Former govs want ambassadorial positions to enjoy immunity – Ex-NIIA DG

Former Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Prof Bola Akinterinwa shares his thoughts with DANIEL AYANTOYE on alleged poor funding of Nigerian embassies, the Israel-Hamas war, among other issues

It was recently reported that state governors, former ministers, and other officials who served in the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari and political associates of President Bola Tinubu have launched an intense lobby for appointments as Nigerian ambassadors. What do you make of this?

Firstly, it is the right of any President to appoint whoever he wants to appoint as an ambassador. The President is considered the chief diplomat of the state; he delegated part of his power to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to act on his behalf. Meanwhile, there are two letters given to any ambassador-designate. The first is a letter of accreditation, while the second is a letter of recall. You cannot accredit an ambassador if you have not recalled the incumbent ambassador. When we say someone is Nigeria's ambassador, the person is representing the President, and this means that since the President was elected by the people, he represents Nigeria.

So, that of the ambassador is not a direct representation. Many who have worked to get the President elected will want an appointment as a reward. Meanwhile, there are unlimited posts for political ambassadors. Normally, there are two competing candidates for the ambassadorial posts: career professionals who are already in the system and political candidates. When you are at Level 17 as a director, you can be appointed. The Foreign Service is not a place that should be like the civil service, where they sell things. If you don't know your onions, you cannot survive there.

There are many reasons why people lobby to be ambassadors. For instance, those who have corruption charges want continued protection after they leave service; they call it diplomatic protection, and this is of two types, as provided in the 1961 Vienna Convention and as provided by private international law. People complained when the service chiefs under former President Muhammadu Buhari were considered for ambassadorial positions. Governors who have stolen money still have immunity, but after their tenure, such an appointment gives them another four years of immunity. So, everybody is struggling to get an ambassadorial position for protection. Another thing is that people like titles in Nigeria. If Tinubu wants to succeed as President, he needs to stop this special consideration given to political cronies. The problem with Nigerian politicians is that they are more interested in self-survival than national survival, and there are many cases to illustrate that.

You once mentioned that most ambassadors don't recognise that they are under the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Why do you think so?

All ambassadors so appointed are under the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They are supposed to relate to Mr President through the minister, but because the political ambassadors don't know the implications and because of their close rapport with the President, they tend to bypass the minister. There should be due process. The diplomatic protocols require that if an ambassador wants to travel, it is required that they inform the minister of foreign affairs because of their security. That is why I am saying that those who understand the regulation are the people who should be allowed to manage Nigeria's foreign affairs at this critical point, and the reason is that the 2023 election has given Nigeria a very bad name.

Why do you think the election gave Nigeria a bad name?

The report by many election observers pointed to electoral malpractices, and people were reportedly killed. Why is it that it is only in Nigeria that we are having these problems? Also, you cannot claim not to know that the courts have just upturned the election of four governorship. What about the Supreme Court ruling on the presidential election? One of the businesses of the embassies is to monitor the day-to-day political activities in Nigeria. They do analysis and report to their government.

There were concerns recently that some ambassadors recalled by President Tinubu didn't want to return. What do you make of this?

People do not know that living in Nigeria is not the same thing as living overseas as a diplomat. When diplomatic agents are posted abroad, they go with their families. Their children will go to school. So, if for instance, an ambassador's child is in Form 4 in England and a newly elected President recalls him, what do you expect him to do? There is a need for long notice for them to return with convenience. Ordinarily, a person is appointed to serve for three years; if he is recalled within the first year, he will need time to adjust.

Doesn't this mean that the system where Presidents make appointments at the tail end of their tenure is faulty?

The President has only four years within which he will want to achieve his set agenda. So, if he has to wait until one ambassador retires, he will have no story to tell. For any President that comes on board, the tendency is to quickly change and put his men there. The current ambassadors are those designated by Buhari, and they were his representatives, not Tinubu's because the letters of credence given to them had the signature of Buhari. So, it is normal for President Tinubu to appoint his people. Though there is the idea that there should be continuity in government, it is not in this context. That was why I was differentiating between political and career ambassadors. The political ambassadors have different agendas; they don't care. After four years, they go back to their business, but the career ambassadors are always available. Even when they retire, they are available for consultation. I think it is proper for President Tinubu to do what he has done.

