Let me clarify three issues right from the onset. One, the original title of this article was “All is not well in the zoo.” However, the title has to be modified in order not to give credence to the use of the simple noun such as “zoo,” to the derogatory one that someone had used in describing his fatherland. But, the logical question is what actually motivated the use of the word zoo in the first place?
According to an interview granted some years ago, a former Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations and before then, Nigeria’s Ambassador to Kenya and Uganda, Leslie Oritseweyinmi Harriman had described the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a zoo, where the services of a Zoologist was required. This was in response to a question put to him as to what a graduate of Zoology from University College, Ibadan was doing in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He went on to explain the analogy of the use of zoo to describe the ministry. That is a story for another day. According to reports, the respected ambassador had a dignified air of a disciplined, simple, humble and very knowledgeable diplomat. But the fact is that the situation confronting the ministry today is nothing new.
The second aspect that needs clarification is that this article has nothing to do with the late Prime Minister of Nigeria, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa either in his personal or official capacity. The reference and use of his name in this article is to the extent that Tafawa Balewa House in Abuja is the headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The final leg is that the article is not meant to discredit the ministry or the minister, but to state that the ship of the ministry is not sailing in the right direction, and must be handled promptly to avoid any mishap.
Indeed, and in truth, the situation in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs today is not much different from the description by Ambassador Leslie Harriman years ago. It is pertinent to note that the Harriman’s years were the golden age of Nigeria’s foreign service, when the country provided true leadership on issues affecting Africa and the entire black race by dedicated and well trained officers. Then, Nigeria was truly respected, especially on issues of high moral standing. Nigeria did not have to go to France like it did in 2014 to talk to her neighbours Cameroun, Niger Republic and Chad on issues of common security.
But has anything changed in terms of the ministry’s contribution to Nigeria’s impact on issues affecting Africa and the black race? May be yes, may be no. But I must not forget to state that when the crisis of the “Black Lives Matter” happened in the U.S last year, a former Nigeria’s ambassador to the U.S and former Foreign Affairs minister literally begged that Nigeria should take a stand, but sadly nothing happened. The dilemma continues with two practical examples that will easily demonstrate that the place remains what the respected diplomat described it in the 80s but for different reasons.
On 26 March, 2021, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Godfrey Onyeama appeared on television translating the press address of the late Chadian leader Idris Deby Itno at the presidential villa. The minister was also seen doing translation in April 2021 when the new Niger Republic president was at the presidential villa. If Nigerians and the officers of the ministry did not see anything wrong in the minister doing translation services, which ordinarily is the function of a professional translator/Foreign Service Officer, then I don’t know what to think. The question begging for an answer is, are there no more translators in the ministry, leaving the minister as the last man standing, that only he can handle translation for visiting dignitaries?
As if the above was not enough, on May 17 2021, a friend drew my attention to some news items concerning the ministry that appeared in three major national newspapers about the allegations of mismanagement of funds. I had earlier seen an unsigned petition to the Presidency titled “A Quest for Personal Enrichment; ……. Another Passionate Appeal for intervention by Mr. President” from concerned officers of the ministry. Prior to the current regime of petitions, the government and the National Assembly had been inundated with several petitions in the last two years over several issues from the serious to the mundane. It is safe to assume that writing of petition is now becoming a culture and vocation among certain categories of officers in the ministry. And should be of concern to all stakeholders.
Notably, the common denominators in the news items, the note from the faceless “concerned officers” and the several petitions are:
- Lack of posting in the last three years;
- Mismanagement of funds by the permanent secretary;
- Appeal for the removal of the minister, minister of state and the permeant secretary;
- Directors in the ministry do little to protect the interest of officers;
- Ambassadorial nominations;
It is not for me to make any comments on the petitions and the allegations by the unions, but to say that whatever the motive, it does not augur well for the ministry, especially the negative publicity. Unfortunately, the accused persons may not have the opportunity to defend themselves in the public square. However, the impression being created for outsiders and observers is that a sense of entitlement is being developed among certain category of officers and if not granted, petition must automatically follow just to embarrass whoever is at the helm of affairs. It is pertinent to note that things had not even gotten to this level when Ambassador Harriman talked about the zoo.
Perhaps, it is imperative to note that the current permanent secretary is the third in the ministry in less than one year. The last one was pushed out due to the petition by the officers and there was jubilation when the current permanent secretary was posted to the ministry. So what happened in less than six months that turned the relationship into that of cat and mouse? Is the honeymoon now over? The argument has always been that the ministry is unique in view of its global function and reach and only the PS with such antecedent can effectively understand the uniqueness and appreciate its peculiarities. But is there any guarantee that the ministry will function better under a career permanent secretary?
Regrettably, it is not the presence or absence of career officers in the leadership position in the ministry that is the problem. The ministry has had its fair share or luck of having career officers from the ministry serving as ministers and the permanent secretaries at the same time in the recent past. But what happened? Same issues the concerned officers and the unions are talking about today were the recurring ones that confronted the career Foreign Service Officers as ministers and permanent secretaries.
Amongst others, the issue of the increasing number of non-career ambassadorial appointments and the talk about the nominations being against the interest and career progression of officers as laid down in extant policy was and is still a major subject matter. It is important to accept the reality that it is the prerogative of Mr. President to make such appointments. Nothing is cast in stone. Any government can review and even cancel policies by previous administrations.
What perhaps is worrisome and should be of concern to all stakeholders is the revelation in the petition addressed to the Presidency that officers from other government agencies are the backbone of the missions at present due to lack of posting in the last three years. This may not be far-fetched as it is even becoming self-evident at home, especially when one considers that the Abike Dabiri- led NIDCOM is already chipping away the original consular function of the ministry. Furthermore, it is on record that the Nigeria Immigration Service took away the responsibility of the issuance of diplomatic passport from the ministry many years ago.
Going forward, it is crucial that the restructuring that the people are calling for in Nigeria should first take place in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The global best practice is for the Foreign Service Officers to handle purely diplomatic duties including bilateral, multilateral and protocol related issues, while security, administration, accounts, procurement, maintenance, works and projects related matters are left for career civil servants/professionals from relevant government departments that are seconded to the ministry or employed and resident in the ministry. The need for more professional training both within and outside should be the focus of dialogue with the leadership.
However, it is instructive to note that there is never going to be an easy way out of the mess that has festered on for years. However, there must be a beginning to end the mess, but not by asking for the sacking of the political leadership of the ministry. It won’t solve anything. In any case, knowing this administration, the howling and wailing will not engender the removal of the Minister or the Minister of State and if care is not taken, it will only make them become recalcitrant. As if to buttress the above summation, I have just been told that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs has exonerated the permanent secretary from all the allegations levelled against him. While the jury is still out on the appropriateness of the action of the House Committee, the mere fact that the petition was unsigned made it less worthy of any action.
For now, the best course of action is for the unions and the officers to dialogue with the leadership for an amicable solution to the imbroglio. My unsolicited advice to the combatants is “sheath your sword” and allow peace to reign. All hands should be on deck to steer the ship of the ministry to safety.
Oloko writes from Lagos, Nigeria
