Tinubu’s “Settlement List”: How an Ambassadorial Roll Call Became Nigeria’s Diplomatic Crisis

Tinubu’s “Settlement List”: How an Ambassadorial Roll Call Became Nigeria’s Diplomatic Crisis

As the Nigerian Senate prepares to screen a long-awaited list of ambassadorial nominees, what should have been a routine legislative duty has ignited a political firestorm.

The list, hurriedly submitted by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu after nearly three years of diplomatic vacancies, is being condemned not as a blueprint for foreign policy renewal but as a ledger for settling political debts, rewarding controversial figures, and undermining the nation’s already fragile international credibility.

The criticism is sweeping, bipartisan, and fierce. From the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to civic coalitions and even voices from within the broad spectrum of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), a common narrative emerges: this list, far from projecting a renewed Nigeria, risks cementing its image as a nation where democratic norms are transactional and institutional integrity is negotiable.

The list of thirty-two ambassadorial nominees is divided into two categories.

The seventeen non-career ambassadors include Barrister Ogbonnaya Kalu from Abia; Reno Omokri from Delta, a former aide to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan; the former INEC Chairman Prof. Mahmood Yakubu from Bauchi; Erelu Bisi Angela Adebayo, former Ekiti First Lady; and Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, former Governor of Enugu State.

Also nominated are former Speaker of the Katsina House of Assembly Tasiu Musa Maigari; Yakubu N. Gambo, former Plateau Commissioner and ex-Deputy Executive Secretary of the Universal Basic Education Commission; and Prof. Nora Ladi Daduut from Plateau, a former Senator.

The list continues with a former Deputy Governor of Lagos State Otunba Femi Pedro; Chief Femi Fani-Kayode from Osun, a former Aviation Minister; Barr. Nkechi Linda Ufochukwu from Anambra, a legal practitioner; and Fatima Florence Ajimobi, a former First Lady of Oyo State.

Rounding out the non-career nominations are Lola Akande, a former Lagos State Commissioner; Grace Bent from Adamawa, a former Senator; Dr. Victor Okezie Ikpeazu, former Governor of Abia State; Senator Jimoh Ibrahim from Ondo, and Ambassador Paul Oga Adikwu from Benue, a former Ambassador to the Holy See.

The fifteen career ambassador nominees are Enebechi Monica Okwuchukwu from Abia; Yakubu Nyaku Danladi from Taraba; Miamuna Ibrahim Besto from Adamawa; and Musa Musa Abubakar from Kebbi.

This category also includes Syndoph Paebi Endoni from Bayelsa; Chima Geoffrey Lioma David from Ebonyi; Mopelola Adeola-Ibrahim from Ogun; and Abimbola Samuel Reuben from Ondo.

Furthermore, the career nominees are Yvonne Ehinosen Odumah from Edo; Hamza Mohammed Salau from Niger; Ambassador Shehu Barde from Katsina; and Ambassador Ahmed Mohammed Monguno from Borno.

The final career nominations are Ambassador Muhammad Saidu Dahiru from Kaduna; Ambassador Olatunji Ahmed Sulu Gambari from Kwara; and Ambassador Wahab Adekola Akande from Osun.

The PDP set the tone with a scathing indictment, describing the nominees as “disgraced elements,” “characterless politicians,” and individuals with “notable anti-democratic activities.”

In a statement laden with palpable outrage, the party’s National Publicity Secretary, Comrade Ini Ememobong, argued that the list is a direct reflection of the administration’s values. “By making these nominations,” Ememobong stated, “the President has shown Nigerians that these are the best people he has to represent our country… That it took the President almost three years to produce this list speaks to the paucity of excellent people within his reach.”

This sentiment of underwhelming selection is echoed by the ADC, which labelled the compilation a “settlement list of political IOUs.” Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, painted a picture of a nation in diplomatic distress, offering not saviours but a “comic cast of political jobbers, corruption suspects, and patronage of wives, children, and relatives of political associates.”

However, two specific nominations have become the lightning rods for the broader discontent, crystallizing fears about the erosion of democratic guardrails.

The first is the nomination of Prof. Mahmood Yakubu, the immediate-past Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). To the opposition, this appointment is not just controversial; it is existential.

Prof. Yakubu presided over the contentious 2023 general elections, the results of which are still being contested in the court of public opinion and which birthed the Tinubu administration.