There have been issues with the poor funding of Nigerian embassies in the past. What do you think is responsible for this development?

Many reasons; Nigeria is not known for engaging in strategic calculation in the world of diplomacy. Nigeria foreign policy is generally reactive; it is not programmatic. Our foreign policy has been the worst in the past eight years under former President Buhari. The former Foreign Affairs Minister, Geoffrey Onyeama, cannot be said to be incompetent because he worked with an international organisation, the World Intellectual Property Organization, before his appointment. He worked as an international functionary. When he was a minister, maybe he was not in tune with the presidency, and he did not want to run into conflict. So, he allowed things to move on. This is so because we had a situation where the former foreign minister always justified Western policy, which is ridiculous. And because they were always reacting and making only pronouncements, there was no need for funding. If you have a programmatic foreign policy, that project will require money. So, if there was poor funding of embassies, it was because there were no serious foreign policy objectives. Secondly, there is no more money to fund the embassies. Even though (Yakubu) Gowon said the problem in Nigeria was not money but how to spend it, currently, the money is no longer there; they are just borrowing and borrowing.

What can the Federal Government do to address the situation and avoid national embarrassment?

The former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olugbenga Ashiru, came up with the theory of smart missions, which means reducing the number of personnel to the minimum essential staff. So, rather than having an economic counsellor, a political counsellor, and a cultural counsellor, you just put one person in charge who can efficiently carry out the three functions. The same thing should be done in all sectors to reduce costs. Meanwhile, this theory of smart missions, where an individual is covering many functions, presented a serious problem, but when the issue of funding was raised, they said it was better to adopt it than close down the mission because if you do, it is taken as offensive by the host country, which will think that the bilateral relationship is not good enough.

Another problem when you talk about funding lies with the National Assembly. When they are reviewing the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and they see billions of naira allocated to it, they raise the alarm and myopically forget that the billions of naira will not be more than a few million dollars because of the exchange rate. So, often, they wickedly reduce the ministry's budget because they do not look at the fact that the expenses of the diplomatic missions are generally in dollars. For us to survive, please, we need to fund the missions very well.

There have also been issues with the claims that most of these embassies are not as effective as they should be in promoting Nigeria's interest in their host country. Does this have anything to do with the level of competence of government officials at the embassies or is it still the issue of poor funding?

The answer is poor funding. With due respect, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a ministry for Dick and Harry because the Ministry officials are going to deal with the best brain in the world. What that means is that, if you are going to the United Nations, for instance, Britain will always send the best of their best to go and advance their interests. I don't blame people who talked about incompetence. This is because, in recent times, they introduced the federal character to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you are going into a football competition, you send your best eleven, not the second eleven.

Do you think it will be proper for President Tinubu to set a target as a key performance indicator for all appointees to ensure efficiency?

I don't think that is necessary, but I can still say it is necessary. It is unnecessary because every diplomatic mission has a mission charter, which is synonymous with KPI. There are set objectives that every diplomatic mission is expected to achieve. The foreign policy objective of our embassy in Togo is different from that of Germany, and that of Germany is different from that of Japan, etcetera. Each embassy has a mission charter, and it is generally well-regulated.

There have been reported cases of Nigerians facing harsh treatment during check-ins at airports and embassies in foreign countries simply because they hold a green passport. What is the cause of this?

I do not think it is because they are holding green passports; that could be a secondary reason. Look at what happened in Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago, where some Nigerians were rejected at the airport for passport and document issues. How will you expect embassies in other countries not to suspect Nigerian travelers?

But the Air Peace Chairman, Allen Onyeama, said in a recent interview that the documents of those airlifted were approved after confirmation by Saudi Arabia, but they got there, and it became a different issue. Some are saying maybe the country wanted to pass a message to Nigeria. How will you react to this?

