Beautiful Abroad Ugly at how Issues in Nigeria Foreign Policy

PROTOCOLS
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, permit me to
commence this inaugural lecture by raising a fundamental issue of critical concern
within the context of our intellectual engagement at this auspicious forum. The
issue relates to the purpose of an inaugural lecture. But before then, I wish to
state that this is the first inaugural lecture in the Department of Political Science,
University of Lagos in the last two decades, and second in the history of the
Department, established almost 50 years ago. The first inaugural lecture in the
Department was delivered about 23 years ago by Professor Cornelius Alaba
Ogunsanwo, who shortly after the lecture, was appointed Nigeria’s High
Commissioner to Botswana, with concurrent accreditation to Lesotho, and later
Ambassador to Brussels.

Taking a cue from my late Professor of International Relations at the University of

Ife (now OAU), Prof. Olajide Aluko, who in his inaugural lecture delivered on 17th
March, 1981 explicated the purpose of an inaugural lecture as enunciated by its
founding fathers, I believe his meaningful contextualization is still germane to
current thinking on the issue and should therefore be espoused, albeit briefly, to
this audience. Prof. Aluko’s candid submission which I allude to is that there has
been a gross misconception of inaugural lecture. Some Professors see it as a
flamboyant socio-political occasion meant for ‘wining and dining, while others
perceive it as a platform for raining abuse on their academic colleagues. Yet,
others consider the occasion as a unique opportunity to mark the effective
assumption of their role as professors in the universities. All these are considered
wrong and a misuse of inaugural lectures.1

In the opinion of its founding fathers, inaugural lectures are designed for three
main purposes and all are purely academic. The first is to provide a veritable
avenue for the newly appointed Professor to critically analyze the state of his
specialized discipline. The second is to enable the professor to present a piece
of unpublished research upon which he has been working before his appointment,
or completed afterwards, with a view to displaying his credentials as a scholar
and vindicating his appointment before a cross section of the university
community and outsiders. The third purpose of inaugural lecture is to afford the
professor the opportunity to elaborate the research scheme that he intends to
follow while occupying the chair.2
1
Aluko, O.(1981), “Necessity and Freedom in Nigerian Foreign Policy”, An
Inaugural Lecture delivered at the University of Ife now (OAU), Ile-Ife, 17 th
March.
2
Ibid.

1
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, what I propose to do and which I have been doing with
my professorship falls into the last two categories. As my first purpose, I intend to
continue with my study of International Relations and specifically Foreign Policy
Analysis. I shall focus my research on the dynamics of Nigeria’s foreign policy in
contemporary globalized context.

I have published two major works in this area – one in the Journal of Global
Initiatives (2006) and the other in Globalization (2007). Also relevant to the study
is my latest book “Perspectives on Africa’s Crises: The Challenges of Socio-
Political and Economic Transformation in the 21st Century” published by
Spectrum Books in 2011. In terms of the focus of my address this evening, the
topic falls specifically under the second purpose of inaugural lecture as explicated
above. I consider it a unique opportunity and a momentous occasion to showcase
to this august assemblage of intellectuals of diverse backgrounds my humble
contributions to the expansion of knowledge in my field of study in the last two
decades, and express my profound thought about the trajectory of Nigeria’s
foreign policy in retrospect and prospects.

Introduction
Nigeria’s adventure into the global arena began with its attainment of
independence on 1st October, 1960 and subsequent admission as the 99th
member of the United Nations on the 7th October, 1960. Since then, the country
as a sovereign state has experienced a meteoric rise and fall in its diplomatic
soldiering. As a scholar of International Relations, I have been intrigued and
consternated by the sliding fortune of Nigeria’s activities at the global level. Since
its independence, the country has been confronted by governance challenges as
it oscillated between civilian and military rule. It is for this reason that Nigeria has
been floundering in its profoundly dynamic and proactive foreign policy. There has
been a general shift in policy from different regimes since 1960. The historical
trajectory upon which the country’s foreign policy has been constructed and the
pedestrian nature of the political leadership have combined to endanger the
nation’s overall foreign policy postures and directions.

A major defining characteristic of the international system at the outset of Nigeria’s

independence which influenced tremendously the evolutionary trend and
development of its foreign policy was the Cold War between the West and East
led by the United States of America and Soviet Union respectively. While a
number of assumptions have suggested that the newly independent African States
were products of the Cold War, and benefitted from it, Nigeria shared in the Cold
War debacle as a member of the Non-Aligned Movement. The African continent

2
was used as the theatre for Cold War ideological struggle. Nigeria proclaimed
and avowed to pursue an independent stance in the global politics.

Thus, the Prime Minister, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, while addressing the
Parliament on 20th August, 1960 perceptively asserted that “Nigeria would follow
an independent foreign policy, which would be founded on Nigeria’s interests and
would be consistent with the moral and democratic principles on which the
country’s constitution was based”.3 Nigeria was not oblivious of the fact that it was
difficult at that early stage of statehood to cut the umbilical cord that ties it with
Britain, its ex-colonial ruler. Thus, Balewa declared:

….based on the happy experience of a successful partnership, our future relations

with the United Kingdom will be more cordial than ever, bound together as we shall
be in the Commonwealth by a common allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
who we proudly acclaim as Queen of Nigeria (hence) we are grateful to the British
officers who we have known, first as masters and then as leaders and finally as
partners but always as friends.4

With this type of statement, it was very clear Nigeria’s foreign policy was laid on a
foundation of limited autonomy and independence. It therefore means that
Nigeria’s claim for leadership in Africa was tied to British interest. The formative
stage of its match to greatness through assertive foreign policy was characterized
by uncertainty and timidity against the background of certain phenomenal events
including the Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact and its position as a member of
conservative bloc (Monrovia bloc) in the process of establishing the Organization
of African Unity (OAU).

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, the central thesis of this lecture is that in the recent past,
Nigeria had evinced the manifestation of a lackluster foreign policy and a
distinctively wobbled diplomatic practice; and the litany of contradictions
bedeviling the country’s foreign policy has grievously undermined the reputation of
the nation. It is particularly worrisome that at a time when other African states
with successful democracies, for example Botswana, Mozambique, Ghana, South
Africa etc. are counting their achievements in the diplomatic sector no matter how
miniscule, Nigeria is appallingly backtracking on its diplomatic foray. The
conclusion emanating from this scenario is that the timidity, docility, ambivalence,
dissonance, indecisiveness and inertia that characterized the foreign policy pursuit

3
Tafawa Balewa, Quoted in Gambari. I (2008), “From Balewa to Obasanjo:
The Theory and Practice of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” in Adekeye Adebajo and
Abdul Mustapha(eds) Gulliver’s Troubles: Nigeria’s Foreign Policy after the Cold
War, Scottsville, South Africa, University of Kwazulu-Natal Press, p.62
4
Balewa, Abubakar Tafawa (1960), “Our Great Day has Arrived”, Text of
Independence Day Address to the Nation, October 1
3
in the First and Second Republics have resurfaced, while the foreign policy
machinery of the nation has been subjected to a plethora of conceptual and
epistemological confusion. The contradictions emanate from political instability,
policy somersault, domestic forces and external environment of foreign policy.
There is therefore the imperative need to fundamentally transform Nigeria’s
lethargic foreign policy, re-fix the diplomatic compass, construct, deconstruct and
reconstruct a new foreign policy architecture that is capable of significantly
redressing the systemic foreign policy disorders and meeting the challenges of
diplomacy in contemporary global system. Thus, at the theoretical and
methodological levels, this lecture interrogates Nigeria’s foreign policy and the
paroxysmal future of diplomatic practice. It draws from empirical and theoretical
formulations on various aspects that impinge on Nigeria’s foreign policy.

Conceptual Discourse
In our trade in social sciences, we do our bargaining with the help of theory.
Theory and practice address critical issues and cover the gap that may exist in the
academic world. Stephen Walt has intimated us that policy makers pay relatively
little attention to the vast theoretical literature in International Relations and many
scholars seem uninterested in doing policy-relevant works. The reasons for this,
he explains: First, scholars are more likely to read those works. Secondly, policy
makers are unlikely to be swayed by advice to pay greater attention to academic
theory. He concludes, “If academic writings are not useful, however, no amount of
exhortation will persuade policy makers to read them”. 5 In this lecture, I do not
intend to dwell on theoretical exhortation but rather to marry both theory and
practice.

I am aware that there are indeed contending approaches to the study of foreign
policy generally and Nigeria’s foreign policy in particular. It has remained
contentious among scholars and writers to analyze Nigeria’s foreign policy from
one theoretical prism because there are contending theoretical approaches.
Traditionally, the philosophical, legalistic, institutional and ideological were
analytical tools before the advent of the behavioural movement in the 1950s.

We have often been misled that the state is the only actor in international
relations, without understanding human beings and institutions that are involved in
making decisions. One of the foremost Nigeria’s political theorists, Adele Jinadu
has pointed out that we assume that structure and process are the main
determinants of state-action in the public policy, but structure alone cannot be
used to explain public policy without understanding the place and relevance of
ideas to public policy. The idea of foreign policy is the philosophical foundations of

5
Walt, S (2005) “The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International
Relations”, Annual Reviews of Political Science, arjournals.annualreviews.org
4
such policy. In his words, “…the ‘external reality’ of the phenomenal world is
central to the public policy domain, much about public policy cannot be explained
or understood without reference to the place and relevance of ideas to public
policy”.6 Foreign policy falls within the ambit of public policy that means that the
philosophical world must be understood in its formulation.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, let me avoid living in one world but many theories. I will in
this lecture dwell on the alternative theoretical map to follow in this discourse.
This theoretical approach has been dominant among scholars on Nigeria’s foreign
policy. Quite often, we erroneously assume that theory is only for theorists and
practice is for practitioners. As I would not dwell so much on theoretical issues, I
would do it just to illustrate the point or establish the relationship between theory
and practice. However, this relationship is so complex that it cannot be resolved
today.

From the philosophical point of view, the studies of actions of a particular state will
be interpreted in terms of its consistency with basic principles of international law
and its conformity with the moral purpose that is expected to inform the goals of
foreign policy. It is a common knowledge that state’s behavior is predicated on its
historical experience and geo-strategic location.

The dominant school is the realist paradigm which has provoked much interest
and controversy. Nigeria as an actor in the international system exhibits the
character of a state that aspires to dominate others. It has maintained from
inception the principle of sovereignty and nationalism which are decisive on the
foreign policy. There is every tendency for us to believe that Nigeria’s foreign
policy is generally consistent with realist principles because most of its actions are
still designed to preserve Nigeria’s predominance in the West African region and
African continent as a whole. The pursuit of power is the guiding philosophy of
realism which statesmen must vigorously pursue, conserve, consolidate and
demonstrate at all times. This is the only condition for ensuring national security
and maintaining order and peace in the political system.

While these debates reflect the diversity in the discipline of International Relations,
I must not fail to point out that the behavioural approach to the study of Nigeria’s
foreign policy still remains relevant. For any foreign policy decision made, there
are some motives behind them. This is why Gordon Idang has eloquently and
persuasively argued that in foreign policy making, reference is made to the

6
Jinadu, A. (2005) “The Philosophical Foundations and Fundamental
Principles of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” in Ogwu, J. (ed.) New Horizons for
Nigeria in World Affairs, Lagos: N.I.I.A., p.18
5
personality and general dispositions and value preferences of the decision maker. 7
In all this, many academics and few policy makers are loathed to admit it; realism
remains the most compelling general framework for understanding Nigeria’s
foreign policy. Each of these competing paradigms captures important aspects of
understanding state behavior.

Mr. Vice Chancellor Sir, in the entire global terrain, states articulate and implement
foreign policies in order to guide their external relations and protect or advance
their vital national interests. Foreign policy and national interest are locked in a
symbiotic relationship, and since the two intertwined concepts are germane to this
discourse, their conceptual view within the context of our analytical construct is
considered imperative in order to obviate any misunderstanding and
misrepresentations of our viewpoint.

I would agree with Olajide Aluko who rightly observes that nobody has really
formulated a universally acceptable definition of the concept, and probably nobody
will ever succeed in doing so.8 Notwithstanding, notable scholars of International
Relations have espoused their views on what foreign policy portends. Dougherty
and Pfaltgraff define foreign policy as “the formulation, implementation and
evaluation of external choices within one country, viewed from the perspective of
that country”.9 Northedge simply construes foreign policy “as interplay between
the outside and the inside”.10 Hence, foreign policy is essentially the
instrumentality by which states influence or seek to influence the external world,
and to attain objectives that are in consonance with their perceived national
interest. Situating this within the context of, and linkage to ‘national interest’ and
its relationship with foreign policy pungently suggests that foreign policy and
national interest are inseparable concepts in International Relations, and the
foundation of a state’s foreign policy is its national interest which in turn directs the
course of its actions in the global arena.

National interest is construed as the totality or the aggregate interest of individuals

and groups within a given state. These are clear objectives that are pursued by
States in their interaction with one another in the international system. It becomes
an instrument of political action; it serves to justify or repudiate a state’s foreign
policy option and action in the international system. This explains the
7
Idang, G. (1971) Nigeria Internal Politics and Foreign Policy (1960-1966),
Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, p.2.
8
Aluko, O (1981), Essays in Nigerian Foreign Policy, London: George Allen &
Unwin, p.1
9
Dougherty, and Pfaltgraff(1971), Contending Theories of International
Relations, Philadelphia, Lippincott,p.23
10
Northedge, F.S.(ed.) (1968), The Foreign Policies of the Powers, London:
Faber, p.15
6
interconnectedness of foreign policy and national interest. Suffice to state that
national interest as a guide to the formulation of foreign policy is not an end in
itself but a means to an end. It therefore means that it is a method of reaching a
goal and in formulating such a goal, core values and national ethos are
considered. Thus, the objectives or goals that Nigeria pursues are central to its
survival. It is the totality of these goals that constitute the national interest. There
is therefore the need to articulate the goals, though it may not necessarily
guarantee the successful implementation of foreign policy.

