The United States’ recent designation of Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for egregious violations of religious freedom was anything but a surprise. It was the predictable climax of months of public warnings from US congressional figures and human rights groups. Yet, despite the clear signals, Nigeria’s leadership appeared blindsided — exposing a deep crisis within Abuja’s foreign policy establishment. The CPC listing is more than a diplomatic setback; it is a damning indictment of a political class detached from the security realities facing its citizens and a reflection of a state that has lost both moral and strategic direction.
Nigeria’s current diplomatic paralysis stands in stark contrast to the strategic engagement and coherence that once defined its foreign policy. To understand this collapse, one must look back at two earlier generations of Nigerian diplomacy.
The “Golden Generation” of the 1970s and early 1980s projected Nigeria as a confident regional power. Diplomats such as Emeka Anyaoku, Jaja Wachuku, Leslie Harriman, and B.A. Clark built an international reputation anchored on the principle that Africa was the “centrepiece” of Nigeria’s foreign policy. At the United Nations, Nigeria was respected as a moral leader in the global fight against apartheid — combining principle with decisive political and financial action. These diplomats derived their power from a government that, though imperfect, was cohesive and purpose-driven. They understood that a nation’s strength abroad depended on its stability and moral authority at home. When they spoke, the world listened.
The next generation, spanning the mid-1980s to early 2000s, retained the intellectual brilliance but operated under growing domestic instability. Figures such as Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, Professor Ibrahim Gambari, Ignatius Olisaemeka, and the late Dr Joy Ogwu were highly competent professionals. However, they worked under regimes consumed by coups, corruption, and economic decline. Nigeria’s foreign policy became reactive, focused on seeking legitimacy for military governments rather than shaping the global agenda. The diplomats remained capable, but the state they represented was losing coherence and moral authority.
The current era, exemplified by the CPC designation, marks a new low — a complete breakdown of strategic foresight and diplomatic competence. The failure is twofold: the collapse of the security state and the substitution of diplomacy with denial.
First, the security failure. The US government’s action is not a whimsical political move but a verdict on Nigeria’s inability to protect its citizens from persistent, bloody sectarian and communal violence. The endless cycle of attacks on religious communities, especially Christians, has gone largely unpunished. This failure stripped Nigerian diplomats of any moral credibility to argue against the sanction. No amount of rhetoric can obscure the fact that the state has failed to secure its people.
Second, the diplomatic failure. Despite months of warnings from Washington and advocacy groups, the Nigerian government’s response was marked by denial and inertia. Instead of strategic engagement, there was propaganda and political posturing. No credible delegation was sent to lobby key US institutions or clarify Nigeria’s position. The contrast with South Africa’s response to President Donald Trump’s claim of “white genocide” against farmers is telling. Pretoria immediately dispatched a delegation led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, including affected stakeholders, to manage the narrative and safeguard national interests. That timely and nuanced response defused tension.
Nigeria, on the other hand, did nothing of the sort. It failed to leverage its longstanding economic and security partnerships with Washington, failed to present a credible plan to address religious violence, and failed to prevent the CPC listing. The problem is not the absence of capable diplomats but the lack of political will and strategic coordination.
This vacuum is compounded by the absence of ambassadors in key capitals, leaving Nigeria without high-level representation to manage crises. Even worse, the government’s reported nomination of politically divisive figures to ambassadorial roles reinforces the perception that diplomacy has become a reward for loyalty, not competence.
The case of Reno Omokri illustrates this contradiction. Once a leading voice for persecuted Christians and founder of the #FreeLeahSharibu movement, Omokri was celebrated globally for his activism. Yet, upon being linked to the current administration, his focus shifted to defending the government and dismissing the same human rights abuses he once condemned. This reversal damages Nigeria’s credibility and reflects the inconsistency now embedded in its foreign policy machinery.
Similarly, the reported nominations of Femi Fani-Kayode, Okezie Ikpeazu, and Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi demonstrate that political loyalty outweighs diplomatic suitability. Fani-Kayode, for instance, is a figure whose record is marred by inflammatory rhetoric, frequent party defection, and legal controversies. Diplomacy demands tact, restraint, and credibility — qualities incompatible with such a profile. These appointments send the wrong message to the world: that Nigeria values politics over professionalism.
The contrast with previous generations could not be starker. The diplomats of the 1970s spoke for a nation united around a clear moral and political mission. Those who followed maintained technical excellence despite domestic turmoil. Today, Nigeria faces the worst of both worlds — a failing security state and a diplomatic corps undermined by political patronage.
The CPC designation is not just an American rebuke; it is a mirror reflecting Nigeria’s deep institutional decay. Reversing this decline will require more than damage control. Nigeria must first rebuild the authority of the state to protect its citizens, restore competence to its foreign policy machinery, and appoint diplomats who embody integrity, intellect, and restraint.
Until then, Abuja’s statements will continue to ring hollow, and the world will continue to treat Nigeria not as a leader, but as a nation adrift — one that has traded moral authority for political expediency.
Nwanze is a partner at SBM Intelligence.
