Every incoming minister receives a briefing note. Most remain internal administrative documents. They guide the first hundred days of a new administration before quietly disappearing into government archives. Occasionally, however, a briefing deserves a wider audience because it raises questions that extend beyond the office of the incoming minister. The recent briefing prepared by officials of Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the newly appointed Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye, is one such document.
By all indications, it is a thoughtful and comprehensive outline of Nigeria’s immediate diplomatic priorities. It reflects institutional continuity, identifies pressing foreign policy challenges and provides the incoming Minister with an informed starting point. At a time when global politics is increasingly volatile and international partnerships are being reshaped by geopolitical rivalry, technological disruption, climate pressures and economic uncertainty, such strategic preparation deserves commendation. Yet the real value of any briefing lies not merely in what it contains, but in the national conversation it inspires. Foreign policy documents should not simply prepare ministers. They should also provoke reflection on whether our diplomatic assumptions remain fit for purpose in a changing world.
The Ministry’s briefing rightly situates its recommendations within President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s 4D Renewed Foreign Policy framework: Democracy, Development, Demography and Diaspora. It also highlights familiar priorities: strengthening bilateral and multilateral engagement, advancing Nigeria’s interests within regional and global institutions, improving consular services, protecting national security and deepening strategic partnerships.
These are important priorities. But they also raise a more fundamental question. What should define Nigerian foreign policy in this decade? My answer is straightforward. Foreign policy is no longer merely the management of international relations. It is increasingly the management of national opportunity. That single shift in thinking changes almost everything.
The success of diplomacy can no longer be measured primarily by the number of state visits undertaken, communiqués issued or agreements signed. Those remain important, but they are increasingly inputs rather than outcomes. The more important question is whether diplomacy expands economic opportunity, strengthens national competitiveness and improves the lives of citizens. If that proposition is accepted, then Nigeria’s foreign policy must evolve from the practice of traditional diplomacy to the pursuit of strategic statecraft.
Commending the Ministry’s Priorities
The briefing deserves recognition for reaffirming the enduring responsibilities of Nigerian diplomacy. Led by Amb. Kevin Gambo Yilme, its emphasis on strengthening bilateral and multilateral relations recognises an increasingly fragmented international order in which strategic partnerships have become more valuable than ever. In a world characterised by competing geopolitical blocs, shifting supply chains and emerging middle powers, Nigeria cannot afford diplomatic complacency.
Equally welcome is the continued attention to regional peace and stability. Regional security is often discussed as though it were solely a military concern. It is not. Without stability there can be no regional commerce. Without peace there can be no investment. Without predictable neighbours there can be no meaningful implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area. Security and prosperity are no longer parallel objectives; they have become mutually reinforcing.
The briefing’s attention to consular services is equally timely. Modern diplomacy is increasingly judged by the experience of ordinary citizens rather than the elegance of diplomatic protocol. For millions of Nigerians living, studying, travelling and doing business abroad, the embassy is the face of the Nigerian state. Efficient consular services therefore enhance not only citizen welfare but also the credibility of government itself.
Likewise, the briefing correctly recognises that Nigeria must continue to engage actively with multilateral institutions. At a time when questions surrounding global governance, migration, climate finance, artificial intelligence, public health and international trade increasingly transcend national borders, retreating from multilateralism would diminish rather than strengthen Nigeria’s influence. The challenge is not whether Nigeria should engage multilaterally, but how that engagement can better advance clearly defined national interests.
These priorities deserve support. They represent sound diplomacy. Yet they also reveal an opportunity to rethink the organising philosophy of Nigeria’s external engagement.
Economic Diplomacy: From Supporting Function to Guiding Philosophy
If there is one area that deserves greater prominence than the briefing presently gives it, it is economic diplomacy. This is not because economic diplomacy is absent from Nigeria’s foreign policy. On the contrary, elements of it already exist across government. Rather, the challenge is that it continues to be treated as one important component of diplomacy instead of becoming the organising principle around which much of modern diplomacy revolves.
The world has changed. Today’s ambassadors compete as much for investments as they negotiate treaties. Diplomatic missions increasingly serve as gateways for exports, innovation partnerships, technology transfer, tourism promotion, educational exchanges, healthcare collaboration and market access. Foreign ministries are becoming economic institutions every bit as much as political ones. Nigeria cannot afford to remain anchored in a twentieth-century conception of diplomacy while competing in a twenty-first-century global economy. Economic diplomacy should therefore cease to be regarded as a specialised function performed by commercial attachés or investment desks. It should become the philosophy that connects each of the four pillars of the President’s 4D framework.