Offering him a prestigious diplomatic posting barely two years after that election and weeks after his INEC tenure ended is, in the words of the PDP, “an excellent example of a skewed reward system.” They posit a dangerous incentive: “designed as an incentive to the new INEC Chairman, to also deliver flawed elections in 2027, in expectation of future rewards.”

The ADC’s critique strikes a similar chord but focuses on institutional corrosion. “This particular appointment blurs what should be a distinct line between players and umpires,” Abdullahi argued. “If allowed to stand, it would set a dangerous precedent where future INEC chairmen… may begin to see their positions as stepping stones to future political rewards. Once that mindset enters the bloodstream of our electoral system, neutrality becomes impossible.” They have called on Prof. Yakubu to “do the patriotic thing” and reject the nomination, failing which they urge the Senate to block it.

The second flashpoint is the nomination of Mr. Reno Omokri, a former presidential aide turned prolific social media commentator. The Delta Democrats Forum (DDF), in an open letter, pleaded with President Tinubu to withdraw Omokri’s nomination, calling him “a deeply controversial personality unfit for diplomacy.”

They cite his “provocative rhetoric,” “divisive commentary,” and “frequent public altercations” as antithetical to the calm statesmanship required of an ambassador. “Delta State cannot be represented abroad by an individual whose conduct routinely inflames tensions,” they declared, adding pointedly that given his divisive posture, justifying his appointment “even as a ward councillor in Delta State” would be difficult.

The backlash is not confined to the opposition. From within the ideological camp that produced the president, a telling rebuke has emerged. Lauretta Onochie, a fiercely loyal former aide to President Muhammadu Buhari, took to social media to accuse President Tinubu of “nepotism at its peak.”

Her analysis focused on the regional spread of the nominees: South-South (3), North-West (5), North-Central (5), North-East (5), South-East (6), and South-West (11).

“But hey, you are solidly in bed with nepotism,” she wrote, alleging the list disproportionately favoured the Yoruba South-West. Onochie further accused the president of “rewarding those who mobilised hostilities against the Buhari administration,” revealing fractures within the ruling party’s legacy alliances.

Beneath the cacophony of criticism lies a fundamental question: what is the purpose of an ambassador in today’s Nigeria? Diplomacy is no longer merely about pleasantries in foreign capitals. It is a critical tool for economic advocacy, attracting investment, rebuilding a national brand battered by insecurity, and asserting influence in a competitive global arena.

Nigeria’s diplomatic corps has been understaffed for years, with key positions vacant, arguably diminishing the country’s profile on issues from global finance to regional security in the Sahel.

President Tinubu’s delay in submitting this list was already a point of concern. Its content, however, has transformed concern into alarm. Critics argue that instead of deploying Nigeria’s best diplomatic minds, seasoned career Foreign Service officers, respected technocrats, and unifying statesmen, the list prioritises political calculus over national competence.

The implication, they fear, is that Nigeria’s embassies may become extensions of domestic political patronage, ill-equipped to navigate complex international waters or command the respect needed to secure favourable outcomes for a nation in economic distress.

As the screening process begins, the Senate is now thrust onto the centre stage of this drama. Will it act as a mere rubber stamp, overwhelmed by executive power and party loyalty? Or will it heed the widespread calls for scrutiny, fulfilling its constitutional role as a check on executive power by rigorously examining the credentials, character, and symbolic weight of each nominee?

The Senate’s decision will send a powerful signal. A passive confirmation would validate the critique that Nigeria’s institutions are too weak to uphold ethical standards against political expediency.

A rigorous, independent screening, one that potentially rejects nominees deemed ethically compromised or unqualified, could begin the arduous task of restoring public faith in governance and demonstrating that national interest can still prevail over partisan settlement.

This is more than a debate about postings; it is a referendum on Nigeria’s democratic maturity. At stake is nothing less than the character of the nation’s face to the world. Will it be one of integrity and capability, or one that tells a story of reward for controversy and the blurring of institutional lines? The Senate’s coming weeks will provide a decisive chapter in that story. The nation, and the world, is watching.

• Gunmen Abduct Six Real Estate Marketers in Ogun
• Ooni Of Ife Shares Tender Moment With First Son, Offers Prayers
• Kiekie Opens Up About Life-Changing Prayer After Seclusion For Days