It becomes imperative to espouse what was considered as the fundamental

objectives of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa on August 20,
1960, underscored the primacy of National Interest of Nigeria. However, what
constitutes the country’s national interest was not explicitly articulated. Indeed,
Balewa administration and the two successive regimes of Major General Aguyi
Ironsi and Gen. Yakubu Gowon merely premised their foreign policies on their
perception of what they considered as Nigeria’s interests. It was under the
Murtala/Obasanjo regime in 1975 that the broad strands of Nigeria’s national
interest were clearly addressed. The regime in its own ingenuity set up the
Adebayo Adedeji Commission to articulate Nigeria’s interest among other things.
Based on the commission’s report, General Obasanjo, in June 1976, identified the
core elements of Nigeria’s National Interest which also constitute the objectives of
its foreign policy to include:

the defence of our sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, the

creation of necessary political and economic conditions in Africa and the rest
of the world which will facilitate the defence of the independence and territorial
integrity of all African countries while at the same time foster national self-
reliance and rapid economic development, the promotion of equality and self-
reliance in Africa and the rest of the developing world; the promotion and the
defence of justice and respect for human dignity especially the dignity of the
blackmen; the defence and promotion of world peace. 11

Former military President, General Ibrahim Babangida, conceived Nigeria’s

national interest as predicated on the nation’s military, economic, political and
security issues. In other words, anything that will enhance the capacity of
Nigerians to defend their national security, promote Nigeria’s economic growth
and development, and make Nigeria politically stable constitutes Nigeria’s national
interest.12

11
Aluko, O. (1981) Essays in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Op. cit.
12
See Akinboye, S.O. (1999) “ Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” in Remi Anifowose
and Francis Enemuo (ed.) Elements of Politics, Lagos: Malthouse, p366
7
Similarly, Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution, which is the fundamental objectives
and directive principles as provided in Section 19 (a-e) encapsulates the Nigeria’s
foreign policy objectives to include: (a) promotion and protection of the national
interest; (b) promotion of African integration and support for African unity; (c)
promotion of international cooperation for the consolidation of universal peace and
mutual respect among all nations, and elimination of discrimination in all its
manifestations; (d) respect for international law and treaty obligations as well as
the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration and adjudication; and (e) promotion of a just world order. 13

Since the dawn of a new democratic era in 1999, a major trend is clearly
discernible in Nigeria’s foreign policy. This is the desire to establish and maintain
friendships with countries that have historically shaped global diplomacy while
forging new alliances with emerging powers in the global economic arena. This
trend reflects the country’s overall objectives as envisioned in its Vision 20-2020
document.14 To this end, six major determinants have underlined Nigeria’s foreign
policy since 1999. These include: (i) removing the near-pariah status that the
country attained during the last phases of military rule; (ii) remaining a key player
in regional or continental politics, particularly in light of the increasing importance
of the Gulf of Guinea; (iii) ensuring that external relations assist in domestic
economic development, especially through strategic cooperation with traditional
and emerging global economic actors; (iv) bringing about debt relief; (v) obtaining
assistance to consolidate democracy; and (vi) improving the image of the country
affected by negative press on the illegal activities of its nationals abroad. 15 This
citizen diplomacy strategy has also had a parallel domestic policy of ensuring an
agenda to make the nation proud.

It is very clear that there is continuity across regimes in spite of changes in the
pursuit of national interest. There is constancy in Nigeria’s foreign policy
objectives and foreign relations from the civilian regime of Prime Minister
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa to President Goodluck Jonathan. What can be deduced
from various regimes in terms of articulation of national interest is that, it is the
leadership that determines what constitutes Nigeria’s national interest. It is widely
acknowledged that there is a direct relationship between domestic politics and the
making of foreign policy. There is therefore the need to establish the linkage
between domestic politics and foreign policy.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, it is important to draw attention to the internal universe of

domestic politics that has helped to define the foreign policy choices and actions.
13
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
14
Alao, A. (2011) “Nigeria and the Global Powers: Continuity and Change in
Foreign Policy and Perceptions”, Occasional Paper No.96, SAIIA,p.6
15
op. cit.
8
Nigeria is an amalgam of different ethnic nationalities that adopted a federal
system of government imposed on it by the British. This federal system has its
attendant consequence of citizenship and nationality questions. 16 This domestic
environment is conceptualized to mean those features, factors and forces peculiar
to the state. Taking a sociological look at the domestic forces of foreign policy, it
explains that foreign policy decision-making does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it
operates within a constitutional framework, domestic institution and interest
groups.17 The structuralist argument is that the elitist nature of foreign policy is
traced to the social origins of the diplomatic corps of 19th Century. Ibrahim
Gambari has made it eloquently clear that foreign policy formulation, articulation
and implementation reflects the needs and aspirations of national elites of
political, business, bureaucratic, military and traditional ruling groups. 18 These
groups of elite are never cohesive; they are deeply divided along ethnic, regional,
religious and ideological lines.

Thus, there is lack of consensus on critical foreign policy issues such as the
membership of Organization of Islamic Conference (O.I.C.), and severance of
diplomatic relations with Israel in 1973. Pluralist argument is fundamentally
important in this regard. Pluralists attempt to establish the fact that the
Westphalia world of state-system has been sub-divided into interest groups,
transnational corporations, and international non-governmental organizations, etc.
Therefore, the impact of domestic factors on foreign policy can be appreciated by
understanding how the sub-state actors exert influence over state institutions and
decision-making processes.19

Nigeria, like other countries in the world, has sub-state actors as the interest
groups, public opinion and the mass media. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye
have critically looked at the inter-connections between state, sub-state and non-
state actors and how they affect the dynamics of foreign policy of states. 20 The
argument presented by the pluralist writers is that the level of political participation
depends on the system of governance. Therefore, there is a link between
democracy and foreign policy. The return of Nigeria to democratic rule in 1999 has
enhanced its capacity to participate actively in global politics.

16
Ottoh, O.F (2012) “Theoretical Approaches to the understanding of the
impact of Domestic Factors to Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” A paper presented at a
Conference organized by Nigerian Society of International Affairs, held at Lead
City University, Ibadan, 6th -8th April.
17
Ibid
18
Gambari, I (2008), op. cit.
19
Ottoh, O.F.(2012) op.cit.
20
See Keohane, R. and Nye, J. in Ottoh, O.F.(2012)
9
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, as Nigeria is grappling with internal political contradictions
in the foreign policy formulation and implementation, it is equally confronted today
with an external environment occasioned by the new phenomenon of
globalization. A number of scholars have alluded to the fact that the
“globalization” of world markets, the rise of transnational networks and non-
governmental organizations, and the rapid spread of global communications
technology are undermining the power of states and shifting away from military
security toward economic and social welfare. 21 The challenges posed by
globalization are the integration of the economic systems of nation states into
‘global economy’, the primacy and supremacy of international competitiveness,
and the phenomenal rise in the internationalization of labour, capital and portfolio
investments.22 The argument is that given the nature and character of the Nigerian
state with its inherent weak domestic base, globalization has its adverse
implications on the nation’s economy and in the conduct of its external relations.

Contemporary globalization is simply the latest form of capitalist penetration into

Africa and the rest of the Third World countries. I agree with critics of
globalization that say it is the newest form of colonization and slavery. 23 As new
global consciousness continues to direct the course of events, in the world,
Nigerian protesters over the removal of fuel subsidy in 2012 were inspired by
Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans who embarked on revolution to bring about a
change in the political order. The struggles for emancipation in the Arab World
have global reverberations. This was made possible through the new social
media. It implicitly suggests the possibility of leaders emerging from the struggle
that challenges and replaces the established leaders and helps to engender truly
democratic governance that is based on rule of law, accountability and
transparency.

Diplomatic Odyssey:
In the early period of Nigeria’s independence and up to the advent of the Second
Republic, its external conduct could best be described as towering and most
glorious. The statement of the First Republic leaders Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and
Alhaji Tafawa Balewa made it clear that Nigeria had an historic mission and a
manifest destiny in Africa. This was why the regime made every effort to pursue
decolonization policy in Africa. In the spirit of Pan-Africanism as initiated from the
time of Sylvester Williams, W.E.B. Du Bois, Nigeria pursued policy rooted in the
struggle against racism, colonialism, imperialism, exploitation and oppression.

21
Walt, S. (2005), op. cit.
22
Akinboye, S.O. (2007), Globalization, Special Issue.
23
Gibson, N. (2007)” Africa’s Global Futures” in Moyo, B.(ed.) Africa in the
Global Power Play: Debates, Challenges and Potential Reforms, London:
Adonis and Abbey Publishers Limited, p.163.
10
Decolonization, particularly in Southern Africa, was a recurring theme in Nigeria’s
Africa policy. The Balewa’s administration was totally committed to decolonization
of Africa and was deeply obsessed with the eradication of racism and apartheid
from Africa. This was demonstrated by the regime’s declaration of total support for
the freedom fighters with both technical and financial backing. In his words: “we
(Nigeria) shall never relent in our endeavour to prescribe South Africa as an unfit
member of the international community as long as it continues to practice
racism”.24 This statement was a confirmation of the country’s anti-apartheid
position which it viewed as inhuman and to say the least criminal to human race.
It was seen also as a complete violation of the provisions of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as well as a negation of the principles and purposes
of the United Nation’s Charter. A practical demonstration of this was the great
deal of sympathy generated by the Sharpeville massacre of March 1960 and the
Soweto uprising of 1976.25

Nigeria played significant role in the independence of Angola, Mozambique,

Zimbabwe and Namibia. Nigeria was contrived to become a member of the
frontline states in spite of its geographical distance from the Southern African
region. The country became a founding member of the African Liberation
Committee and served as chairman of the UN’s anti-apartheid Committee. In
other words, its total commitment towards the dismantlement of apartheid earned
it the chairmanship of United Nations Committee against Apartheid, and it went
further to establish the National Committee against Apartheid (NACAP) and the
Southern Africa Relief Fund (SARF) in 1976 to provide relief materials to South
African refugees and scholarships to black South African students in Nigeria. 26
The country was in the forefront in the clamour for intensification of embargoes,
boycotts and economic sanctions against repressive rule in any part of Africa.
Dismantlement of apartheid and installation of black majority rule in South Africa in
May 1994 was therefore a major grand finale and breakthrough in Nigeria’s
articulated post-independence foreign policy.

As a demonstration of its principle of non-alignment, the Murtala/Obasanjo regime

in 1975 recognized the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) as
the authentic representatives of the Angolan people. This was the most dynamic,
informed, assertive and activist foreign policy in Nigeria’s diplomatic history.This
24
Ministry of External Affairs Document, Lagos, 1970, p.6
25
Akinboye, S.O. (2003). Nigeria and South Africa’s relations in the 20 th
Century: A Case of symbiosis and reciprocity” in Yomi Akinyeye (ed.) Nigeria
and the wider World in the 20 th Century, Essays in Honour of Professor Akinjide
Osuntokun, Ibadan: Davidson Press,p.257
26
Akinboye, S.O.(2005). “From confrontation to strategic partnership: Nigeria’s
relations with South Africa, 1960-2000 in U. Joy Ogwu (ed.) New Horizons for
Nigeria in World Affairs, Lagos: N.I.IA., p.214
11
remarkable and bold step in its foreign policy adventure became the golden era of
Nigeria’s foreign policy.27 Notwithstanding the death of Murtala Muhammed in
1976 in an abortive coup, the foreign policy of Nigeria remained aggressive,
radical and militant in nature. Olusegun Obasanjo who succeeded him
consolidated Mohammed’s efforts, and Nigeria’s voice continued to be heard in
global politics. The regime applied punitive measures against the British
government over its policy in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa.
Thus, in 1978, the regime of Obasanjo nationalized the British owned Barclays
Bank and the Nigerian government took over 80% of the company’s shares and
changed its name to Union Bank of Nigeria Limited. In a similar way, the British
Petroleum was nationalized in 1979. These actions were taken to hasten the
Lancaster Conference talk to usher in Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980.

Nigeria’s greatness and adventurous foreign policy was further demonstrated in its
peacekeeping mission. Since its independence in 1960, Nigeria has been
involved in peacekeeping operations in the different troubled areas in the world. It
participated in peacekeeping mission during the Congo crisis in 1960. Nigeria
contributed troops under the auspices of the United Nations peace operations.
However, the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa made it clear that Nigeria supported
United Nations peacekeeping operations for the purpose of maintenance of law
and order.28 In 1977, Nigeria equally participated in the peacekeeping operations
during the civil war in Lebanon.

Nigeria as the leader of the sub-regional organization, Economic Community of

West African States (ECOWAS), initiated the formation of the ECOWAS Ceasefire
Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) during the Liberian civil war in the 1990s.
Peacekeeping mission therefore constitutes a fundamental area in which it has,
within the context of its leadership image in West Africa, strived to resolve conflicts
in the sub-region. Bola Akinteriwa has observed that: “Nigeria’s record in
peacekeeping operations worldwide, and particularly Africa, is impressive and
second to none in Africa. The record is a reflection of unwavering commitment to
peace as instrument of national and African development”. 29 Indeed, the
deployment of ECOMOG in Liberia and later Sierra Leone was an historic action
aimed at conflict resolution in Africa by African States.