Development without investment is difficult to sustain.
Democracy is strengthened when economic opportunity expands. Demography becomes an asset only when youthful talent connects to global markets. Diaspora engagement achieves its greatest value when professional expertise, entrepreneurial networks and international capital become instruments of national development. Economic diplomacy is therefore not an alternative to the 4D framework. It is the thread that binds its four pillars together. Every Nigerian embassy should be able to answer a simple question: What measurable economic value has this mission created for Nigeria during the past year?
That value may take many forms. Foreign direct investment attracted. Exports facilitated. Air service agreements successfully implemented. Technology partnerships concluded. Universities linked through research collaboration. Healthcare partnerships established. Climate finance mobilised. Digital innovation promoted. Tourism expanded. Nigerian businesses successfully introduced into new international markets.
Each of these represents diplomacy translated into measurable national benefit. Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of successful foreign ministries across the world today is their ability to transform diplomatic relationships into economic opportunities. The diplomat of the twenty-first century is no longer merely a political envoy. Increasingly, he or she is also an investment promoter, market opener, innovation broker, institutional connector and strategic negotiator.
Nigeria’s foreign service must increasingly prepare officers for precisely these roles. This also requires a subtle but important shift in institutional thinking. If the President increasingly serves as Nigeria’s Chief Economic Diplomat, then the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must become the institutional engine that converts presidential vision into enduring international partnerships. That requires closer collaboration not only with the Presidency, but also with the ministries responsible for trade, finance, aviation, digital economy, health, education, energy and industry. It equally demands stronger partnerships with state governments, investment promotion agencies, chambers of commerce, universities and the organised private sector.
The era in which diplomacy operated largely within the walls of foreign ministries has passed. The diplomacy of our time is increasingly measured not by access to power alone, but by the ability to create opportunity. And that is precisely why economic diplomacy should no longer sit at the margins of Nigerian foreign policy. It should define its centre.
Foreign Policy Begins at Home
There is, however, one truth that every foreign ministry must constantly keep in view. The finest diplomacy cannot compensate for weak domestic governance. No ambassador, however gifted, can persuade investors to ignore regulatory uncertainty. No trade mission can permanently overcome structural bottlenecks at home. No amount of nation branding can substitute for policy consistency, infrastructure, security and the rule of law. Diplomacy amplifies national strength. It cannot manufacture it.
Foreign policy therefore begins long before a diplomat boards an aircraft or presents letters of credence in a foreign capital. It begins with the quality of governance at home. This is particularly important for Nigeria. Our diplomats are frequently called upon to market one of Africa’s most promising economies. They should certainly do so with confidence. Nigeria possesses exceptional entrepreneurial energy, abundant natural resources, an expanding technology ecosystem, a vibrant creative industry and one of the continent’s youngest populations. But international competitiveness increasingly depends upon credibility.
Investors ask whether contracts will be honoured. Manufacturers ask whether supply chains are reliable. Universities ask whether academic partnerships will be sustained. Technology companies ask whether regulation encourages innovation. Airlines ask whether bilateral agreements will be implemented. Healthcare institutions ask whether partnerships will outlive political administrations. These are domestic governance questions before they become diplomatic ones.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should therefore continue to champion Nigeria abroad. Equally, however, it should increasingly serve as a strategic feedback mechanism, communicating to the wider government how international partners perceive Nigeria’s investment climate, institutional reforms and policy direction. Diplomacy should not merely explain Nigeria to the world. It should also help Nigeria better understand how the world sees Nigeria. That feedback loop is one of the least appreciated, yet most valuable, functions of modern diplomacy.
The Diaspora: From the Fourth ‘D’ to a Strategic National Asset
One of the most encouraging aspects of the Ministry’s briefing is its reaffirmation of the Tinubu Administration’s 4D Foreign Policy doctrine, particularly its recognition of the Nigerian diaspora as one of the four strategic pillars of the country’s external engagement. For many years, diaspora policy occupied the margins of Nigerian foreign policy. Successive administrations rightly celebrated remittances, but often overlooked the wider ecosystem of knowledge, professional expertise, entrepreneurial capacity and institutional influence that Nigerians abroad represent. The inclusion of Diaspora as one of the four pillars of foreign policy signals an important conceptual shift.
