November 28, 2025
By Seyi Gesinde
Nigeria’s decision to nominate Ayodele Oke, Lateef Kayode Are, and Aminu Mohammed Dalhatu as ambassadors to the United States, the United Kingdom and France comes at a fraught time in Nigeria’s foreign relations. The moves appear designed to restore full diplomatic representation after a prolonged vacancy period, but they also intersect with a wave of international scrutiny over Nigeria’s security and religious‑violence challenges. As a result, the nominations carry both opportunity and risk: they could rebuild Nigeria’s global posture, yet the sensitivities surrounding security, human rights and foreign pressure demand careful navigation.
Who are the nominees: diplomacy, intelligence and experience
Ayodele Oke combines years of diplomatic service with tenure as former head of Nigeria’s external intelligence. This dual background offers insight into both multilateral diplomacy and national-security dynamics, a useful profile if Nigeria seeks deeper cooperation on security and intelligence sharing with Western capitals. His experience may earn respect in foreign ministries sensitive to global threats spanning terrorism, migration, and transnational crime.
Lateef Kayode Are brings a strong security‑intelligence pedigree: as a retired senior security official, he has operational experience in internal security and intelligence. His appointment suggests Nigeria may want its foreign missions not only to manage traditional diplomacy, but also to serve as nodes for security cooperation. For countries concerned about stability in West Africa, such as the US, UK, and France, this could signal seriousness.
Aminu Mohammed Dalhatu anchors the trio in traditional diplomacy. As a career foreign‑service officer with experience in ambassadorial roles, he brings institutional memory, diplomatic decorum, and skills in economic and bilateral relations. His presence might reassure observers wary of “security‑heavy” diplomacy dominating foreign engagements.
The composition suggests a deliberate attempt to balance security and diplomacy, a hybrid model suited to contemporary global challenges.
Context: Diplomatic vacuum, global scrutiny and rising tensions
The timing of the nominations is significant: since 2023, Nigeria has run many of its key embassies under chargés d’affaires rather than full ambassadors, creating a vacuum in high‑level representation abroad.
But the backdrop is not just bureaucratic, it is turbulent. In November 2025, Western scrutiny, especially from the United States, has intensified. President Donald Trump publicly accused Nigeria of failing to protect Christians, re‑designated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) and threatened possible military intervention if violence against Christians continues.
ALSO READ: How to persuade people to change their behaviour
Nigeria’s government swiftly rejected the characterisation as simplistic and misleading, emphasising that violence affects people across faiths, and reiterating commitment to fight terrorism and banditry, not discriminate on religious lines.
This diplomatic storm complicates the mission of any newly appointed ambassador: rebuilding relationships, defending Nigeria’s image internationally, and ensuring that foreign partners engage on shared security concerns rather than inflammatory rhetoric.
What the nominations could signal, and why they matter
Re‑assertion of diplomacy combined with security awareness
By putting forward envoys with both diplomatic and intelligence credentials, Nigeria may be signaling to Western powers that it is serious about tackling security challenges: terrorism, insurgency, kidnappings, banditry, issues that have global human‑security and migration implications. This could open doors for enhanced security cooperation, intelligence sharing, and stability‑focused diplomacy.
Attempt to rebuild institutional foreign‑service credibility
With experienced career diplomat Dalhatu among the nominees, Nigeria seems to acknowledge, if implicitly, prior weaknesses in its foreign‑service system. Institutional memory and professional diplomacy remain important to manage economic, cultural and political relations, beyond security. This balance might help restore confidence in Nigeria’s capacity for traditional diplomacy.
A test of nigeria’s foreign‑policy strategy under pressure
Given recent tensions, including recriminations from the US, these nominations may also serve as a test of how Nigeria intends to navigate global pressure: whether through assertive sovereignty‑based diplomacy, transparent cooperation, or recalibrated foreign‑policy messaging. The new envoys likely will play a frontline role in that struggle.
Risks, challenges and critical questions
Security‑heavy diplomacy risks overshadowing civil diplomacy and soft power
While intelligence and security credentials may appeal to foreign powers focused on stability, they risk overshadowing other aspects of diplomacy, economic ties, cultural exchange, human rights dialogue, and soft power. Relying too heavily on security-oriented envoys may skew the relationship irreversibly toward “hard security,” which can alienate civil‑society stakeholders and raise concerns abroad.
Global scrutiny and reputation risks over human rights and governance
With the renewed CPC designation and threats by foreign powers based on religious‑violence allegations, Nigeria’s human‑rights record is under harsh international scrutiny. The new ambassadors cannot simply negotiate trade deals or security cooperation, they must also defend Nigeria’s record and manage foreign perception. Any misstep could deepen distrust.
Critics warn that a hurried restart of ambassadorial appointments might signal politicking rather than merit‑based staffing, especially given that in past administrations many diplomatic posts were awarded based on political patronage rather than professional competence.
Diplomatic strain risking breakdown of relations, not guaranteed reset
The aggressive rhetoric from Western capitals (especially the US) means that even with well‑credentialed envoys, rebuilding trust and cooperation will be an uphill task. The threat of military intervention, visa restrictions, and renewed conditionalities on cooperation risk transforming diplomacy into confrontation. That makes the success of these nominations far from assured.
Domestic distractions and insecurity could undermine diplomatic gains
Sending high‑profile envoys abroad does not solve the underlying security and human‑rights crises at home. If violence, kidnappings or religious conflict continue, foreign partners may view diplomacy with suspicion, undermining the credibility of envoy‑led resets and complicating external cooperation.
Balanced outlook: opportunities, if handled with prudence
The nominations of Oke, Are, and Dalhatu present a strategic opportunity for Nigeria to reset its diplomacy in a challenging era. If these envoys engage with professionalism, transparency, and clarity, acknowledging Nigeria’s problems while committing to reforms and cooperation, they may re‑open doors for security assistance, economic ties, and renewed trust with traditional partners.
However, the path forward demands more than credentials. It requires commensurate internal reforms, credible accountability on human‑rights and security, and consistency in foreign‑policy messaging. Without these, the reset risks being perceived as cosmetic, a diplomatic facelift without substance.
Ultimately, the diplomatic reset could succeed, but only if Nigeria’s new envoys do more than represent: they must persuade.