27
Fawole, A (2003), Nigeria’s External Relations and Foreign Policy Under
Military Rule, 1966-1999, Ile-Ife, Obafemi Awolowo University Press Ltd, p.2
28
See Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, (1967) Nigeria Speaks, Ikeja:
Longman Nigeria, p.101
29
Akinterinwa, B. (2005). “Nigeria and Permanent membership of the United
Nations Security Council: Dynamics and Difinienda” in Akinterinwa, B. (ed.).
Nigeria and the United Nations Security Council , Ibadan: Vintage Publishers
Limited p.68
12
Babangida graphically illustrates:
Being responsible members of ECOWAS, we believe that it would have been morally
reprehensive and politically indefensible to stand by and watch while the citizens of
that country (Liberia) decimate themselves and other West Africa citizens resident
there in an orgy of mutual antagonism and self destruction.30

General Ibrahim Babangida also alluded to the security implication of the civil war
in Liberia and justification for the deployment of Nigerian troops to Liberia under
the aegis of ECOMOG. In his words:
Unless arrested, the carnage in that country (Liberia) could have spilled over to
neighbouring countries, leading to external non-African intervention and thereby
posing a security threat to us all. We therefore decided to send our troops to
participate in this laudable peacekeeping mission.31

Nigeria was also involved in the resolution of conflicts in Sudan, Somalia,

Rwanda, Cote d’Ivoire and now Mali. In some cases, the country committed
blunders in its actions. For instance, Nigeria supported the use of military action
against Laurent Gbagbo. It backed the United Nations Security Council resolution
on the use of force to force Gbagbo to surrender. 32 Akinjide Osuntokun has rightly
observed that Nigeria was complicit in the intervention, when French military
intervened in crisis in Cote d’Ivoire. It was paradoxical that in spite of the
tremendous support Nigeria gave to President Alassane Quattara, it was treated
with ignominy and disdain. This became obvious as Quattara’s first state visit was
to Senegal on May 12, 2011; and during his inauguration, glowing tribute was paid
to France and French leader (then) - Nicholas Sarkozy was singled out for
recognition while no mention was made of Nigeria’s President Goodluck
Jonathan.33 This is something that needed to be pondered over by the Nigerian
policy makers.

However, it must be acknowledged that Nigeria has shown strong commitment to

peace and security in Africa and the rest of the world. A UN Department of
Peacekeeping Operations report of May 2010 noted that the country had
approximately 6,000 men and women participating in peacekeeping missions.
This figure is surpassed only by Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. 34 The
involvement of Nigeria in peace operations had earned it recognition, with a
member of the Nigerian army, Lieutenant General Chikadibia Obiakor appointed
30
Soja Magazines 1991, p.10
31
Africa Guardian, 1991,p.143
32
Ogunsanwo, A. (2012), “Challenges and Prospects of Nigeria’s Foreign
Policy in the 21st Century” in Thomas Imobighe and Warisu Alli (eds)
Perspectives on Nigeria’s National Politics and External Relations: Essays in
Honour of Professor A. Bolaji Akinyemi, Ibadan: University Press, plc. p.124
33
Ibid,pp.124-125
34
See Alao, A. (2011) op.cit. p.21
13
as the United Nations Military Advisor for Peacekeeping Operations. The UN
subsequently accredited the Nigerian Army Peacekeeping Centre, making it one
of the four facilities in the world where UN peacekeepers are trained before
deployment to missions.35

Apart from actual troop mobilization, Nigeria was very proactive in restoring peace
in Sao Tome and Principe when there was a coup d’etat while the President,
Frederique de Menezes was on a state visit to Nigeria. President Olusegun
Obasanjo was credited to have resisted regime change not only by ensuring the
return of de Menezes to power, but also accompanied him back to the country
safely without any further intimidation or molestation from the coup plotters.
Nigeria equally ensured that Guinea Bissau returned immediately to transition to
civil rule when the government of Kumba Yala was ousted in a coup d’etat; and in
Togo as well, the government of Obasanjo insisted that the country returned to
constitutional rule following illegal assumption of power by Faure Gnassingbe after
the death of his father Gnassingbe Eyadema. All these point to the fact that
Nigeria has the ability to transform the character of its foreign policy. Perhaps, one
may say that these adventurous actions in the West Africa region changed the
perception of the international community that had earlier ostracized Nigeria and
branded it as pariah state. Nigeria’s opinion began to be sought on global issue
and was respected.36

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, I might be committing serious omission in this lecture if I

failed to acknowledge the role of Nigeria in the transformation of OAU to AU
(African Union). Besides, Nigeria showed more concern about African problems
and therefore without mincing words; it insisted that there must be home-grown
solutions to Africa problems. In this direction, it initiated with South Africa and
Senegal the establishment of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD) in 2001. NEPAD document provided the path for socio-economic
agenda of the newly conceived and later AU, which today, represents Africa’s
development framework. Subsequently, in pursuance of good governance policy
in Africa, Nigeria as a new democratic bride was instrumental to the introduction of
a scheme called The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). This is a scheme
for African Governments to present their score cards of performances in their
respective countries.

It is interesting to note at this point that Nigeria has continued to use the platform
of multilateral diplomacy to project its foreign policy since independence. Without
boring this audience with the catalogue of activities by Nigeria at various

35
Ibid.
36
Kolawole, D(ed.) (2005) Nigeria’s Foreign Policy since independence: Trends,
phases and changes, Lagos: Julius and Julius Associate ,p.877
14
international institutions notably the United Nations, OAU/AU, Commonwealth,
ECOWAS, G77, OPEC, it is important to single out the period 1999 to 2007. This
is because Nigeria adopted new diplomatic approach through the instrumentality
of multilateralism. This was necessary because of negative image the country
has earned during the period of military rule, especially with the annulment of
June 12, presidential election in 1993.

We will recall the Abacha regime and the ‘area boy’ diplomacy under the Foreign
Affairs Minister Chief Tom Ikimi. It was against this background that the newly
elected President Olusegun Obasanjo, in 1999 embarked on shuttle diplomacy
using personal contact and multilateral institutions to woo both enemies and
friends of Nigeria. Indeed, between May 1999 and Mid-August 2002, Obasanjo
embarked on 113 foreign trips, spending 340 days out of the country. 37 In
explaining his reasons for undertaking the trips, Obasanjo stated:

I have devoted much time and energy journeying virtually all corners of the globe on
my personal effort to positively reintegrate our country into the international
community and attract investment. We are happy to report that the results from these
trips have been encouraging enough to confirm my personal belief and the advice of
marketing experts namely that personal contact is the best way to market your
product. And my product is Nigeria.38

Nigeria aspired within this new era of democratic experiment to regain its respect
and relevance in the international arena. Most striking was the thrust on the
promotion of foreign investment, trade and policy of debt repudiation and
reduction. With the readmission of Nigeria to the Commonwealth in 1999, it
bidded to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in
December, 2003.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, as an expert in Foreign Policy, I am most fascinated by

the economic diplomacy employed by the regime of Olusegun Obasanjo. As it
has been alluded to in this lecture, I would like to present a graphic picture of the
gains achieved through the shuttle diplomacy. Nigeria was granted estimated
$18billion debt forgiveness by the Paris group of creditors. 39 The sum of $12.4
billion balance representing a regularization of arrears of $6.3 billion plus a
balance of $6.1 billion to complete the exit strategy was to be sourced from the
nation’s foreign reserves, which had hit $26 billion including the excess crude oil

37
See Oyedoyin, T (2002) in Alao, A (2011) “Nigeria and the Global Powers:
Continuity and Change in Policy and Perceptions” Occasional Paper, No.96,
October, SAII,p.6
38
Quoted in Alao, A. 2011,pp.6-7
39
Akinboye, S.O.(2006), “Africa’s debt crises: Nigeria’s escape from debt
trap”, in Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol.1. No 2, pp79-94
15
proceeds of about $10 billion as at the end of September 2005. 40 This constitutes
a major foreign policy achievement and engagement with the global powers.

Nigeria’s relationship with her traditional allies – United States and Britain is worth
reflecting on under the current diplomatic adventure. The emergence of a new
democratic era in 1999 changed the phase of the US – Nigerian relations. There
are four main issues that underline Nigeria’s relations with the U.S. under the
current democratic dispensation.41 These are: assistance in military
professionalism and security sector reform; the support for global war on terror;
trade and investment; and efforts to ensure debt relief and financial assistance.
As regard the professionalization and security reform, there was unusual
consensus among foreign policy elites under Obasanjo’s administration. For
instance, the idea of entering into a military agreement with the US was not
acceptable to most elites. Arguably, the invitation of the US military training team,
the Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI) to train members of the
Nigerian army would amount to foreign domination and an act of military
imperialism. Similarly, the issue of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) was also
objected to; but surprisingly, the Yar ‘Adua administration either naively or out of
inexperience endorsed it when he (the President) visited United States. Nigeria
has continued to enjoy the military collaboration with the United States to the
extent that President Barack Obama in 2011 donated two warships to Nigeria. 42

Terrorism is a global phenomenon and therefore deserves comments. America

views with serious concern the activities of terrorists in different parts of the
globe. It is also important to establish that there is a link between religious
radicalization and terrorism. Nigeria is most vulnerable because of its chequered
history of religious riots and crises. Therefore, US expects that Nigeria should not
be indifferent to the global war on terror. Unfortunately, Nigeria was placed on the
US’s ‘Terror Watch List’, especially with the attempted bombing of Northwest
Airlines Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in December, 2009. However,
Nigeria was more compelled to join in the US war on terror and this became a
foreign policy priority to Nigeria. 43 As a matter of urgency and in fulfillment of the
condition to remove Nigeria from the US Terror Watch List, the anti-terrorism bill
before the National Assembly is meant to be passed without further delay.

Another area of the Nigerian – US relations is in trade and investment. Trade

improvement between Nigeria and the US was a great priority since 1999.
40
Aluko, M.E. (2005), “Debt relief, Debt punishment or greed? The case of the
‘Scoogey’ Paris Club. Retrieved July5, 2006 from Dawodu.com: On Nigeria’s
Social and Political Issues, http://www.dawodu.com/aluko127.htm.
41
Alao, A.(2011), Op.cit.p.7
42
Ibid. p.9
43
Ibid
16
Nigeria has been involved in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA),
which was passed by the US Congress in May 2000 to provide duty-free and
quota-free market preferences for about 6,400 products from sub-Saharan African
countries to the US markets till 2015.44

Critics have observed that Nigeria has not benefitted much from AGOA because
Nigeria’s products are not economically competitive in the US. Coupled with the
problem of infrastructure such as power, transport and delay in ports combined to
increase the cost of production of some of the goods to be exported to the US
markets.

Nigeria and US relations are further concretized with the signing of Bi-national
commission in April 2010. This is aimed to establish a mechanism for sustained,
bilateral, high-level dialogue to promote and increase diplomatic, economic and
security cooperation.45 The commission seeks to promote cooperation in efforts to
resolve conflict in the Niger Delta and to protect US multinationals operating in the
Niger Delta region.

Nigerian-British relations have remained cordial since the dawn of a democratic

rule in 1999. The relationship between the two countries is at diplomatic, trade,
debt relief and recovery of looted fund, and fighting corruption in Nigeria. It was
reported in August 2010 by the Deputy Chief Executive of UK Trade and
Investment, Susan Haird that trade in services from the UK to Nigeria in 2008
amounted to approximately GBP 27 billion, while exports from Nigeria to the UK in
2009 stood at about GBP 600 million.46

This attentive audience also desire to know where Nigeria falls in the midst of
emerging economic powers. In the 1980s and 1990s, we were constantly singing
the success songs of Asian Tigers-Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.
Today, it is now Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa to complete the
circle which is now called the BRICS states. The emergence of this group in the
world economic stage has caught the attention of Nigeria’s foreign policy makers.
In particular, China is a giant economic power house in contemporary global
system. Interestingly, the volume of trade between Nigeria and China has
increased since 2001. In 2001, it stood at about $1.44 billion, $1.169 billion in
2002, $1.86 billion in 2003, $2billion in 2004 and to $2.83 billion in 2007. In 2011,
trade between Nigeria and China reached $7.76 billion, thus making Nigeria the
fourth largest trading partner and the second largest export market of China in
Africa.47 Chinese companies are involved in the construction, oil and gas,
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
17
technology, service and education sectors of the Nigerian economy. China in turn
has increased its volume of agricultural exports from Nigeria. Also, in 2011, the
government handed over the Olorunsogo Power Station in Ogun State to a
Chinese consortium led by SEPCO III Electric Power Construction Corporation of
China. China provided 65% of the funding required for 335-megawatt-capacity
Olorunsogo plant and also 335-megawatt-capacity Omotosho Power Station in
Okitipupa, Ondo State.48
Also the principle of exchanging oil for development was adopted by the Nigerian
Government as a part of diplomacy to woo China to assist in the development of
rail transport. In April 2011, the government signed a contract to rehabilitate the
2110 kilometre Eastern rail line with Chinese company – China Gezhouba Group
Corporation.

It is indeed imperative to remind this audience that “the widespread failure of the
hegemonic ‘Washington Consensus’ has led to the rise of a counter-vailing
‘Beijing Consensus’ and proliferation of ‘Look East’ policies across most of the
developing world based on the Chinese model of development” 49 Similarly, Ramo
has remarked that:

China is marking a path for other nations around the world who are trying to
figure out not simply how to develop their countries, but also how to fit into the
international order in a way that allows them to be truly independent to protect
their way of life and political choices in a world with a single massively
powerful centre of gravity.50

The second ‘scramble for Africa’ has brought China as a major competitor into a
region that is exclusively reserved for the Western powers by their own creative
ingenuity.