The challenge now is implementation. If diaspora engagement is to become more than a policy aspiration, Nigeria must move beyond viewing its citizens abroad primarily as sources of remittances. They should increasingly be recognised as partners in investment, healthcare, education, technology transfer, innovation, trade facilitation, public diplomacy and institutional development. A Nigerian surgeon practising in London, an engineer in Houston, an academic in Leuven, an entrepreneur in Toronto or a technology specialist in Dubai each represents more than individual success. Collectively, they constitute a strategic national asset. Few countries have the global reach that Nigeria possesses through its people. The real policy question is whether our institutions are organised to harness that advantage.
The Diaspora Institutions Nigeria Can No Longer Postpone
It is within this context that Ambassador Enikanolaiye’s appointment assumes particular significance. Beyond his broader foreign policy responsibilities, his portfolio places him in an important oversight relationship with Nigeria’s diaspora engagement architecture, including the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM). That responsibility presents an opportunity to address institutional questions that have remained unresolved for way too long.
The first concerns governance. The NiDCOM Act provides for a Governing Board. Yet years after the Commission’s establishment, that Board remains unconstituted. This is not merely an administrative omission. It is an institutional deficit. Good governance depends upon the full implementation of the governance architecture established by law. Governing Boards exist not to interfere with executive management but to provide strategic direction, strengthen accountability, enrich policy oversight and ensure institutional continuity. Constituting the Board should therefore be viewed not as an act of political patronage but as the completion of the institutional design envisaged by the National Assembly. Strong institutions require both effective executives and effective governance.
The second issue concerns the future of the Nigerians in Diaspora Organisation (NIDO). For several years, internal disagreements within parts of NIDO have encouraged an unfortunate policy response: disengagement. That would be a mistake. Institutions do not become stronger through neglect. They become stronger through reform. What does not work well should be reformed, not abandoned. NIDO remains the only officially recognised global platform established to organise Nigerian professionals and communities abroad into a structured partner for national development. Its imperfections should not become an argument for irrelevance. Rather, they should become the starting point for thoughtful renewal. Reform may require governance changes. It may require constitutional review. It may require stronger accountability mechanisms. It may require clearer relationships between NIDO, NiDCOM and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Whatever the eventual model, the objective should be the same: to build a representative, credible and effective institutional platform through which organised diaspora communities can contribute to Nigeria’s development. Ignoring institutional weaknesses rarely resolves them. Addressing them usually does. Importantly, effective ministerial oversight should never be misunderstood as institutional confrontation. Quite the contrary. Constructive oversight strengthens institutions by ensuring that they operate in accordance with their legal mandates and strategic objectives. A healthy relationship between the supervising Ministry and its agencies is characterised not by unquestioning agreement, but by mutual respect, accountability and a shared commitment to national interest.
That is the constitutional responsibility entrusted to every supervising minister.
Measuring what matters
One further evolution deserves consideration. Foreign policy should increasingly become measurable. Governments routinely establish performance indicators for economic management, education, healthcare and infrastructure. Foreign policy should not remain an exception. Diplomatic success should certainly continue to include successful negotiations, strengthened bilateral relations and constructive multilateral engagement. But it should also be assessed through measurable national outcomes:
How much foreign direct investment has diplomatic engagement facilitated? How many export opportunities have been opened? How many bilateral agreements have progressed beyond signature to implementation? How many research partnerships have emerged between Nigerian and international institutions? How many technology collaborations have been established? How many jobs can reasonably be linked to investment promotion efforts? How effectively has the diaspora been mobilised as an organised development partner rather than merely celebrated as a source of remittances?
These are not simplistic metrics. They are indicators of whether diplomacy is delivering value to the citizens in whose name it is conducted. Modern diplomacy increasingly demands measurable public value. Nigeria should embrace that standard.
Whole-of-government diplomacy
The transformation proposed here cannot be delivered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs acting in isolation.
The complexity of today’s international environment has rendered the traditional boundaries between domestic and foreign policy increasingly obsolete. Investment promotion, technological innovation, climate resilience, public health, aviation connectivity, food security and digital transformation are no longer purely domestic concerns. They have become matters of international engagement.
