Former Nigerian Ambassador to Netherlands and Deputy National Secretary of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Chief Orji Ngofa, has urged President Bola Tinubu to rejig his foreign policy approach for the betterment of Nigerians. In this interview with DANIEL ABIA, Ngofa describes Nigeria’s foreign policy as a misnomer, saying that the inability of the Federal Government to appoint diplomats 15 months after recalling former ambassadors could damage the country’s international reputation.

Has Nigeria gained anything significant from President Tinubu’s diplomatic shuttles and the signing of memorandum of understanding with countries like China, India, France and South Africa among others?

The signing of bilateral agreements with France, for instance, by President Bola Tinubu, is to bring some significant economic benefits to Nigeria. One of the major gains of that diplomatic shuttle to France is the restitution of 150 million dollars looted by the former Head of State, late Gen Sani Abacha. There is also a100 million euros agreement signed with the French authorities to support promotion of investment in information, communication technology, education and creative art. 

I believe that this bilateral agreement will strengthen cooperation between Nigeria and France. It will also strengthen our economy. France has also expressed her readiness to expand collaboration with Nigeria across multiple sectors such as education, infrastructure, security and more. But as a diplomat, I have slide issues with these bilateral agreements. We know that France is not particularly a friend of Nigeria. France has consistently opposed Nigeria’s interest. Right from time, France supported Biafra against Nigeria (during the civil war). France has not been comfortable with Nigeria’s position in leading the ECOWAS countries. France has been responsible for the inability of African cooperative agreement to get a common currency. The reason is that most of the Francophone countries under the control of France have their exchange in French franc and also have their foreign reserves in French banks. They have done everything to ensure that we don’t get the required agreement to get the ECO (West African currency). My problem is that we must have enough diplomatic will power to stand the strategic power of France in engaging in this kind of bilateral engagement. France is not doing anything with us for free. 

In my opinion, France is doing this in order to have a leeway to explore our mineral resources, especially resources they have lost in Francophone countries like Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, etc. These are all former French colonies that have divested political and economic interest from the control of France. Our approach should require a strategic thinking in this kind of engagement and diplomacy to get a reciprocal engagement. France is not doing this for nothing. If France comes with a request that we cannot offer, what will the President do? The President should be properly informed that our diplomatic history with France is such that they always see Nigeria as a challenge in dealing with the West African Sub-region. Somebody has not been loving you but suddenly the person now begins to express interest in you. You must find out why she is loving you. You must have the dexterity and political will to deal with the situation.

Do you see our present foreign policy approach taking us away from our Western traditional allies like the US, Britain, etc?

When it comes to China, India, South Africa, you know that they are the pioneers of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries. They have initiated an alternative political and economic model to what is being championed by the West, especially America. 

The BRICS countries want to create an alternative currency for investment and economic deals. This is catching up with a lot of countries. Nigeria is also exploring the possibilities of dealing with the BRICS nations. Part of this diplomatic shuttle is to look at the options available for the President to choose from. I don’t see anything wrong with that. What is important is that at the end of the day, we develop a model that will suit our own economic and political reality.

Are the BRICS nations trying to create a new world order?

A new world order is a big issue in international relations. When you talk of a world order, you are talking of political, economic, cultural, technological dominance. The elements that dominate these spheres. I do not think the BRICS nations have the capacity for this. One of the major indices of a new world order is having a formidable military, and strong economy among others.

Niger Republic, Mali and Burkina Faso have been given a July 29, 2025 deadline by the Tinubu-led ECOWAS to return to the organization, do you see the military leaders in these countries respecting that order? If not, how will that portray President Tinubu to the international community?

The case of Mali, Niger Republic and Burkina Faso is that of neo-colonialism that has gotten to the point where the entire population of these countries became fed up. France has dominated the economy of these countries to such an extent that it has created perpetual decline in their goods. The people called for the coups because the civilian governments there didn’t meet their needs any more. As President of ECOWAS, Tinubu has found himself in a mix. First, he needed to enforce the Treaty of ECOWAS which outlawed military coup. When he considered the internal economic situation of these countries, he could not enforce it. I think these countries have agreed to disintegrate from ECOWAS in spite of the consequences. These countries are landlocked areas and they depend on ECOWAS countries’ coastal routes for business. These are Sahel countries that trade mainly on livestock and other commodities like onions. The question is, in spite of the negative consequences they are going to face, why have these countries become so adamant in their decision? The reason is that the 1999 protocol relating to the mechanism for conflict resolution, prevention and management of ECOWAS resolutions depends on the fact that these countries must be governed by elected civilians. They realized that Article 25 of the 1999 protocol authorizes external intervention without the consent of the state. This is like what Nigeria did in The Gambia, Sao Tome and Principe. For these juntas to remain in power, they have to leave the ECOWAS so that this Article does not bind on them. That is the reason they have chosen to leave the ECOWAS. You can see that rather than relinquishing power, they have chosen to relinquish their membership of ECOWAS.  It is a matter of time. When their people begin to complain of movement restrictions among member countries, they will sit up. They depend on our seaports for business and trade. If they are cut off, it will cause severe hardship to their people.