Diplomatic Dysfunctionality
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, greatness is not measured in terms of strength but by the
ability to sustain what has been achieved. During the formative stage of Nigeria’s
nationhood, the foreign policy was consistently tilted towards the West. Prime
Minister, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa’s pronouncement of a policy of non-alignment
was only on paper because there was no firm commitment by his government
towards it. The Anglo-Nigeria Defence pact with the British government in 1961
was seen as a misnomer. The pact provided that Nigeria would grant Britain
48
Ibid.
49
SamaSuwo, N.( 2007) “The ‘Insurrection of subjugated knowledge’: Towards an
‘Post-Western’ Asymmetric Africa” in Moyo, B.(ed.) Africa in the Global Power
Play: Debates, Challenges and Potential Reforms, London: Adonis and Abbey
Publishers Ltd.p.75
50
Ibid. p.75
18
unrestricted overflying and air staging facilities in Nigeria. This policy was
opposed by articulate Nigerians leading to its abrogation in 1962. 51

The Balewa regime was not dynamic in its foreign policy approach. This may be
as a result of limited financial resources to support foreign policy dynamism.
During the Congo (D.R.C) crisis of 1960, Nigeria’s behaviour showed an act of
timidity as it emphasized law and order. Similarly, on the issue of Southern
Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), the Balewa administration took a conservative stance.

Gowon administration was equally confronted with both internal and external
constraints that made it impossible to pursue more active foreign policy. Despite
the buoyant economy in which the regime conducted its foreign policy, the idea to
elongate its Military rule beyond the agreed timetable created widespread internal
discontents and this led to his overthrow in a bloodless coup staged in July 1975
by General Murtala Mohammed.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, during the Second Republic (1979-1983), Nigeria’s

external image and diplomatic profile began to dwindle and consequently, its
leadership in African affairs was seriously eroded as it vacillated on some critical
issues of national interest. The country virtually lost all its respect to the extent
that some African states had the effrontery to cross into Nigeria’s territory to attack
and kill its soldiers and civilians with impunity. 52

Shagari’s administration was not able to maintain the momentum of the policies of
the Murtala/Obasanjo’s era. The regime was deeply attached to the West to the
extent that the whole argument of pursuing non-aligned policy was only on paper
and not in action. The recklessness and mismanagement of the economy made it
impossible for the administration to meet up with its foreign policy challenges.
There was a serious threat to domestic peace and stability because of economic
hardship occasioned by the austerity measure adopted by the regime. The
resultant effect of this domestic problem was that Nigeria’s leadership in African
affairs became questionable, as it was not able to take a stand on critical issues
such as Western Sahara and Namibia. 53 The regime was also caught in a deep
foreign policy crisis over the expulsion of three million West African citizens who
were regarded illegal aliens. This was in contrast to ECOWAS policy on free
movement of peoples within the sub-region.

51
Akinboye, S.O.(2005) Op. cit. p.222
52
Bukarambe, B (2010) “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy in Africa, 1960-1910: An
interpretive analysis” in Osita Eze (ed.) Beyond 50 years of Nigeria’ Foreign
Policy: Issues, Challenges and Prospect, Lagos: NIIA, p.40
53
Gambari, I. Op cit p.67
19
Again, the timid official policy towards Chad, when it participated in the ill-fated
OAU peacekeeping force in that country between 1981 and 1982 inspired little or
no respect for Nigeria because of installation of a regime opposed to Goukouni
Weddeye.

Nigeria also demonstrated a sign of weakness when the regime was pressurized
by America not to attend the OAU Summit in Libya in 1982. This was why Nigeria
was seen as a mere demographic and “economic Gulliver” on the continent, but a
political and “diplomatic Lilliputian” in African affairs. 54
The Buhari regime was seen as international bully and compounded the image
crisis through its draconian anti-human rights policies and decrees. The Decree
No. 4 of 1984 barred any publication on public officials which was designed to gag
the press and other mass media. Besides, Decree No. 2 undermined the Writ of
Habeas Corpus as the basic principle of rule of law and fundamental freedom. An
attempt by the regime to abduct Umaru Dikko from Britain back to Nigeria under
questionable circumstances caused serious diplomatic embarrassment for the
country. The regime embarked on the policy of expulsion of illegal aliens, which
brought about the “Ghana Must Go” era. For this singular act, the country
suffered a great deal of diplomatic tongue-lashing and global media criticism,
especially for a country that is positioned to be a regional influential.

Nigeria’s relations with ECOWAS member states degenerated as the country’s

borders were permanently closed against its neighbours, thus, hurting the
economies of its immediate neighbours: the Republics of Benin, Niger and Chad.
These countries depended on Nigeria for their exports and imports. 55

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, Nigeria reached a crescendo in its diplomatic enterprise,

especially in the second half of the 1980s and most of the 1990s, and receded to
diminuendo. The country continued to operate in a circle of diplomatic
dysfunctionality. While it must be acknowledged that under the Babangida’s
administration then, the country’s diplomatic profile rose to a point, particularly
with the introduction of the Technical and Aid Corps(TAC) scheme, the regime
could not sustain the momentum as it was rather immersed in its own internal
domestic contradictions. Nigeria began to battle with image crisis as a result of
corruption which systematically and pragmatically became official policy of the
regime. This was a great paradox. As the regime continued with the problem of
moral image question, the truncation of the democratic process dealt a mortal
blow to the entire nation. The surreptitious annulment of the June 12, 1993
Presidential election brought about international condemnation and was seen as
54
Ibid.p.69
55
Fawole, A.(2000), “ Obasanjo’s Foreign Policy under democratic rule:
Nigeria’s return to global reckoning” in Nigerian Journal of International Affairs,
Vol. 26, No.2, p.21
20
an affront to the advancement of democratic ethos. This led to a wide-range of
sanctions against Nigeria by the international community.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, Nigeria’s image crisis reached its zenith during Abacha’s
era. General Abacha instituted a form of Machiavellian dictatorship never known
in the annals of the country. 56 Indeed, his ruthless personality affected his dealings
with fellow countrymen and the international community. As Fawole puts it:

…in the five years he reigned, General Abacha presided over the most combative
and defensive foreign policy in Nigerian history. Abacha’s brand of diplomacy pitched
the regime in conflict with the West, because of poor domestic policies particularly the
issue of human rights which condemned the regime to a state of permanent
isolation.57

General Abacha’s despicable human rights abuse reached its climax with the
judicial murder of Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other Ogoni environmental activists.
This led to the expulsion of Nigeria from the Commonwealth of Nations and
severance of diplomatic relations with its traditional allies. The country
derogatorily became a pariah state in the international system following General
Abacha’s self aggrandized effort to transmute from military head of state to a
civilian president.The various actions of the regime further stigmatized it from the
international community and this probably forced the regime to court new allies.
Following the death of the dictator on June 8,1998, a process of reconciliation with
the lost friends and allies commenced as his successor, General Abdusalami
Abubakar tried to redeem the image of the country before handing over to the
President-Elect, Olusegun Obasanjo on May 29, 1999.

Under Obasanjo’s civilian administration that commenced in May 1999, the

Bakassi issue resurfaced. The International Court of Justice ruling in 2002 and
the 2006 Green Tree Agreement are issues to be reflected on. The way and
manner the government of Obasanjo prosecuted the case in spite of the huge
resources expended on it exposed the degree of dysfunctionality in Nigeria’s
diplomatic conduct. Nigeria’s leadership exhibited an act of diplomatic naivety. At
the initial stage after the World Court verdict, there was massive public outcry over
the Nigerian government attitude towards the case. Consequently, Obasanjo
attempted to renege on the handover date. The National Assembly’s call for a
referendum was borne out of opportunism rather than on genuine concern for the
rights of the Bakassi people.58
56
Fafowora, O (1997), Guardian, Lagos, June 16
57
Fawole, A (1999), Paranoia, Hostility and Defence: General Sani Abacha
and the New Nigeria Foreign Policy, Ile-Ife, OAU Press
58
Omeje, K. (2007).”The Territory is Cameroon but the People are Nigerians:
Resolving the Bakassi Peninsula Conflict” in Moyo, B. (ed.) Africa in the Global
21
Nigeria surrendering itself to the World Court left it with no option than to accept
the ruling of the court. At the height of the controversy, the then UN Secretary
General, Kofi Annan, brokered a diplomatic agreement in 2006, when the
Obasanjo’s government timidly accepted to withdraw Nigerian troops, dismantle
governance structure and subsequently effect hand over of the peninsula to
Cameroon within 60 days.59 The overriding import of the Green Tree Agreement
was to ensure that the two parties (Nigeria and Cameroon) uphold the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) verdict. Perhaps, one may conjecture that
Obasanjo acted in order to curry favour of America and the other Western
Countries to secure their support for his third term agenda bid. This may be
contested but the truth is that no nation ever agrees to surrender any part of its
territory that it has hitherto occupied for years to another. Indeed, the general
consensus, mostly in informed circle, is that Bakassi crisis constituted a major
sore in the country’s diplomatic pursuit. 60 The President inadvertently violated the
constitution he swore to uphold. This is because the 1999 constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria reads in part: “no treaty between the federation and
any other country shall have the force of law except to which such treaty has been
enacted into law by the National Assembly”.61 This provision is only intended to set
a standard in the enforcement of treaty, but international law recognizes the fact
that a treaty that is validly entered into by sovereign head of states becomes
binding without ratification from the national parliament. This is in line with the
principle of Pacta Sunt Servenda. Akindele and Akinsanya have remarked that
President Obasanjo’s attitude could be likened to Louis XIV of France. In their
words:

Obviously, he (Obasanjo) was aware of the implication of concluding an executive

agreement such as the Green Tree Agreement but cared less since he
governed the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the mould of Louis XIV of France. If he
was not an imperial President, he should have caused that provision to be inserted

Power Play: Debates, Challenges and Potential Reforms, London: Adonis and
Abbey Publishers Ltd., p.245
59
Ibid.,p.246
60
Falana, F. (2012), “The Independence of the State of Bakassi: Legal
Dimension”, A paper presented at 12 th Brainstorming Session on Bakassi at the
Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos, 23 rd August; and Dokubo, C.
(2012) “ICJ Ruling and Maritime Security: Implications for Nigerian Southeast
Zone” A paper presented at 12th Brainstorming Session on Bakassi at the
Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos, 23 rd August.
61
1999 Constitution of the Federal of Republic of Nigeria
22
in Green Tree Agreement making its entry into force contingent upon legislative
approval.62

In addendum, the eventual handing over of the oil-rich peninsula to Cameroon in

2008 by Yar’ Adua’s regime without the relevant section of the 1999 constitution
symbolized another fraud and illegality. The government did not consider it
politically and legally expedient to amend the section of the constitution that
included Bakassi Local Government as one of the 774 local governments listed in
the constitution.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, how do we explain all these ambiguities to the outside
world? How do we expect to command respect of others? I have earlier alluded to
in this lecture that there is an interface between the internal and external
environments of foreign policy. Thus, a country’s external image is determined by
how it conducts its affairs domestically. The Bakassi issue was one of those
diplomatic blunders and may continue to haunt the country for generations to
come. No wonder, the Seventh Nigeria National Assembly realized that Nigeria
should still appeal the judgment of the World Court as provided in Articles 60 and
61 of the Court’s statute. To that effect, there was a call in 2012 for the Nigerian
government to appeal to the ICJ without understanding the legal requirement for
appeal. Of course, there was no fresh argument to warrant an appeal, hence
government lackadaisical response. This matter will not be exhausted in this
lecture, let me save the time of this assemblage of academics and attentive
audience to discuss the basic fundamentals of this lecture.
Contradictions in Nigeria’s Quest for Power/Influence in the International
System

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, Nigeria’s quest for power and influence in the global
politics has been inhibited by its image crisis that it has been grappling with for
three decades. There are various other challenges confronting Nigeria’s foreign
policy. These challenges reflect the contradictions in its quest for power and
influence in the global politics. It is important for purpose of clarity to situate these
contradictions within the context of those issues that manifest negatively in its life.

The first issue is corruption which has created a negative image for the country.
The current image problem is a result of widespread corruption which has reached
its apogee in the last ten years. A country that is inflicted with this kind of
cankerworm cannot parade itself as a power in the world. It must be clear today
that those years of hyperactive role by Nigeria in the global peacekeeping and
62
Akindele, R.A and Akinsanya, A (2012), “The National Assembly, the
Bakassi Peninsula and the GreenTree Agreement: Matter Arising”, A paper
presented at 12th Brainstorming Session on Bakassi at the Nigerian Institute of
International Affairs, Lagos, 23rd August.
23
humanitarian actions were not because of the genuineness of the leaders to make
Nigeria great but simply as a way of siphoning money abroad. At home,
corruption in the public offices or official circles is so alarming. Some instances
will suffice at this point. During Obasanjo’s regime as the military head of state,
the administration was alleged to be unable to account for the sum of N2.8 billion
oil money. Similarly, Shagari’s administration was characterized by corruption
while Babangida’s administration could not also account for the windfall of about
$12.4billion during the Gulf War in the 1990s. Abacha’s regime was also
notorious for reckless looting of the treasury. It was estimated that Nigeria
realized $20 million daily from crude oil without any disclosure by the regime. It
was confirmed that about $5 billion have been stashed in Swiss, UK, German and
American banks respectively.63 Within the few months of General Abdusalami
Abubakar’s regime, the sum of $7 billion external reserve funds could not be
accounted for.

Thus, we can see how Nigerian leaders have engaged in the competing race for
corruption. It is the worst paradox in economic theory of corruption that each
leader that rules the country wants to be applauded for having stolen more than
his predecessors. The same scenario applied to those in the public offices whose
looting has earned the country the title of the third most corrupt nation in the
world. It is not surprising to any keen observer of Nigeria’s corruption index profile
that the following persons have been celebrated corrupt officers not in the law
court but the court of public opinion. The former Minister of Housing under
Obasanjo civilian rule , Mrs. Mobolaji Osomo was relieved of her appointment
because of a housing scandal involving about 207 top government officials, 64 the
former Minister of Education Prof. Fabian Osuji was similarly sacked for offering
bribe to the tune of N55 million to some Senators including the Senate President
Adolphous Wabara; a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Miss
Patricia Etteh was also involved in misappropriation of $5 million for the purchase
of 12 cars and refurbishing of two houses. These are just a tip of the iceberg as
there are other instances well known to everyone. The Code of Conduct Bureau in
exercise of its investigative function reported in September 2005 that 14 state
governors were operating foreign accounts. 65 Empirically, there were some
celebrated fraudulent cases of some governors of Plateau State, Joshua Dariye,
Bayelsa State – Diepreye Alamieyesigha, Delta State, James Ibori, Edo State,
Lucky Igbinedion and the Inspector General of Police, Tafa Balogun.

