***Demands Foreign Service Commission to curb political interference
Nigeria’s diplomatic establishment is being steadily weakened by political interference from the highest levels of government, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Major General Ike Nwachukwu (retd.), has warned—raising fresh concerns about the role of the presidency in shaping ambassadorial appointments.
In an unusually blunt intervention, Nwachukwu accused successive administrations of prioritising political patronage over competence, a trend he said has worsened under the current system where the President retains sweeping powers over diplomatic postings.
Speaking at the Abuja launch of Fragments of Time: My Foreign Service Years, he described Nigeria’s foreign service as a system “under strain,” where career diplomats are increasingly sidelined to accommodate political loyalists, party stalwarts, and retired power brokers.
Though he stopped short of naming individuals, his critique pointed squarely at the presidency under Bola Ahmed Tinubu and previous administrations, which constitutionally control ambassadorial nominations subject to Senate confirmation.
“It is disheartening that officers who have dedicated their lives to this profession find their advancement constrained,” Nwachukwu said, in what many diplomats interpret as a direct indictment of politically driven appointments.
Insiders within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs say the consequences are already visible: declining morale, stalled career progression, and a growing perception that loyalty to political power centres now outweighs years of diplomatic training and field experience.
More critically, Nwachukwu warned that Nigeria’s international credibility is at risk.
Diplomatic postings, he argued, are no longer consistently driven by strategic considerations but by internal political calculations—rewarding allies, balancing party interests, or settling elite bargains. The result, he suggested, is a foreign policy apparatus struggling to maintain coherence in an increasingly complex global environment.
“This is not just about fairness within the service,” a senior diplomat said privately. “It is about whether Nigeria is still putting its best foot forward internationally.”
To halt what he implied is a dangerous slide, Nwachukwu called for the immediate establishment of a Foreign Service Commission—an independent body that would strip the presidency of unchecked influence over appointments and introduce transparent criteria for recruitment, promotion, and discipline.
“We must institutionalise best practices and protect the integrity of the service,” he declared.
His proposal, if implemented, would mark a significant shift in Nigeria’s power structure—effectively redistributing control over a key instrument of foreign policy away from the executive and into a regulated institutional framework.
He also demanded a return to the 80–20 formula in ambassadorial appointments, limiting political nominees to 20 per cent and reserving the majority for career diplomats—a benchmark many within the system say has been quietly eroded in recent years.
Beyond appointments, Nwachukwu took aim at what he described as the government’s “persistent neglect” of foreign missions, citing chronic underfunding, unpaid obligations, and deteriorating working conditions across several embassies.
Diplomatic sources confirm that some missions have struggled with operational costs, a situation that has, at times, forced Nigeria into embarrassing positions on the global stage.
Taken together, his remarks amount to one of the most direct public challenges yet to the political management of Nigeria’s foreign policy machinery.
They also raise uncomfortable questions for both the executive and the National Assembly, which is constitutionally empowered to screen ambassadorial nominees but has often been accused of rubber-stamping politically influenced lists.
With Nigeria seeking greater influence in regional and global affairs, the stakes are high. A weakened diplomatic corps, critics argue, could undermine trade negotiations, security partnerships, and the country’s broader geopolitical ambitions.
For now, there has been no official response from the presidency or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But Nwachukwu’s intervention has shifted the debate from quiet bureaucratic dissatisfaction to an open confrontation over power, merit, and national interest.
At its core, the issue is no longer just about who gets appointed ambassador—it is about whether Nigeria’s diplomacy is being deployed as a tool of national strategy or reduced to an extension of domestic political patronage