I am not saying that the Air Peace Chairman is right or wrong. He can hold an opinion. Here, in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, people have been tried in the law court; they were not convicted, but the case was taken to the UK, and the same people were convicted. An approval was given in Nigeria, and suddenly they got there and saw that the approval given was fraught with irregularities. The fact that you are given a visa does not mean you must be allowed into the country. A passport like that of Nigeria or any other is a recommendation by the issuing authority to another Embassy, saying that ‘The holder of the passport is known to us; please, assist'.

When a diplomatic mission gives you, a visa based on the recommendation of the issuing authority of the passport, the visa is also a recommendation to the homeland immigration office. Between the times you were given a visa and now, you might have tampered with it. In the context of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria has been having running battles with the country.

First of all, Air Peace was not allowed to load and offload at the airport; they recommended a secondary airport for them to operate at. The second level of the running battle was the dollars Nigeria owed some airlines, including Saudi Arabia. Even though Tinubu went to Saudi Arabia for discussion and investment talk, then came back to say the relationship would now be normalised, that does not mean it is. This is to tell you that declaratory diplomacy is different from action diplomacy. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are simply protecting their Arab interests; Nigeria does not have specific interests they are protecting. They are only preaching about foreign investment.

President Tinubu has been engaging in wooing foreign investors to Nigeria. But the US recently warned its citizens to stay away from major hotels in Nigeria over security issues. Was such a call by the US justified?

The call is justified and not justified. It is justified because the United States is a very security-conscious country that monitors the safety of its citizens in heaven and on earth. In this case, they use satellites to monitor and ensure the security of their citizens. When they are not sure of their safety, they will issue an advisory to warn and inform their citizens to link up with the embassy where they are before moving anywhere. The American government knows very well that they are always the target of terrorists.

In this case, it is in their foreign policy interest to warn their citizens. But if there is an advisory by any of these countries, rather than jettison it, yours is to strengthen the security forces to prepare for any eventuality. But the style of the (Nigerian) government is to say it is not true, and yet you will discover that it is true. Again, such calls are not justified because one way of intimidating any country is to issue such an advisory even if there is no threat.

What is your take on the increasing rate of Nigerians leaving the country in recent times?

Are they leaving for greener pastures? We can say yes. If it is good for Nigeria, we can say yes and no. First of all, this is a very welcome development. As I have always said, Nigerian politicians do not care whether Nigeria is destroyed or not. Politicians can fight themselves in the morning, and in the evening, you see them together in the bear parlour. They don't know who has a job, who is suffering, or whether hospitals have medications. Politicians are only interested in the next elections.

Those who are leaving the country know that they have been well-trained, and that opportunity is somewhere else, which is what they are going for. You need to know that doctors, engineers, and others trained in Nigeria are equivalent to the best anywhere across the world. Once you graduate from Nigeria, you can survive anywhere, including the most critical part of the world, but they are not appreciated here. We have unemployment galore, and those who are working are not paid well. There is insecurity, and policemen who are supposed to ensure adequate checks on the roads are busy collecting money.

The recent issues of military coups in some African countries have raised fear in many quarters about such happenings in Nigeria, although the military has denounced them. What do you think should be done to avert any coup in Nigeria?

Nobody can prevent a coup in Nigeria. There is a war you prepare for, and there is one imposed on you. The Niger Republic gained its independence in 1960. It was only in 2023, after many decades, that the people told France to leave their country after more than 60 years. If there has not been a coup in Nigeria since Nigeria started its Fourth Republic, it is simply because the people of Nigeria are not going for it. What caused the coup in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, and recently in Gabon? You will discover that we are not witnessing a military coup but a civilian coup—a coup de tat by the people. The people are now against bad governance, corruption-driven governance, and democracy that is protecting corruption. Remember that in Mali, the people began to protest against the government in power, complaining about poverty, injustices, and unfairness, but nobody listened to them? The ECOWAS and African Union, which were saying there should be no unconstitutional removal of the government, didn't see the issues before the coups.