Joshua Dariye was arrested in London in 2005 for money laundering and was
granted bail but later “jumped” the bail and subsequently returned to Nigeria,

63
Akinboye, S.O. (2006), op.cit. p.89
64
Vanguard, April 1, 2005
65
Daily Sun,Sept.8, 2005
24
contested and won election into the National Assembly as a Senator. Diepreye
Alamieyesigha was arrested at the Heathrow Airport in London on September 15,
2005 and was equally charged for money laundering. He was found with about £1
million cash during a search of his London residence by detectives from the
Scotland Yard. This is in addition to the sum of £420,000 and £470,000 found in
different bank accounts and assets worth £10 million. 66 In Nigeria, Alamieyesigha
was accused of diversion and misappropriation of public funds to facilitate the
acquisition of N1 billion shares in Bond Bank Plc and purchase of Chelsea Hotel
in Abuja for N2 billion. 67 Similarly, Tafa Balogun as the then Inspector-General was
charged for corruptly enriching himself to the tune of N17 billion while in office
thereby impoverishing men and women of the Nigerian Police Force.

For a country that aspires to be a regional influential but found itself deeply
immersed in corruption, it is the worst contradiction. Politics is a game of influence
and for a country to influence others, it must be seen to be influential. This is the
paradox of Nigeria’s quest for leadership in Africa and a major player in global
politics. For those steering the affairs of the Nigerian state to engage in
transnational criminal activity with impunity and without the slightest compunction
smacks of gross irresponsibility.

Notwithstanding the setting up of two main institutions to fight corruption –

Independent Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission (ICPC)
and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), it is not yet clear that
the government is serious about fighting corruption and reducing it to the barest
minimum. Recent state pardon granted to DSP Alamieyesigha by President
Jonathan generated international and local outcry to the extent that the proposed
visit by the US President Barack Obama to Nigeria was cancelled. United States
diplomatic relations with states is tied to fundamental principles of rule of law,
good governance, transparency and accountability. Thus, it is not until the
government begins to show seriousness in fighting corruption that Nigeria will be
taken seriously at the international level.

It is one thing to device a slogan at home, such as the one designed by the then
Minister of Information, Dora Akunyili “good people, great nation”, it is another
thing to back it up with good diplomatic conduct abroad. Until the fundamental
domestic sources of the image problem are addressed, Nigeria’s aspiration as a
regional influential will remain an illusion. This is why Nigeria’s aspiration to
occupy one of the exalted seats in the United Nations Security Council as a
permanent member will be a wishful thinking because of loss of confidence in

66
http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/news/accessed on August 8, 2010
67
Ibid
25
Nigeria by the same African countries that would have flexed muscles to support
Nigeria.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, another fundamental contradiction in Nigeria’s foreign

policy is its policy of Afro-centrism. The successive Nigerian leaders have invested
so much resources, both material and human, in the prosecution of this policy of
Africa being the centre piece of diplomatic relations. In other words, it committed
itself resolutely to certain actions to demonstrate its unflinching support for Africa’s
cause. Unfortunately and disappointingly, many of the countries that have
benefitted tremendously from Nigeria’s largess often turned around to show
ingratitude to both its citizens and the government itself. Not quite long, South
Africa exhibited xenophobic attack against Nigerian citizens living in that country.
This was a country that every child at secondary school then contributed money to
ensure the freedom of the black population. It is most ironical that it was the same
blacks that marked Nigerians living in their country for extermination. Besides, the
countries it has supported financially, diplomatically and strategically becomes but
the butt of derision and envy by them.

Some of these countries equally harbour or even offer training facilities for
terrorists, while others campaign openly against Nigeria’s bid to occupy one of the
permanent seats of the United Nations Security Council. What this implies is that
the policy option of Africa as the corner stone of its foreign policy is largely
unrequited and unappreciated. To say the least, Nigeria’s leadership position and
role as a regional and continental power is unbelievably and visibly challenged. 68

Furthermore, this despicable display of attitude of ingratitude became obvious in

2010 when Nigeria contested for the non-permanent membership of the United
Nations Security Council, and what ought to be unanimous election for Nigeria
was grossly eroded by the abstention of the Guinean Permanent Representative
and most embarrassingly the outright voting against Nigeria by Liberia and Sierra
Leone. These were countries that Nigeria sacrificed both human and material
resources to safeguard and ensure their survival from the fratricidal wars that
threatened their nations. From these instances, it has become clear that the age-
long philosophical notion of Africa as the center piece of the country’s foreign
policy has become moribund, mundane and anachronistic.

The policy of Afrocentrism and non-alignment are long overdue for review. In the
midst of economic challenges, the country cannot pretend to be comfortable in
carrying the burden of leadership in Africa and claim at the same time to be non-
68
Obioma, J.D (2013). “Nigeria’s Father-Christmas foreign policy : A case of
unrequited love. Assessed on Feb.11 2013 from
http://theeconomyng.com/news174.html

26
aligned. It follows logically and reasonably to argue that the dynamics of the
contemporary global system makes it politically expedient for states to define their
foreign policies and external relations within the context of their national resources
and geo-strategic location. Besides, Nigeria is caught in the system that is
contemporaneously characterized by a new phenomenon of globalization.
Despite its huge natural resource endowments, there are distortions in the
nation’s economy as a result of its incorporation into the global economic
relations.

Nigeria’s development impotence is largely attributable to its weak domestic

economic structure. The international political structure through which power is
exercised must be congruent with the structures of economic production. Nigeria
has continued to depend on oil production for its foreign exchange earning. At
any point in time, there is a fall in oil price in the international oil market; Nigeria is
put in a traumatic and helpless situation. This helps to explain further how and
why Nigerians are caught in the desperate mood to strike a balance between the
old life-style and new life-style occasioned by either rise or fall in oil price. This is
partly the reasons why some Nigerians sought to maintain themselves by acting
as couriers of illegal drugs. This is not good for a country that aspires to be great.

This gathering deserves to be told the truth that since the introduction of Structural
Adjustment Programme by the Bretton Woods institutions - World Bank(IBRD)
and International Monetary Fund (IMF), the economies of African states have
become externally managed. The phrase, structural adjustment as coined by the
then President of World Bank, Robert MacNamara, at a meeting of the Bank’s
Board of Governors in Belgrade in October, 1979 was designed to address the
problems in African economic management as articulated in a number of reports
commissioned by the World Bank such as “Accelerated Development in Sub-
Saharan Africa” (known as the Berg Report of 1981); the Bank report on ‘Africa’s
Adjustment and Growth in the 1980s’ of 1989; and “Governance and
Development” report of 1992.69 In all these, the Bank consistently took a ‘liberal’ or
market-oriented approach to economic management on the assumption that
economic ‘rationality’ was a constant across all societies. 70 This approach
negates the development of independent economic management policy. It is
against this background that Nigeria’s economy vis-à-vis the Structural Adjustment
impacted negatively on the country’s aspiration to be one of the top 20 world
economies by the year 2020.

69
Clapham, C(2000), Africa and International System : Politics of State
Survival, Cambridge: University Press, p.169
70
Ibid.
27
Structural adjustment challenged the political as well as the economic basis of
power and independent statehood which the governing class sought to establish
and maintain from the beginning. These elites needed to extract resources and
control the resources in order to sustain state power. The elites are caught in a
dilemma of either following the Bretton Woods institutions injunctions and allow
the citizens to die in hunger or to disobey the institutions and face the
consequences. Majority of us in this auditorium were witnesses to the SAP riots
of 1989. In a similar version in 2012, the Occupy Nigeria and Save Nigeria Group
protest was a fallout of the sudden removal of subsidy from petroleum product.
This shows the link between economic benefits and political stability. However,
the imposition of political conditionalities by the Western financial institutions such
as multiparty electoral democracy, political accountability, good governance, rule
of law, human rights, due process etc, have made it difficult for the country to
operate freely in the international arena as a truly unfettered sovereign state.
Whereas, it is plausible to argue that the implementation of structural adjustment
policies requires ‘a courageous, ruthless and perhaps undemocratic
government’.71 This explains partly the action of the government in 2012 during
the protest to call the military to the street to quell the protest. Frankly speaking,
Nigeria cannot afford to be indifferent or be isolated from the global economic
interplay. This is why conscious efforts should be made by the leadership to
transform the nation’s economy so as to fully harness the benefits of globalization.
The various endogenous and exogenous factors that have attempted to
undermine macro-economic stability in the country should be frontally tackled.
The critical sectors of the economy such as agriculture, mining, industry, and
energy should be the focus of economic diplomacy of the country’s foreign policy,
for the purpose of sustainable growth and development.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, the issue of insecurity affects all of us in this gathering;
therefore it must be taken seriously. Nigeria has been grappling with the problem
of armed insurgency in the genies of ethno-nationalist movements in the Niger
Delta region and the Northern region. The various movements described as
ethnic militias such as Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), Movement for the
Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), Movement for the
Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), Egbesu Boys, Movement for the
Emancipation of the Niger Delta(MEND), Boko Haram etc. Nigeria is perceived
both at home and abroad as an unsafe place to live and do business. At a critical
time of armed insurgency in the Niger Delta, most of the multinational oil
corporations shut down their operations. There were frequent cases of armed
robberies, kidnappings, economically and politically orchestrated assassinations
and killings, etc.72

71
Ibid. p.193
28
This is the worst paradox and contradiction for a country that desires to be among
the twenty most developed economies of the world in the Year 2020. This was
why an intelligence report predicted in 2006 that in the next fifteen years, Nigeria
may no longer be seen in the world map. This prediction was greeted with serious
criticisms by Nigeria’s leadership. If we must tell ourselves the truth, the terrorist
attacks against public institutions, religious homes, and international institutions
cannot be justified in a decent society. Given this scenario however, the country
may gradually degenerate to hobbesian state of nature, where it was a war of
every man against everyman. The most recent prediction was after the 2011
presidential election, former American Ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell,
raised the fear that Nigeria would likely break up along religious and sectarian
lines if President Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian from the Southern part of Nigeria
was returned as President at the expense of General Muhammadu Buhari, a
Muslim from the North. Even though Nigeria has not broken up as predicted, the
situation in the North gives cause for concern.

Since the assumption of Goodluck Jonathan as the president of Nigeria, the

country has acquired the unenviable notoriety as a veritable theatre of terrorism
and implosions unleashed by the Boko Haram insurgency. Thus, this has posed
serious insecurity to the country and a threat to foreigners and investors. Nigeria
has remained on the front burner of contemporary global discourse. This security
challenge has diminished the country’s ability to command global respect. 73
Former Commonwealth Secretary General and current Chairman, Presidential
Advisory Council on Foreign Relations, Chief Emeka Anyaoku pointed out that:
“the security in the land is a drag on our foreign policy no doubt, because our
standing abroad depends on our domestic conditions. So to the extent that we
have insecurity at home, it is a drawback to our foreign policy”. 74 This explains
why America gave Nigeria the condition that for it to be delisted from the list of
countries on the terrorist watch list, the country must demonstrate seriousness by
passing the anti-terrorist bill. Recently, also, America has announced $7 million
reward for anybody who could give information about the leaders of Boko Haram.
This shows the importance attached to security in the conduct and prosecution of
foreign policy. As Ogunsanwo observed, the domestic architecture that
represents the infrastructural foundation of Nigeria’s foreign policy must be
adequately re-worked in order to ensure that the country’s foreign policy stand on
a firmer ground.75
72
Reflections on Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Foundations and Challenges (2011),
Friedrich Ebert, Stiftung, Vol.1.pp.65-66.
73
Ibid.
74
Anyaoku, E.(2013) , Remarks at the presentation of two books published
by the Presidential Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs, Abuja.
75
Ogunsanwo, A.(2012) “ Challenges and Prospects of Nigeria’s Foreign
Policy in the 21st Century” in T.A. Imobighe and W.A.Alli (eds.) Perspectives on
29
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, you will agree with me at this juncture that Nigeria is
suffering from internal decay which poses a considerable threat to international
order. The security debacle has created a common space within which we situate
the health of Nigeria in global trade. So, while terrorism and proliferation of small
arms and light weapons are clearly discernible, we must go to the root of the
problem which has to do with poverty, illiteracy, and underdevelopment. Although,
one cannot justify the act of terrorism and other means of protest or resistance by
groups on political, philosophical, ideological, religious or ethnic grounds. At the
same time, it cannot be ignored that there is a correlation between conditions of
extreme poverty, injustice, hopelessness, marginalization, political oppression and
the likelihood that people may take up terrorism as a means to vent their
discontent. It becomes most imperative for the government to address the socio-
economic challenges that the people face in Nigeria to avoid further contradiction
in our global quest for power and influence. The more insurgent movements
continue to spring up from different parts of the country, they may for the purposes
be regarded as quasi-states, and then begin to exercise many of the functions of
statehood, including the conduct of external relations.

