nigeria’s influence in Washington, London, Beijing, Abu Dhabi, and other key capitals has been diminished. High-level diplomatic engagements are harder to secure, and Nigeria’s voice is quieter in global discussions.
Information: Controlling the Flow of Intelligence
Ambassadors are also critical intelligence channels. They send home confidential cables about political shifts, economic opportunities, and security threats. These reports, often candid and sensitive, shape foreign policy decisions at the highest level.
When those posts are left vacant, fewer people have access to firsthand, high-level information. The flow of intelligence becomes narrower and easier to control — concentrated within a small inner circle of trusted advisers and ministries. This means less room for independent assessments from seasoned diplomats abroad, and more reliance on filtered reports that align with the administration’s preferred narrative.
In effect, the ambassadorial vacuum ensures that nothing significant leaves or enters the information chain without passing through the hands of a very select few.
Capital: Keeping Financial and Contractual Interests Close
Diplomatic missions abroad handle more than diplomacy — they manage millions of dollars annually in budgets, property leases, procurement contracts, and staffing.
With no ambassadors in place, the direct political oversight of these resources remains in Abuja. This limits the potential for independent decision-making abroad and allows greater influence over how those funds are allocated or spent. In some cases, this also creates opportunities for politically connected actors to influence or control contracts linked to embassies without the scrutiny of a strong, accredited envoy.
The Cost to Nigeria
While the political benefits of this arrangement are obvious — tighter control over power, information, and capital — the costs to Nigeria are mounting:
- Weakened international influence: Key strategic negotiations, such as trade and security deals, are harder to push through without high-ranking envoys.
- Diplomatic embarrassments: Nigeria’s limited representation at important international events has been noted, with at least one incident of protocol oversight during the inauguration of Namibia’s president linked to the absence of a substantive envoy.
- Public service strain: Visa and consular services in countries like the United States and UAE have reportedly suffered, frustrating Nigerians abroad.
- Investment losses: Without senior envoys to advocate for Nigeria’s interests, foreign investment opportunities can slip away to better-represented competitors.
A Historical Outlier
Looking at international precedents, such large-scale and prolonged ambassadorial vacancies usually happen under extreme constraints — wars, revolutions, or when governments lose international recognition and operate in exile.
Nigeria faces none of these conditions. The absence of ambassadors, therefore, cannot be explained as a crisis response. Instead, it reflects a calculated choice — one that centralises foreign relations under a tighter, more controlled apparatus.
Conclusion
Diplomatic representation is the lifeblood of a nation’s global standing. The decision to recall every ambassador and then leave those posts vacant for nearly two years is not just bad for Nigeria’s foreign policy — it is a slow erosion of its voice, influence, and standing in the world.
Whether the motive is political consolidation, financial control, or a desire to monopolise the flow of information, the result is the same: Nigeria is weaker abroad than it needs to be, and the price of that weakness will be paid in missed opportunities, strained relationships, and diminished respect on the world stage.
Until these posts are filled with capable, empowered ambassadors, Nigeria’s diplomacy will remain on mute — and the rest of the world will continue the conversation without us.