Can we say that these West African countries are adamant to ECOWAS because of their reliance on Russia despite the crisis Moscow is facing with the war in Ukraine, and Western sanctions among others?

The West has actually failed these countries. These countries are also rich in uranium and gold. Niger, for instance, has an abundance of uranium, which French companies had exploited and the Niger people got a peanut from the proceeds. Russia seems to have offered them a better deal. 

But what happens in the long run? The war in Ukraine has taken its toll on Russia. Russia has also withdrawn from Syria leading to the fall of former President Bashar Al-Assad. Hezbollah, which was an ally to Syria is also having its own problems due to the Israeli war. What is the guarantee that these three countries can sustain a very strong and robust bilateral relationship with Russia?

What are the consequences of Nigeria not having ambassadors 15 months after the withdrawal of former Ambassadors by President Tinubu?

So bad. I can tell you as a former ambassador that a country loses a lot when you don’t have a high level ambassador in international politics. The implication is very dire. The inability of Nigeria to post ambassadors to almost 140 nations or so, is very severe to the image of this country. It reduces the image of our international relations and representation. 

Without ambassadors, Nigeria’s diplomatic presence and influence in foreign countries is seriously diminished. There are certain levels of diplomatic engagements that a Charge d’affaires cannot be involved in. There are levels of meetings he cannot attend. Only an ambassador can enter into certain levels of bilateral agreements. 

The duties of a Charge D’Affairs are administrative. They don’t have the full complement of diplomatic power to represent their countries. They are not ambassadors plenipotentiary. We are losing all of that for not appointing ambassadors. We have lost economic opportunities from other countries. Ambassadors play very crucial roles in trade and economic development in any country. Not having Ambassadors means that we may miss out on economic opportunities at the international circle.

 

Bilateral agreement consolidates consular services. Absence of an Ambassador can create security vulnerabilities. Also, our citizens in other countries may not have the needed protection that they need in foreign land. It is a huge damage to Nigeria’s international reputation not having ambassadors in foreign countries. Not appointing ambassadors can be seen as a lack of commitment to international relations and diplomacy. 

Nigeria in the 1960s and 1970s was considered the giant of Africa. The reason we were called the giant of Africa was because of our robust international diplomacy. We were in the forefront challenging apartheid and fighting to ensure that every part of Africa was de-colonized. Africa still remains our center-piece for Nigeria’s foreign policy. We have what is called the concentric circles of diplomacy which defines our layers of interest. First, we pursue our interest as a country, West African interest, then Africa and the global interest.   

What is your assessment of President Tinubu’s foreign policy based on the 4Ds approach of democracy, development, demography and diaspora?

The strength of your diplomacy is tied to the strength of your domestic development. You cannot give what you don’t have. If the president says his strength is giving democracy, are we democratic in this country? It is hypocritical. You cannot export what you don’t have. I think that the President has to come home and put our democracy right. Yes, over 65 percent of our population are made up of youths. Charity must start from home. 

I am not seeing serious commitment in democratizing Nigeria in a way that should favour our demography. On the issue of development, the President’s approach so far has been very dysfunctional. This is a President that removed oil subsidy on the very day he was sworn-in. That action has created problems that we cannot get out of. I believe that the purpose of the government is to secure lives and property. Countries all over the world subsidize a lot of things. Britain subsidizes electricity, America subsidizes agriculture. 

Why completely remove subsidy when you know that the consequences will be difficult to overcome?

Look at the level of hardship in the country today. I don’t agree with our foreign policy focus. How do you leverage on exporting democracy when even your own election was subject to massive dispute, a sham? We are here today because the judiciary said so. His focus on foreign policy is a misnomer. We have to adopt a bottom up approach. You want to export democracy to the West African Sub-region when people don’t see you as a product of democracy.  What example are you showing? 

The countries the President is leading as ECOWAS President will take him seriously when his election is free and fair, and they know that he is a product of popular choice. 

I want to see commitment to free and fair elections. Look at the Edo election, people were shouting that a cousin of the FCT minister was a card carrying member of a particular political party, yet, he was made a REC.