‘Beautiful’ Abroad but ‘Ugly’ at Home: My thought about the future of

Nigeria’s Foreign Policy

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, let me at this juncture explicate on the metaphorical

import of the topic of this lecture. To be beautiful is to be attractive, elegant and
comely. A beautiful behaviour by individuals or an institutional entity like Nigeria
connotes acts of benevolence, kindness and sometimes sacrifice geared towards
the good of others. Over the past fifty years of independence, Nigeria has
executed various foreign policies, much of which moral referent can be interpreted
as beautiful. From the altruistic involvement in the fight against apartheid in South
Africa, to the deployment of massive human and material resources to the
operation of ECOMOG in Liberia and Sierra Leone, among others were acts of
benevolence. The beauty in Nigeria’s foreign policy can steal the heart of the most
disinterested suitors. The various commendations and awards on peace keeping
operations that the country has received from international organizations such as
the United Nations Organization attest to the aestheticism that characterize and
define Nigeria’s foreign policy.

Let me emphasize that if only the political elites have complemented the external
beauty with internal virtues, the country would have assumed a commendable
position in the global affairs, and the green-back passport would have been

Nigeria’s national politics and external relations: Essays in honour of Professor

A. Bolaji Akinyemi, Ibadan: University Press Plc., p 212
30
carried with a sense of pride and déjà vu. Alas, as the Great Preacher, King
Solomon noted in Proverbs 31… thousands of years ago, “Beauty is vain and
favour is deceitful…”. It is axiomatic that while Nigeria has been exhibiting acts of
benevolence abroad, the domestic environment has been marked by ugliness in
terms of tolerance for corruption, avarice, greed, primitive capital accumulation
and sheer lack of direction on how to achieve development. The fallout of these
unfortunate domestic conditions are the high level of poverty, inequality, insecurity,
mutual distrust, individual disillusionment and hopelessness among the old and
the young and ethnic antagonism (instead of cohesion) that now define the daily
existence of an average Nigerian.

It is instructive to note that as a Policy Science, Foreign Policy and the returns or
benefits that a country derives from it are a function of strict observance of certain
immutable laws and generalizations. The most salient of these is how healthy is
the domestic condition in terms of political stability, economic buoyancy, social
cohesion and that sense of pride of the individual citizen, (patriotism) that may
warrant dying for the sake of the country. To all intents and purposes, these
qualities are below expectation in Nigeria as of today.

Notwithstanding the current unpalatable domestic situation and the attendant

losses in the foreign policy milieu, there are ample opportunities for the country to
derive some benefits from its foreign policy. This will involve turning around the
ugly domestic situation around through social and political re-engineering of the
country, which will involve a change in the nature and character of the state,
entrenchment of a culture of participatory democracy, active citizenship, taming
the monster of corruption and value re-orientation. Of course, the economy must
also be strong both at the level of performance as indicated by growth but also
structurally, with equitable distributive impact. At the specific level of foreign policy
formulation and implementation, the government must discard the current top-
bottom approach, which to all intents and purposes has been dysfunctional and
unproductive. To the extent that foreign policy affects the lives of people at micro
and macro levels, the citizens must be involved in its formulation through
consultation and dialogue. The neglect of the intelligentsia in foreign policy
making in Nigeria has been one of the “Achilles” heels. This must be urgently
addressed by ensuring that experts in various fields such as Political Science,
Economics, History and Strategic Studies, Mass Communication and so on are
involved from conception to implementation.

Achievement of dynamic, virile and robust foreign policy as an instrument of

obliterating Nigeria from the docile and fragile foreign policy constitutes a critical
issue that dominates contemporary diplomatic agenda. Regrettably, the variety of
diplomatic strategy that has consistently been adopted to achieve this end has not

31
realistically resolved the debacle in a fundamental sense. This lecture contends
that it is only through a well articulated, cohesive foreign policy plank that Nigeria
can obviate its perennial, incoherent foreign policy.

I allude to Atah Pine’s submission that while there have been conceptual and
doctrinal transitions in Nigeria’s foreign policy, in reality, these have not been
borne out of political faddism, pragmatic exigencies, conceptual elegance and
regime identity.76 Hence, Nigeria’s foreign policy over the years can be summed
up to be change and continuity, motion without movement, and dynamism without
surge.

Almost fifty-three years has passed in Nigeria’s foreign policy pursuit. The time is
auspicious now for government to outline its visions of the country’s foreign policy
in the next 47 years. There is need for a paradigm shift in the manner of
conducting our foreign policy. It is incumbent on the government to reconstruct the
nation’s foreign policy and put it back on the path of dynamism and aggressively
engage in diplomatic assertiveness and proactiveness that characterized the
Murtala/ Obasanjo foreign policy pursuit in the seventies when Nigeria was visibly
brought into global reckoning. The domestic and international conditions have
changed and there is the need to overhaul Nigeria’s Foreign Service apparatus
through the instrumentality of the Foreign Affairs Ministry. This becomes
imperative in view of the fact that the Ministry requires now, more than before,
highly competent and professional diplomats that are well informed, adequately
versed, representing honest opinions seriously held and convincingly expressed
on the nitty gritty of Nigeria’s diplomacy and diplomatic practice. For the Ministry
to perform its sacred diplomatic responsibilities as expected, government should
ensure proper funding of its foreign missions. It is incumbent on the Jonathan’s
administration to re-organize the obtuse and rapacious Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The ministry in partnership with the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA)
and the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies(NIPPS) as think-tanks
are expected to be veritable avenues and very highly-respected platforms for
canvassing and articulating critical issues on Nigeria’s foreign policy in
contemporary context.

Conclusion
Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, so far, I have had a panoramic view of Nigeria’s foreign
policy, provided an epigrammatic account of it, engaged in deep and philosophical
reflections on it, articulated its historical trajectory from its foundation, examined
critically and holistically the diplomatic algorithm, diagnosed the matrix of

76
Pine-Attah (2011). “Nigeria Foreign Policy , 1960-2011: Fifty one years of
conceptual confusion” in http:www.modernghana.com/news/354264/1/Nigeria-
foreign –policy-1960-2011-fifty one years, Accessed on 4/9/2012
32
 diplomatic disarray and disjointedness, dissected the gamut of the diplomatic
odyssey, highlighted the ebbs and flows of events that characterized the various
epochs, and x-rayed the dysfunctionality of the foreign policy and the diametric
disequilibrium between foreign policy formulation and execution. This is the
tradition in academics, that is, the ability to navigate around issues and proffer
solutions.

All that is left for me is to stress pungently that the weakness or outright
dysfunctionality in Nigeria’s foreign policy has proven distinctly unremarkable, and
it is evidently detrimental to the interest and survivability of the nation. There is
therefore the need for a paradigm shift and proactive transformational plans to
reverse the degeneration that characterized the nation’s diplomatic practice. For
us to stand tall within the contemporary global community, there is the need to
fashion out a new progressive diplomatic agenda that will boost the profile of the
country and fundamentally conform to current global realities.

Recommendations
Mr. Vice Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, in the light of the
foregoing, the following are my concrete recommendations:

1. Nigeria’s foreign policy in contemporary global context should

necessarily involve the country’s best minds. Hence, there is need for a major re-
organisation of the nation’s Foreign Service. Ambassadorial positions should no
longer be politicized. Only career diplomats and practitioners who understudy and
understand the nuances of international relations and global politics should be
appointed as Ambassadors and High Commissioners. The era of arm-chair
diplomacy is gone and appointment of kleptomaniac politicians to represent the
country in ambassadorial position should be discountenanced.

2. Recruitment into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be based

purely on merit, and not sacrificed on the altar of political expediency or parochial
exigencies. Diplomacy is a game of elaborate rules requiring a thorough
professional acumen. Hence, considerable emphasis should be laid on
professionalism through the instrumentality of training. In this regard, the
certificate programme designed for the newly recruited officers at the Foreign
Service Academy should be restructured to be in tune with contemporary global
realities. Similarly, the Masters degree in International Relations and Strategic
Studies being run for the Ministry’s officials by the Department of Political Science
of this University should be further strengthened. The University should provide
more congenial serenity for effective and efficient running of the programme.

33
3. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be re-organized to ensure
adequate synergy between it and other Ministries, Departments and Agencies
(MDA). It should be sufficiently funded to enable it discharge its statutory
obligations. The number of Foreign Missions should be streamlined to
manageable proportion. The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) should
not just be an appendage of the Ministry; it should be recognized as its powerful
research arm and policy think tank.

4. Since the economy constitutes the bedrock of a vibrant foreign policy,

government should holistically address the economic challenges confronting the
nation. The economy should be diversified and be attuned to the realities of
contemporary globalization. The economic diplomacy framework of the Jonathan
Administration should be radically retooled to meet contemporary challenges.

5. Nigerians in Diaspora should be properly recognized in the scheme of

foreign policy articulation and implementation. They have a prominent role in
advancing the foreign policy of the country and hence should be given sufficient
diplomatic attention. Their input and intellect should be sought and tapped for the
benefit of the country.

6. There is the need for a strong strategic plan and long term projection
of the nation’s foreign policy posture with a view to fashioning out a roadmap for
Nigeria’s diplomacy. A realistic and rational analysis of our foreign policy
scenarios will give room for strategic calculations of the costs and benefits of the
nation’s diplomatic practice.

7. There is the necessity for an urgent remedy to the current abysmal

security challenges in order to spruce up the battered image of the country.
Government should robustly unravel the root causes of the insurgency. The
nation’s security intelligence should be reappraised while the security operatives
including the Police, State Security Service and the National Intelligence Agency
should be adequately equipped to fight terrorism. The Boko Haram insurgency
must be fundamentally contained and nipped in the bud. Government should not
under any illusion or pretext grant amnesty to the Boko Haram terrorists who have
been persistently involved in serious human rights perversion. Instead, members
of the sect and their sponsors should be fished out and brought to justice.

8. While the internal logic of reforms of the Jonathan Administration

seems to be coherent and predicated on the perception of Nigeria’s social reality,
it failed to address the fundamental problem of corruption which has become a
cankerworm that has eaten deep into the fabric of the nation. There is therefore

34
the imperative need to frontally confront the pervasive, corrosive, systemic and
episodic character of corruption in the nation.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by

reiterating emphatically that Nigeria’s foreign policy in contemporary context must
be premised solely on national interest with emphasis on national security and
welfare, regional and global peace, as well as robust multilateral diplomacy that is
tailored along strong strategic partnership with friendly states in the global arena.
The need to ensure that the country stand firmly rooted in sound diplomatic
practice is not only imperative but should supersede every other consideration. It
is therefore incumbent on President Jonathan to demonstrate that Nigeria will no
longer slide into a morass of diplomatic trepidation and conundrum. He has the
opportunity to transform the character and framework of Nigeria’s foreign policy,
and pursue a sound, dynamic, virile, robust and proactive foreign policy that can
profoundly transform the Nigerian diplomatic milieu and build a firmer base for a
new diplomatic order that can stand the test of time. The challenges are
enormous but certainly not insurmountable.

35
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I appreciate most deeply and immensely the Almighty God, the
Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniscient; the Ancient of days, the One that was,
the One that is and the One that will forever be. Glory, Honour and Majesty be
unto His name. I thank Him for His abundant love and grace in my life and for the
opportunity to witness this day that He has made. I stand to boldly assert that ‘it
is not by power nor by might but by my Spirit says the Lord’.

Beyond the traditional ritual of using acknowledgement to appreciate numerous

people that have profoundly contributed to shaping one’s life, I have consciously
and deliberately avoided pontificating laboriously on this in order to avoid
offending numerous friends, mentors, family members and inspirators who have
toiled most wonderfully to influence my life from childhood to date.

Nevertheless, it might appear preposterous not to acknowledge certain individuals

who have one way or the other contributed immensely to my academic career. In
general, I acknowledge with extreme profundity the galaxy of those I describe as
sharp, polyglot, brilliant minds, budding scholars, erudite intelligentsia and
intellectually profound audience with experiential knowledge who have pleasantly
gathered here this evening to lend insight and credence to the themes of my
analytical discourse.

I wish to acknowledge with extreme candour and pleasantry a charming and

penetrating scholar cum politician Prof. Jerry Gana who is the Pro-Chancellor of
this great University and Chairman of our esteemed Council, the icon of our time
and immediate past Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, Dr. Gamaliel
Onosode, our able, amiable, inimitable, inestimable and indefatigable Vice-
Chancellor, Prof. Rahamon Ade Bello and the entire workaholic management
team – Prof. Babajide Alo – Deputy Vice-Chancellor (A&R), Prof. Duro Oni –
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (MS), Oluwarotimi Shodimu Esq. – Registrar, Mr. Lateef
Odekunle – Bursar and Dr. (Mrs.) Olukemi Fadehan – University Librarian. It is
my prayer that God in His infinite mercy will continue to guide and guard you in
your aspiration to ensure that University of Lagos becomes one of the best top
Universities in the world.

I pay glowing tribute to two former Vice-Chancellors of this great University, who,
by providence, are still Vice-Chancellors of two new universities in Nigeria –
Professor Oye Ibidapo-Obe under whose tenure as VC, I became Associate
Professor about nine years ago and Professor Tolu Odugbemi under whose
tenure as VC, I became Professor about five years ago. Professor Tolu
Odugbemi, deserves special recognition. My knowledge of this great and noble

36
scholar dated back to my days in the College of Medicine. Since then, he has
been a source of inspiration to me. He is a straight forward and no-nonsense
man. A man of probity, integrity and credibility, he is acclaimed for his popular
philosophy of ‘Team Work and Divine Intervention’ as well as ‘Be a Mentor and not
a Tormentor’. He has really been a mentor to me, and I appreciate him and his
wife Mrs. Titi Odugbemi for their esteemed love for me and my family. I also
express my deep appreciation to Kabiyesi, the Ogiyan of Ejigboland, Oba
Omowonuola Oyeyode Oyesosin II, the one that brought me up and put me in
good academic standing.

