What transpired in one of the National Assembly’s committee chambers last week was more than just a procedural dispute; it was a striking example of how politics, precedent, power, and personality interact to confirm Nigeria’s representatives overseas.
Reno Omokri, a well-known non-career ambassadorial nominee, was at the center of the controversy. Senators Adams Oshiomhole and Ali Ndume got into a furious argument over Omokri’s screening.
Their altercation, which was characterized by rising voices and acerbic procedural disputes, briefly took over the meeting and brought attention to what is frequently a pointless exercise across the country.
The competence and readiness of applicants had already come under intense scrutiny a day earlier due to another incident, this time involving a career diplomat who was unable to identify all three senators from his home state.
When taken as a whole, these episodes turned the screenings into a larger discussion about norms, symbolism, and the Senate’s constitutional role in molding Nigeria’s public image.
The ambassadorial screening exercise represents a turning point in Nigeria’s foreign service, even beyond the drama. After months of vacancies and acting appointments, President Tinubu’s nomination of 65 nominees—34 career and 31 non-career—indicates a desire to reevaluate diplomatic missions.
The list highlights Nigeria’s ambassadorial system’s dual nature—professional diplomacy on the one hand and political representation on the other—by combining seasoned diplomats with political heavyweights, former governors, retired service chiefs, and presidential loyalists.
The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, led by former Niger State governor Senator Mohammed Bello, started a phased screening procedure in this setting.
The strategy adhered to long-standing legislative tradition, gathering nominees and, where appropriate, permitting former lawmakers and high-ranking public officials to bow and leave. However, as events have shown, when personalities clash and political stakes increase, convention itself may easily turn into a contentious area.
During the screening of a mixed set of nominees—four career diplomats and Omokri, a well-known public pundit and non-career nominee—there was a flashpoint.
Senator Ndume, who represents Borno South, proposed that the delegation be let to bow and depart, claiming that the committee already knew the career diplomats and that further interrogation was superfluous due to Omokri’s public persona. Other senators expressed interest in speaking before the motion could be formally seconded, which led the chairman to acknowledge more contributions.
When Senator Oshiomhole was acknowledged to speak and Ndume insisted that no discussion could begin until his motion had been properly seconded, what could have been a simple procedural diversion took a dramatic turn.
Oshiomhole disagreed, arguing that the chairman’s acknowledgement gave him the authority to speak before the committee. The chairman had to constantly call for order as the argument swiftly turned into a shouting match that stopped the meeting for about 20 minutes.
In addition to the outcome of a single motion, the chair’s authority, the interpretation of Senate rules, and, implicitly, the power of individual senators in committee deliberations were all at risk.
Oshiomhole, who had previously criticized President Tinubu and the ruling party, used his contribution to launch a passionate defense of Omokri after the situation had somewhat calmed down. He portrayed Omokri as a pragmatist capable of progress and national loyalty. He contended that the President’s readiness to nominate past detractors showed political maturity and inclusivity, traits that should be praised rather than viewed with distrust.
However, Ndume insisted that there was no need for a protracted discussion because Omokri had not filed a formal petition.
Oshiomhole’s reliance on discretion and political judgment contrasted with his stress on protocol, which held that a motion that was not seconded was dead. Different ideologies of legislative oversight—one based only on rules and the other on political context—were exposed by the exchange.
The altercation was seen by many as representative of the Nigerian Senate as a whole, a body where formalities frequently conceal more serious power battles. Both Oshiomhole and Ndume are seasoned politicians who have a solid personal conviction and a reputation for independence. Some members acknowledged in private that their disagreement was more about who controls the tone and speed of discussions in influential committees than it was about the nominee in issue.
Some claimed that the incident demonstrated democracy in action, despite its mess, while others expressed worries about efficiency and decorum. They pointed out that parliamentary examination is rarely a sterile process, particularly when nominees have substantial political symbolism or baggage.
Wednesday’s screening emphasized concerns about competency, while Thursday’s encounter brought attention to political tension. When challenged to list all three of his state’s senators, Emmanuel Adeyemi, a career diplomat from Ekiti State with stellar academic qualifications and overseas assignments, faltered. He correctly mentioned Senator Yemi Adaramodu and Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele before faltering and forgetting Senator Cyril Fasuyi. When one of his delegates was observed frantically looking up the missing name online, the situation got worse.
Members of the committee sharply criticized the lapse. Senator Asuquo Ekpenyong said that Nigeria’s reputation abroad could not afford such instances of unpreparedness, characterizing the occurrence as a sign of a more serious illness. The worry was shared by Senators Oshiomhole and Seriake Dickson, who emphasized that political acumen and attention to detail were crucial qualities for diplomats expected to represent the nation’s interests overseas. They begged for forgiveness, but the damage was already done.
A paradox in the screening procedure was revealed by the event. In a system where ambassadors are also expected to confidently negotiate Nigeria’s internal political terrain, career diplomats’ isolation from domestic political realities may prove to be a liability despite their claimed technical expertise and institutional understanding.
The ongoing discussion about how to strike a balance between career and non-career ambassadors is at the heart of both programs. In a complicated international setting, proponents of professional diplomacy contend that consistency, protocol mastery, and training are essential.
In response, proponents of political appointments argue that envoys must also be dependable representatives of the President who have the power and access to further political and economic interests.
President Tinubu’s choice of nominees shows an effort to combine the two strategies.
Political leaders like former governors Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi and Victor Ikpeazu, retired military commanders Abdulrahman Dambazzau and Ibok-Ete Ibas, and vocal political players like Femi Fani-Kayode and Reno Omokri coexist with seasoned diplomats like Sulu Gambari and Maimuna Ibrahim.
Therefore, the Senate’s responsibility goes beyond individual screening to guarantee that the diplomatic corps’ general makeup is in line with Nigeria’s strategic objectives.
The custom of “take a bow and go” was also frequently used, which raised new concerns. Critics contend that the approach runs the risk of undermining accountability, despite the fact that it is intended to speed up proceedings for former politicians and top officials who are already well-known to the Senate. They argue that even symbolic questioning reassures citizens that no nominee is immune from vetting in a time of increased public scrutiny.
Opeyemi Bamidele, the Senate Leader, justified the convention by pointing out that several of the nominees were well-known among their peers and had served in the National Assembly in the past. However, the Omokri incident showed that familiarity does not always equate to harmony or consensus.
Beyond the extravagance, the screenings serve as a prelude to a major reform of Nigeria’s diplomatic outposts. The nation’s presence overseas has been undermined by years of underfunding, protracted vacancies, and changing geopolitical conditions.
The Tinubu administration has made it clear that it intends to revitalize diplomacy as a means of fostering diaspora involvement, security cooperation, and economic recovery. The ambition would be largely dependent on the caliber, reliability, and unity of Nigeria’s ambassadors.
Ultimately, the commotion in the Senate chamber was unsettling, sometimes unedifying, but ultimately illuminating. It highlighted the conflicts that exist within Nigeria’s democratic institutions between politics and process, loyalty and expertise, and efficiency and discussion.
The event gave the public, who are frequently kept in the dark about the inner workings of parliamentary oversight, a unique window into the debate and decision-making process that shapes Nigeria’s representation abroad.
The task will be to put aside personality conflicts and concentrate solely on content as the Senate works to complete the confirmation process. Nigeria’s ambassadors will soon represent the country overseas, and the process that created them must, in spite of its flaws, demonstrate the gravity and accountability of that role.