Economic diplomacy therefore demands what might best be described as a whole-of-government approach. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should remain the coordinator of Nigeria’s external engagement, but it cannot be its sole actor. The Ministries of Trade and Investment, Finance, Aviation, Health, Education, Communications and Digital Economy, Blue Economy, Solid Minerals, Agriculture and Energy all carry international responsibilities. So too do state governments, investment promotion agencies, universities, chambers of commerce, professional bodies and the organised private sector.
Diplomacy has become too important to be left exclusively to diplomats. That observation should not be misunderstood as diminishing the role of the professional foreign service. On the contrary, it elevates it. The modern diplomat is increasingly called upon to convene institutions rather than merely represent them; to connect ideas rather than simply exchange protocol; to broker partnerships rather than merely negotiate communiqués.
In that sense, diplomacy has become the art of national coordination across international borders. Nigeria’s diplomatic service possesses the experience and professionalism required for that task. The challenge now is to equip it institutionally for a world in which diplomacy is increasingly measured by the value it creates rather than the ceremonies it attends.
A quiet confidence
Permit one personal reflection.
I first came to know Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye many years ago during his diplomatic posting to the Nigeria High Commission in London. At the time, he was among the Foreign Service Officers responsible for engagement with organised Nigerian diaspora institutions. It was in that professional capacity that our paths occasionally crossed during my own years of leadership within Nigerians in Diaspora Europe.
What stayed with me was not merely his accessibility, but his appreciation that Nigerians abroad represented something far more significant than citizens requiring consular attention. He instinctively understood that the diaspora constituted an extension of Nigeria’s national capacity. That impression has remained with me over the years. It is also why I believe his appointment comes at an important moment.
The responsibilities before him today are considerably greater than those of his earlier diplomatic assignments. They extend beyond bilateral relations to institutional renewal, beyond protocol to policy, and beyond representation to reform.
They also present an unusual opportunity. Few Ministers of State arrive in office having previously worked directly with the very constituency that has now become one of the four pillars of Nigeria’s foreign policy. That experience should prove an asset. Not because it guarantees success, but because it offers an informed appreciation of both the immense potential and the institutional shortcomings that continue to characterise Nigeria’s diaspora engagement. Experience, after all, is most valuable when it informs reform.
Beyond the briefing
Every generation inherits a different international order. The generation that shaped Nigeria’s foreign policy after independence confronted colonialism, apartheid, military alliances and the struggle for African liberation. Diplomacy during that era was rightly measured by political leadership, continental solidarity and Nigeria’s influence within Africa and the wider developing world.
Today’s generation confronts a different landscape. The defining questions of our time concern competitiveness as much as ideology; investment as much as influence; innovation as much as sovereignty; partnerships as much as protocol. Foreign policy must therefore evolve without abandoning the principles upon which it was built. That is why the Ministry’s briefing deserves attention beyond the walls of the Ministry itself.
It is not merely preparing a new Minister for office. It is inviting Nigeria to reconsider what diplomatic success should mean in the twenty-first century. That conversation could not be more timely. The world is reorganising itself around technology, supply chains, critical minerals, demographic transitions, artificial intelligence, healthcare resilience, energy security and strategic competition. Nations that adapt their diplomatic institutions to these realities will shape the future. Those that do not will spend increasing amounts of time responding to decisions made elsewhere. Nigeria possesses every ingredient required to become one of the defining diplomatic and economic powers of the Global South. It has continental influence. It has entrepreneurial dynamism. It has demographic scale. It has cultural reach and an accomplished diaspora present in virtually every major economy of the world.
What remains is the institutional imagination to organise these assets into a coherent foreign policy strategy. That is the larger challenge before Ambassador Enikanolaiye and his colleagues. It is also the larger opportunity. The Ministry’s briefing note is therefore more than an internal administrative document. It is an invitation to rethink the purpose of Nigerian diplomacy itself. If the coming years can elevate economic diplomacy from supporting function to organising philosophy; strengthen diaspora institutions through thoughtful reform rather than benign neglect; measure diplomatic success through tangible national outcomes; and build a genuinely whole-of-government approach to international engagement, then this ministerial transition may ultimately be remembered as something far more significant than a routine change of personnel.
It may mark the beginning of a new chapter in Nigerian foreign policy. One in which diplomacy is understood not simply as the management of Nigeria’s relations with the world, but as the strategic management of Nigeria’s future within it. For ultimately, the diplomacy that secured Nigeria’s place in Africa after independence was measured by the influence it projected abroad. The diplomacy that will define Nigeria in the twenty-first century will increasingly be measured by the prosperity it brings home.