As I traverse the seemingly difficult terrain of academics, I have been motivated

and inspired by a number of people. I appreciate my Ph.D supervisor, Dr.
Omajuwa Natufe, an erudite scholar of international repute, who, although had
travelled out to Canada for greener pasture before my defence in November 1989,
ensured that the work was brilliantly completed before his exit from the country.

The late Provost of the College of Medicine of this University, Prof. Ajibayo
Akinkugbe steered the path towards my foray into academics when, as an
administrative staff of the College, and following my award of a Federal
Government Postgraduate Scholarship for a Ph.D degree in the Department of
Political Science, University of Benin, he enthusiastically granted me study leave
in December 1986 to utilize the award. He was profoundly impressed when I
resumed duty well before the expiration of my 3-year study leave, following the
completion of the Ph.D degree. Although, Prof Akinkugbe is no more, he has
significantly influenced my life positively, and the memory of what he did will
certainly linger on.

I recognize other eminent scholars that navigated me through the various stages
of my career in academia. They include Prof. Remi Anifowose and late Prof.
Stephen Olugbemi who encouraged me to join the league of academics following
my attainment of Ph.D degree. I want to single out Prof. Remi Anifowose who is
popularly known and called ‘Oga’ or ‘Baba Ani’. He is not just a boss and
colleague but an academic father to me. He has great confidence in me and I
constantly confide in him. I thank him for being there always for me. Since my
headship of the department about 4 years ago, Prof. Adele Jinadu has been an
inspirational scholar and advisor on various issues relating to academic and
administration in the department. I recognize Professor Tunde Babawale,
Director-General of CBAAC who has also been a source of encouragement to me.
I acknowledge and thank most profoundly all other academic staff of my
department – Drs. Onuoha, Ologbenla, Akinyemi, Ugoh, Okeke, Odukoya,
Eneanya, Quadri, Fadakinte, Oluwajuyitan, Onah, Eesuola, Odubajo, Ashiru, Mr.
Awosika and Mrs. Majekodunmi including my mentees, who are often referred to

37
as my ‘Senior Special Assistant’ – Dr. Ferdinand Ottoh and ‘Special Assistant’ –
Dr. Samuel Oloruntoba . These two gentlemen are very loyal, committed and
hardworking. Together with Mr. Semiu Basiru (my Ph.D candidate), they went
through this lecture and offered necessary suggestions. I thank them immensely. I
also thank most sincerely my friends - Prof. Alade Fawole for his useful
suggestions and Dr. Sola Osoba for proof-reading the lecture, as well as Mrs.
Rachael Fatodu for typing it. My gratitude also goes to the Dean of my Faculty,
Professor Omololu Soyombo who has been impressively paddling the affairs of
the Faculty, and Heads of our various departments – Prof. Adebayo Ninalowo
(Sociology), Prof. Iyiola Oni (Geography), Prof. Ndubuisi Nwokoma (Economics),
Dr. Ibi Agioubu-Kemmer (Psychology) and Dr. Yomi Daramola (Mass
Communication) as well as all academic and non-teaching staff members of my
Department and the Faculty.

I appreciate the presence here in our midst of the Chairman of the Court of
Governors, College of Medicine, Chief J.A. Obafemi-Olopade and members of
the Court including the Provost, Professor Folasade Tolulope Ogunsola, Chief
Medical Director of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), Prof. Akin
Osibogun and the immediate past Provost, Professor Oluwole Atoyebi; as well as
Mr. Oladejo Azeez (College Secretary) Mr. N. Lawal (Director of Finance) and
Engr. Sobande (Director of Engineering Services)

I wish to acknowledge with profound gratitude my very dear colleagues and

members of the ‘Critical Group’ – Professors Toyin Ogundipe, Sola Fajana (Vice-
Chancellor of Joseph Ayo Babalola University), Mopelola Olusakin, Taiwo
Akinyele, Ayo Atsenuwa, James Olaleye, O.M. Sadiq and Jerry Obiefuna. As
Sub-Deans of our various Faculties between 1998 and 2000, we worked tirelessly
towards the upliftment of our Faculties and the University at large. The bond of
friendship established has since then been waxing stronger. Prof. Toyin
Ogundipe, in particular - a humble, energetic and resourceful scholar has been a
source of inspiration and support for me in all ramifications. I thank him most
sincerely.

My special thanks go to my club –Ejigbo Eagles Club- starting with our dynamic
Patron, Chief Remi Olowude, the President, Prince Femi Oyewole and all
members for their presence at this lecture.

My profound appreciation also goes to my other distinguished colleagues and

friends, Prof Lai Olurode (INEC Commissioner), Prof Alaba Ogunsanwo, Prof
Chris Bode, Prof Gbenga Ilori, Prof. Chuks Maduabum, Prof. Tunde Makanju, Prof
Ademola Omojola, Prof. Damola Oke, Prof. Abubakar Momoh, Prof. Lai Oso,
Prof A. Olukoju(Vice-Chancellor, Caleb University, Imota) and Prof. Diji Aina,

38
(Vice-Chancellor of Adeleke University, Ede). Also deeply appreciated are Prof.
Akin Oyebode, Prof. R.F. Ola, Prof. J.A. Faniran, Prof. Eddy Omolehinwa, Prof.
Bola Akinterinwa (DG of NIIA), Prof. Osita Agbu, Prof. Ogaba Oche, Prof Olaide
Abass, Prof Funso Akere, Prof Segun Awonusi, Prof Amoda, Prof Oyediran, Prof
Kayode Amund, Prof Wole Familoni, Prof Esezobor, Prof Bayo Adekanye, Prof
Adigun Agbaje, Prof Jide Owoeye, Prof Ayo Olukotun, Senator Mudashiru,
Senator and Mrs Mamora, Hon. Salaam(Speaker, Osun State House of Assembly,
Dr. Fred Agwu, Dr. Adelabu Salawu, Dr. Sat Obiyan, Prof. Ben Oghojafor, Prof.
Felicia Oyekanmi, Prof. Laide Adedokun, Prof. O. Okedele, Prof. Yomi Akinyeye,
Prof. Kayode Soremekun, Dr. Mike Ogbeidi, Dr. David Aworawo, Dr. (Mrs.) Taiwo
Ipaye, Dr. (Eng.) Ezekiel Adeniran, Dr(Mrs) Taiwo Makinde, Mrs. Funmi Amodu,
Mrs. Morenike Adare, Mr. Ademola Aliu, Pastor Gbenga Adefarakan, Hon.
Ademoye, Mr. Cyril Nwankwo, Toun Adenuga, Mr. L. O. Animashaun (Registrar,
Lagos State University), Chief A. Adebowale and Mr. Dele Oladunjoye of Concept
publications.

My deep appreciation goes to my distinguished colleagues when I was Chairman

of APC at the Postgraduate School. I’m particularly grateful to my Vice-Chairman
then, Prof. Olusoji Ilori who is now the Dean of Science, our charming and
indefatigable Sub-Dean then, Prof. Oluwayemisi Obasoro-John who is now the
Director of the General Studies, my immediate past Chairman, Prof. Yomi
Okanlawon who is now the Deputy Provost of the College of Medicine and Prof.
Wale Okunuga who is now the Director of Quality Assurance. Together with the
then Dean of the School of Postgraduate Studies, Prof. Oluwatoyin Ogundipe, we
worked assidously as a team to produce the highest number of Ph.D graduands in
the University. I appreciate immensely our highly innovative current Dean, School
of Postgraduate Studies, Prof. Obinna Chukwu, the Sub-Dean, Dr.
Emmanuel Adedun, the Deputy Registrar, Mrs. Yetunde Ogunlewe, Current
Chairman of APC, Prof. Dele Olowokudejo, other members of the APC including
Prof. Ralph Akinfeleye, Prof. Ngozi Osarenren, Prof. Rasheed Ojikutu, Prof.
Godwin Azenabor, Prof. T.G Nubi, Dr. Ademola Adeleke, Dr. O.S Soneye, Dr. Virgy
Onyene, Dr. C.C. Nnorom, Dr. A.O Lawal-Are , Dr. Yemi Oke, Dr. Greg Simire and
Dr.(Mrs) R.O Igwe.

My sincere gratitude goes to my spiritual leaders, Rev. Michael Afolabi, Rev. (Dr.)
Philip Kolawole, Rev. (Dr.) A.A. Adeyemi and Rev. Gbemi Otolorin as well as
members of Imole Oluwa Society, BYWOG Society, the Choir and all my Church
members at Surulere Baptist Church, Ojuelegba, for their deep love for me and
my family.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, it gives me profound

joy to declare that within the period of my academic career, I have successfully

39
 supervised and co-supervised 15 Ph.D candidates who have distinguished
themselves very well both in the academic world and other areas of professional
calling. They are as follows:

Supervised
1. Dr. Jerry Agbaike (2004)
2. Dr. Tola Odubajo (2009)
3. Dr. Godwin Okeke (2009)
4. Dr. Cletus Akwaya (2009)
5. Dr. Ferdinand Ottoh (2010)
6. Dr. Adebayo Salami (2010)
7. Dr. Olugbenga Olaoye (2011)
8. Dr. Samuel Oloruntoba (2013)

Co-Supervised
9. Dr. Mohammed Habu (with Prof. Remi Anifowose)
2009
10. Dr. Isuwa Dogo (with Prof. Kayode Soremekun)
2009
11. Dr. Surajudeen Mudasiru (with Dr. Derin Ologbenla)
2010
12. Dr. John Arewa (with Prof. Akin Oyebode) 2011
13. Dr. Emmanuel Akinwale (with Dr. Derin Ologbenla)
2011
14. Dr. Benson Akintola (with Prof. Remi Anifowose)
2012
15. Victor Ajulor (with Dr. Samuel Ugoh) 2013
(successfully defended and awaiting Senate’s approval)

This is a glorious day in which they are also being celebrated. I thank all of them
for finding time to be present at this lecture. I also appreciate all our M.Phil/Ph.D
students as well as all the M.Sc., MPA, MISS and MILD and even undergraduate
students for finding time to attend the lecture. I sincerely thank members of the
Inaugural Lecture Committee – Dr. Samuel Ugoh (Chairman), Mr. Lanre Awosika,
Dr. Omolara Quadri, Dr. Ferdinand Ottoh, Dr. Samuel Oloruntoba, Dele Ashiru,
Dr. Franca Attoh and Dr. Michael Kunnuji.

My profound appreciation goes to my late parents, Pa Daniel Olayiwola Akinboye

who transited to the world beyond about 15 years ago and Madam Rachael
Adeduntan Akinboye who was called to glory almost a year ago. I recognize most
profusely their Christian and disciplinarian virtues which tremendously impacted
my life.

40
 I thank most sincerely my siblings and their spouses Dns Alice and Mr. Gideon
Adebayo, Mr. Akin and Mrs. Bola Akinboye, Dns Elizabeth and Mr. Matthew
Ogundiya, Dns (Dr.) Omoyiola and Chief Moses Fagbohun, Mr. Omoloye and Mrs.
Nike Akinboye, Mr. Morakinyo and Mrs. Funmilayo Akinboye, Mrs. Kehinde and
Mr. Emmanuel Ajadi, Mrs. Oredola and Mr. Segun Adeyemi, Dns Florence and
Mr. Yinka Erinfolami, Mr. Bode and Mrs Bukola Akinboye, Mr. Abiodun and Mrs.
Folashade Akinboye, Mrs. Funmilayo and Mr Adekunle Oyeniran and Mr. Kehinde
and Mrs. Bukola Akinboye. I thank them all for yielding to our father’s laid down
rule that we should be bonded together. Also to be sincerely appreciated are
members of the Adeoye family- my in-laws.

Finally, Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I owe

immeasurable and profound gratitude to one individual that has been part of my
life and on whose behalf much of the successes reeled out should be ascribed to.
This singular individual is my wife of 30 years standing – Mrs. Elizabeth Bosede
Akinboye – a pretty, radiant, cultured, exquisite, supremely domesticated and
elegantly refined woman. She is a highly dedicated, faithful, understanding and
caring wife and mother of our beautiful, outstanding and loving children. I also
appreciate very sincerely our children and those that have lived with us and whom
we also regard as our children – Oladoyin, Oladapo, Olayinka, Bolanle, Bolaji,
Bisola, Olamide, Samuel, Kola, Seun, Sunday, Yetunde and Carol.

Mr. Vice-Chancellor Sir, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, I stand before you to
affirm once again and in an unequivocal manner that, it’s not by power nor by
might but by my Spirit says the Lord.

Thank you all for your attention. TO GOD BE THE GLORY

REFERENCES

Agbu, Osita (2009), “Nigerian Foreign Policy under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua:
Challenges and Prospects” in Osita C. Eze (ed), Citizen Diplomacy, Lagos, NIIA.
Ajayi, Kunle (2006), “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy and Image Crisis” in The Social
Sciences, Vol. 1, No 2
Akinboye, S.O. (ed) (2011) Perspective on Africa’s Crises: The Challenges of Socio-
Political and Economic Transformation in the 21st Century, Ibadan, Spectrum
Books Limited, 500pp.
Akinboye, S.O (2013), “ The Youth and the Challenge of Governance in Nigeria” in
Journal of Communications and Governance, Vol.2 No1.