After the coups, ECOWAS issued some sanctions but has not been able to achieve a return to democracy in those countries. Doesn't this make ECOWAS a lame duck?

Far from it; that's why I am building it up, starting with Mali. In Mali, they started a protest; they called it the June 5 movement. When the protest became worse after some days, the military intervened and took over, but the people supported it. African leaders then called for a non-constitutional change of government; they didn't call for anything when the constitutional government was oppressing the people and unable to solve problems. ECOWAS has been mediating in all crises since its inception; if they have not succeeded, it is not because they are lame ducks. The issue is that they didn't diagnose the problems very well. The coup is a civilian coup. So, the question is, who is ECOWAS protecting? Is it the people or the ousted government? And when the people are standing with the coupists, what do you expect (ECOWAS) them to do?

The Senate recently called on President Tinubu to join the US to intervene and bring an end to the Israel-Hamas war. Don't you think the Nigerian government should stay neutral in the matter?

 A leader must not stay neutral when it comes to merciless killings. Nigeria cannot be neutral. The policy of non-alignment in Nigeria's foreign policy, as defined in the speech of Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa on August 20, 1960, stated that Nigeria will not blindly follow the lead of any country. If you are talking about calls being made to President Tinubu to join the United States in finding peace, the non-alignment policy says Nigeria will not blindly follow the lead of any country. Contrary to many observers who believed non-alignment meant not aligning, it doesn't mean that. According to Tafawa Balawe, it is Nigeria's national interest that determines whether to align or not. So, it is very difficult to say we should join the US to find peace.

It is the most dangerous foreign policy decision to take. Northern Nigeria generally supports Palestinians, and the Christians in the South support Israel. If the Nigerian government takes a decision that will be seen as supporting one side, you are inviting fire back home. Muammar Gaddafi once said that there would not be peace in Nigeria until it was divided into a Muslim North and a Christian South. There is a foreign policy doctrine called the Akinyemi doctrine, which says that any country that wants Nigerians' support must have carried Nigeria along through discussions and others. So, you can't say Nigeria should join America. America has a selfish interest in the Israeli-Gaza war. Anyone who is advising that we should join with America is basing their analysis on a very faulty and unpatriotic basis. The role of America in the crisis is not worthy of emulation. Nigeria should not be seen with them.

Some have called on President Tinubu to convene a national confab, while others have urged him to implement Oransanye's report to put the country in the right direction of growth. What is your take on this?

Firstly, nobody can know the true position of Tinubu.

Why do you say so?

Tinubu needed the concept of a united Nigeria to become the president. So, he has always been against anybody asking for restructuring or a divided Nigeria. When Muhammadu Buhari was in power, he refrained from saying that national unity was not negotiable. He also said Nigeria was indivisible because the 1999 Constitution clearly stated that, but the reality in international politics is such that there is nothing like the indivisibility of a country. Ethiopia and others are there. South Sudan was carved out of Sudan, etc. All these examples abound. You cannot force anyone to be united. The issue is that since Tinubu has this idea of ‘Emilokan' and wants to be president, there is no way he could have been part of any idea that will be talking about the divisibility of Nigeria.

Goodluck Jonathan's 2014 conference was a report that had a strong consensus. Buhari didn't bother to look at it. That is to tell you something is wrong. Asking Tinubu to convene a national conference that will recommend splitting Nigeria is asking him to do the impossible because you are asking him to establish what will destroy his reign, and it is not as simple as that.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo recently said the Western style of democracy was not working for Nigeria and Africa at large. Do you think the former President is correct?

I think he is perfectly headed in the right direction. Olusegun Obasanjo doesn't talk frivolously. He thinks deeply and engages in critical thinking. He has been talking about this issue of the presidential system, which everybody knows is very expensive. Some countries like France and others have adopted a semi-presidential system. Theirs is that the executive system should be accountable to the parliament of the people.