A former Permanent Secretary in Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Joe Keshi, has sharply criticised President Bola Tinubu’s newly released ambassadorial list, warning that several nominees “should have no business in the diplomatic service by any standard.”
Speaking on Channels Television’s The Morning Brief on Monday, Keshi questioned the character and records of some of the non-career nominees, arguing that Nigeria is rewarding individuals who failed as public officials, or who should otherwise be facing justice.
“I’m comfortable with some names on the list,” he said. “But the bulk of the people on the non-career list is disturbing. Are these the kind of people we want to represent Nigeria? You have people who, if justice had prevailed, should actually be cooling their heels in prison—not being sent out as ambassadors.”
Keshi accused the administration of using ambassadorial postings as political compensation, including for former governors he said “were absolute failures” and left behind states that successors are still trying to repair.
“These are the people being rewarded because they helped destroy other political parties,” he added.
Career Diplomats ‘Bitter’ Over Exclusion
The former permanent secretary said senior career diplomats in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are “deeply demoralised” by their exclusion from Tinubu’s list, which heavily features politicians, former governors, and former top officials.
“They’ve gone through training, they’ve prepared themselves, and at the height where they are supposed to be appointed, you now say they are not qualified,” he said. “These officers are bitter, and they think Nigeria has done this to them.”
Keshi appealed to President Tinubu to ensure that any second list—widely rumoured to be forthcoming—should consist solely of career officers from the ministry.
‘Nigeria Needs Its Best Hands’
Recalling the foundation of Nigeria’s diplomatic service in the 1960s, Keshi said the vision of the country’s founding leaders was clear: a competent, independent, and well-trained foreign service capable of competing globally.
“For a long time, the foreign service met that standard until politicians came and started what they are doing today,” he said.
He also suggested that a “conspiracy” led to the removal of former National Intelligence Agency (NIA) Director-General Ayo Oke, but did not elaborate on the alleged plot.
A Controversial List Amid Public Outrage
Tinubu’s recent list of 32 ambassadorial nominees includes high-profile figures such as former INEC Chairman Mahmood Yakubu; former governors Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi and Okezie Ikpeazu; former minister Femi Fani-Kayode; and former presidential aide Reno Omokri. An earlier list had already proposed Ayo Oke, Amin Dalhatu, and retired Colonel Lateef Are for confirmation.
The nominations have drawn mixed reactions, coming just weeks after widespread outrage over a presidential pardon granted to 175 convicted persons.
Legal scholar Prof. Chidi Odinkalu condemned the pardons in an article titled Pardon Me?!, noting that 93 percent of the beneficiaries were convicted of the most serious crimes—including drug trafficking, unlawful mining, murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and looting.
Top columnist and former presidential spokesperson Olusegun Adeniyi echoed the criticism, describing the pardons as a “justifiably” controversial exercise of presidential power.
The Nigerian Tribune also published an editorial questioning the judgment behind the ambassadorial appointments, warning of the long-term consequences of politicising Nigeria’s diplomatic corps.
As the Senate prepares to begin confirmation hearings, public scrutiny is intensifying over whether the nominees reflect competence—or merely political allegiance.
Below is the TRIBUNE EDITORIAL.
The newly released breakdown of ambassadorial nominees has reopened a debate this administration has never quite escaped: the question of balance, equity, and whether President Tinubu’s appointments reflect a commitment to national inclusion or an emerging pattern of bias.
The statistics circulating widely — including the graphic published by the Nigerian Tribune — tell their own story. Out of the total nominees:
• South-West: 11
• South-East: 6
• North-West: 5
• North-East: 5
• North-Central: 5
• South-South: 3
Even without partisan lenses, one number dominates the conversation: 11 nominees from the South-West, a figure almost double that of any other zone and nearly quadruple that of the South-South.
For many observers, this is not merely an imbalance; it is a reinforcement of an old grievance — that federal appointments have become increasingly tilted, feeding suspicion that personal, regional, or political loyalties are edging out the constitutional principle of federal character.
Critics argue that the distribution is particularly troubling because ambassadorial postings carry symbolic weight. Ambassadors do not represent states or regions; they represent Nigeria. For that reason, the public expects the selection process to model unity, not disparity. The appearance of over-concentration in one zone undermines that expectation.
The strongest reactions have come from the South-South, which received only three nominees. Leaders and commentators from the region note that this level of under-representation feels less like an oversight and more like a deliberate de-prioritisation — especially when compared with the South-West’s 11 slots.
Defenders of the administration counter that professional competence, experience, and geopolitical considerations — not raw numbers — drive ambassadorial choices. They insist that the list reflects the pool of qualified candidates and the diplomatic needs of the moment. But that argument has struggled to gain traction, largely because the government has not offered transparent selection criteria or provided any explanation for the sharp regional differences.
For a presidency already navigating public suspicion over earlier appointment patterns, silence is costly. In the absence of clarification, perception hardens into narrative — and the narrative gaining ground is that Tinubu’s government is drifting toward regional favouritism.
This is not a trivial matter. Nigeria’s unity requires more than speeches; it requires that every region sees itself in the architecture of power. Even if unintended, an appointment imbalance of this scale sends the wrong message at the wrong time, especially in a country where federal character was designed to prevent precisely this form of concentration.
The way forward is simple and achievable:
• The Presidency should publish clear criteria for ambassadorial nominations.
• It should address the noticeable disparities in the list.
• And it should commit to more balanced future appointments, matching competence with inclusion.
In a nation as diverse as ours, fairness is not optional — it is the currency of legitimacy. And where numbers raise questions, leadership must provide answers.