41
Akinboye, S.O. (2011) “Africa’s external debt and its implications for sustainable
continental development” in S.O. Akinboye (ed), Perspective on Africa’s Crises:
The Challenges of Socio-Political and Economic Transformation in the 21st
Century, Ibadan, Spectrum Books Limited.
Akinboye, S.O. (2011), “Demystifying the fallacy of electroralism in Nigeria” in Ritchard
Tamba M’Bayo (ed), Political Culture, Cultural Universals, and the Crisis of
Identity in Africa: Essays in Ethnoglobalization, New York, Edwin Mellen Press,
Chpt. 6
Akinboye, S.O. and S.O. Oloruntoba (2011), “Political Institutions and the Challenges
of Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria” in S.O. Akinboye and Lai Olurode (eds)
Learning from the Past: The Roadmap to 2007 General Elections, Lagos, Faculty
of Social Sciences, UNILAG.
Akinboye, S.O. and G.S.M. Okeke (2010), “Nigeria’s Leadership Role in ECOWAS:
The Burden of Spearheading Regional Development” in S.O. Akinboye and M.M.
Fadakinte (eds) (2010), Fifty Years of Nationhood? State, Society and Politics in
Nigeria (1960-2010), Lagos, Department of Political Science, UNILAG.
Akinboye, S.O. and I.S. Popoola (2010) “Role of ICT in election coverage by the
Nigerian Print Media: A Study of the 2007 General Elections” in Cosmas U.
Nwokeafor and Kehbuma Langmia (eds), Media and Technology in Emerging
African Democracies, New York, University Press of America.
Akinboye, S.O. and M.M. Fadakinte (eds) (2010), Fifty Years of Nationhood? State,
Society and Politics in Nigeria (1960-2010), Lagos, Department of Political
Science, UNILAG.
Akinboye, S.O. and F.O. Ottoh (2008), “Strains in the Federal Polity of Nigeria:
Political Succession and Legitimacy Crisis” in Indian Journal of Federal Studies,
Vol. 1.
Akinboye, S.O. (2007), “A Framework for the Analysis of International Organizations”
in Lai Olurode and Kole Fagbohungbe (eds), Readings in Public and International
Affairs, Lagos, UNILAG Faculty of Social Sciences.
Akinboye, S.O. (2007), “Globalization and the challenge for Nigeria’s development in
the 21st Century” in Globalization, Special Issue
http//globalization.icaap.org/content/special/Akinboye.html.
Akinboye, S.O. (2006), Africa’s debt crises: “Nigeria’s escape from external debt trap”
in Journal of Global Initiatives, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Akinboye, S.O. (2005), “From confrontation to strategic partnership: Nigeria’s relations
with South Africa, 1960-2000” in U. Joy Ogwu (ed), New Horizons for Nigeria in
World Affairs, Lagos. The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs.
Akinboye, S.O. (2005), “Combating the scourge of corruption in Nigeria’s Fourth
Republic” in Lai Olurode and S.O. Akinboye (eds), Democracy, Good Governance
and Corruption in Nigeria, Lagos, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Akinboye, S.O. and F.O. Ottoh, (eds). (2005), A Systematic Approach to International
Relations, Lagos, Concept Publications Limited.

42
Akinboye, S.O. (2003), “Nigeria and South Africa’s relations in the 20th Century: A
case of symbiosis and reciprocity” in Yomi Akinyeye (ed), Nigeria and the wider
world in the 20th Century: Essays in honour of Prof. Akinjide Osuntokun Ibadan,
Davidson Press.
Akinboye, S.O. (2003), “Nigeria’s peacekeeping mission in West Africa: Lessons for
South Africa in Southern Africa”, International Review of Politics and Development
(IRPAD), Vol. 1, No. 1.
Akinboye, S.O. (2003), “The dialectics of politics and governance in Nigeria’s Fourth
Republic”, Babcock Journal of Management and Social Sciences (BJMAS), Vol.
1, No. 2.
Akinboye, S.O. (2002), ‘South Africa’s Transition to Multi-Racial Democracy:
Perspectives on the Past and Challenges of Democratic Consolidation”, Lagos
Historical Review, Vol. 2.
Akinboye, S.O. (2002), “Mbeki’s African Renaissance Initiative and the Challenges of
Nigeria’s Afrocentric Policy” in Siphos Buthelezi and Elizabeth Le Roux (eds),
South Africa since 1994: Lessons and Prospects, Pretoria, Africa Institute of
South Africa.
Akinboye, S.O. (2001), “Nigeria’s Transition to Democracy: Prospects for
Consolidation”, Africa Insight, Vol. 31, No. 3.
Akinboye, S.O. (2001), “The Matrix of Ethnicity and Ethno-Religious Crises in Nigeria’s
Nascent Democracy” in Agwonorobo E. Eruvbetine (ed), The Humanistic
Management of Pluralism: A Formula for Development in Nigeria, Lagos:
UNILAG Faculty of Arts.
Akinboye, S.O. (1999), “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” in Remi Anifowose and Francis
Enemuo (eds), Elements of Politics, Lagos, Malthouse Publishers.
Akinboye, S.O. (1998), “Nigeria’s Leadership Role in ECOWAS: The Challenges of the
1990s”, Third World Forum, Nos 4-5, pp. 20-27; (Also appeared in SAPEM, Vol.
12, No. 2.
Akinboye, S.O. (1997), “Africa’s Development Strategies in the Emergent World Order
Imperatives of a Continental Economic Integration”, UNILAG Journal of Social
Studies (UJSS), Vol. 1. No. 1.
Akinboye, S.O. (1993), “Dependence on South Africa: The Dilemma of SADCC”, The
Quarterly Journal of Administration (QJA), Vol. 27, Nos. 1 and 2.
Akinboye, S.O. (1993), “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Under Babangida”, Nigerian Forum,
Vol. 13, Nos. 9 and 10, September/October.
Akinboye, S.O. (1991), “Apartheid and Democratization Process in South Africa”,
Review of African Political Affairs, Vol. 5, Nos 1 and 2, July/December. (Also
appeared in (NJIA), Vol. 18, No. 2.
Akinboye, S.O. (1991), “The Sanctions Debate and the Challenges of the Recent
Political Reforms in South Africa”, Nigerian Journal of International Affairs (NJIA),
Vol. 17, No. 1.

43
 Akindele, R. and Akinsanya A. (2012) “The National Assembly, The Bakassi Peninsula
and the Green Tree Agreement: Matter Arising”, A paper presented at the 12th
Brainstorming Session on Bakassi at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs,
Lagos, 23rd August
Akinterinwa B.A. (2005), “Nigeria and permanent membership of the United Nations
Security Council: Dynamics and Difinienda” in Akinterinwa B. A. (eds), Nigeria and
the United Nations Security Council, Ibadan, Vantage Publishers Limited.
Alao, A. (2011) “ Nigeria and the Global Powers: Continuity and Change in Foreign
Policy and Perceptions”, Occasional Paper No. 96, SAIIA.
Alli, W.O. (2010), “ The changing environment of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” in Osita Eze
(ed), Beyond 50 years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues, challenges and
Prospects, Lagos, NIIA.
Anyaoku, E (2013), Remarks at the presentation of two books published by the
Presidential Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs, Abuja.
Asobie, Assisi (2010), “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy; 1900-2010: An overview” in Osita Eze,
Beyond 50 years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues, challenges and Prospects,
Lagos, NIIA.
Balewa, Abubakar Tafawa (1960), “Our Great Day has Arrived” Text of Independence
Day address to the nation Oct. 1, 1960
Basiru, A.S. (2010) “Democracy and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, 1999-2009: The
Imperatives of Reconstitutionalisation” A paper presented at a Conference on
Democracy and 2011 Elections, African Centre for Peace Research,
Empowerment and Documentation (ACREPED), Ilorin, 21st – 23rd September
Basiru, A.S. (2011) ‘African Developmental State’ and the Global Accumulation Crisis’,
Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol. 13, No. 7.
Bukarambe, Bukar (2010), “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy in Africa, 1960-2010: An
interpretative analysis” in Osita Eze (ed), Beyond 50years of Nigeria’s Foreign
Policy: Issues, Challenges and Prospect, Lagos, NIIA.
Clapham, C (2000), Africa and International System: Politics of State Survival,
Cambridge: University Press.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999)

Dougherty and Pfaltgraff(1971), Contending Theories of International Relations,

Philadelphia, Linppincott.
Dokubo, C. (2012) “ICJ Ruling and Maritime Security: Implications for Nigerian
Southeast Zone”, A paper presented at 12th Brainstorming Session on Bakassi at
the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos, 23rd August
Eze, Osita C. (2009), “Foreword” in Osita Eze and Peter A. Egon, Foreign Policy and
Nigeria’s Economic Development, Lagos, NIIA.

44
Eze, Osita c. (2010), “Interrogating Nigeria’s National Interest” in Osita Eze (ed.),
Beyond 50 Years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues, Challenges and Prospects ,
Lagos, NIIA.
Fafowora, O. (1997), The Guardian, Lagos, June 16.
Falana F., (2012) “The Independence of the State of Bakassi: Legal Dimension” A
paper presented at 12th Brainstorming Session on Bakassi at the Nigerian
Institute of International Affairs, Lagos, 23rd August
Fawole, Alade (2000), “Obasanjo’s Foreign Policy under democratic rule: Nigeria’s
return to global reckoning?” in Nigerian Journal of International Affairs, Vol 26, No
2.
Fawole, Alade (2003), Nigeria’s External Relations and Foreign Policy under Military
Rule, 1966-1999, Ile-Ife, Obafemi Awolowo University.
Fawole, Alade (2012), “Nigerian Foreign Policy: The search for a new paradigm” in
Thomas Imobighe and Warisu Alli (eds), Perspectives on
Nigeria’s national politics and external relations: Essays in honour of Prof A. Bolaji
Akinyemi,Ibadan, University Press Plc.
Gambari Ibrahim (2008), “From Balewa to Obasanjo: The Theory and Practice of
Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” in Adekeye Adebajo and Abdul Mustapha (eds.)
Gullivers Troubles: Nigeria’s foreign Policy after the Cold War, Scottsville, South
Africa, University of Kwazulu-Natal Press.
Gibson, N (2007) “ Africa’s Global Futures” in Moyo, B.(ed) Africa in the Global Power
Play: Debates, Challenges and Potential Reforms, London: Adonis and Abbey
Publishers Ltd.
Idang, G. (1971) Nigeria International Politics and Foreign Policy(1960-1966), Ibadan:
Ibadan University Press.
Jinadu, A. (2005), “The Philosophical Foundations and Fundamental Principles of
Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” in Ogwu, J.(ed.) New Horizons for Nigeria in World
Affairs, Lagos: N.I.I.A.
Kolawole, Dipo (ed) (2004), Nigeria’s Foreign Policy since Independence: Trends,
Phases and Changes, Lagos, Julius and Julius Associates.
Ministry of External Affairs (1970) Statement on the occasion of the 7th Anniversary of
the Africa Liberation Day, May 25, 1970
Musa, Sani (2010) “Nigeria in International Peace-keeping” in Osita Eze (ed), Beyond
50 years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues, Challenges and Prospects, Lagos,
NIIA.
Northedge, F.S (ed) (1968), The Foreign Policies of the Powers, London: Faber.
Obioma, John Daniel (2013), “Nigeria’s father-Christmas foreign policy: A case of
unrequited love. Assessed on Feb.11, 2013 from
http://theeconomyng.com/news174.html
Ogunbayo, Modupe (2011), “Our Best Foreign Policy Option” in Newswatch, 30 May
45
 Ogunsanwo Alaba (2012),“ Challenges and Prospects of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy in the
21st Century” in T.A. Imobighe and W.A.Alli (eds.) Perspectives on Nigeria’s
national politics and external relations: Essays in honour of Professor A.
Bolajo Akinyemi, Ibadan: Univeristy Press Plc.
Ogunsanwo, Alaba (1986), Our friend, Their friends: Nigeria’s External Relations:
1960-1985, Lagos, Alfa publishers
Ogwu, Joy (1986) Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Alternative Future, Lagos, NIIA.
Oloruntoba, S.O and Akinboye, S.O (2013), “ The Crises of Global Capitalism and
African Development Trajectory: in Search of Alternative Political Economy?” in
Redeemer’s University Journal of Management and Social Sciences, Vol.1, No.2.
Olurode Lai and Akinboye, S.O. (eds), (2005), Democracy, Good Governance and
Corruption in Nigeria, Lagos, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Olurode, Lai (2005), “Democracy, the money culture and citizenship rights in Nigeria,
1999-2005” in Lai Olurode and S.O. Akinboye (eds), Democracy, Good
Governance and Corruption in Nigeria, Lagos, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Osuntokun, Akinjide (2013), “A Hegemon in a peripheral region of the world: The future
of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy”. Nigeria Society of International Affairs Annual Lecture
held on 25th February, 2013 at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs,
Lagos.
Ottoh, O.F (2012), “ Theoretical Approaches to the Understanding of the Impact of
Domestic Factors to Nigeria’s Foreign Policy”. A paper presented at a conference
organised by the Nigerian Society of International Affairs, held at Lead City
University, Ibadan, 6th-8th April.
Oyebode, Akin (2009), “Ten years of Nigerian Democracy: The Executive”. Paper
presented at the Conference on Ten years of Nigeria’s Democracy, organized by
the Islamic Network for Development in collaboration with the Friedrich Ebert
Foundation, June 23-24, 2009.
Pine-Atah (2011). “Nigeria Foreign Policy, 1960-2011: Fifty one years of conceptual
confusion” in http://www.modernghana.com/news/354264/1/nigeria-foreign-policy-
1960-2011-fifty-o... Accessed on 4/9/2012
Saliu, Hassan A. (2010), “Citizen Diplomacy and the Future of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy”
in Osita C. Eze, Beyond 50 Years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues, Challenges
and Prospects, Lagos, NIIA.

Sesay, Amadu and Eyinla, Bolade (2012), “The Place of National Interest in Nigeria’s
Foreign Policy”, in Thomas A. Imobighe and Warisu, O. Alli (eds.), Perspectives
on Nigeria’s National Politics and External Relations: Essays in honour of
Professor A. Bolaji Akinyemi, Ibadan, University Press Plc.

Walt, S.(2005) “ The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International

Relations”, Annual Reviews of Political Science, arjournals.annualreviews.org.

46