By Nuhu Dawisu Kuje
This week, Nigeria dispatched a high-level delegation to Washington, D.C., to engage American officials on matters of mutual concern. Yet instead of inspiring confidence, the visit exposed troubling weaknesses in Nigeria’s foreign policy machinery, delegation planning, and diplomatic reach. At a time when Nigeria needs clarity, coherence, and credibility on the global stage, what transpired in Washington raises significant questions we can no longer ignore.
This write-up expands on those concerns—not to assign blame, but to underscore lessons necessary for Nigeria’s strategic future.
1. Leadership of the Delegation: A Blurring of Institutional Lines
The decision to have the National Security Adviser (NSA) lead a mission composed of Ministers, Service Chiefs, and the Attorney-General of the Federation is highly unusual and symbolically problematic.
Traditionally, delegation leadership reflects seniority, institutional relevance, and the core theme of the mission. Ministers are political heads of statutory ministries; the NSA is a personal appointee of the President with an advisory mandate. When the NSA leads Ministers, Protocol is inverted. It signals:
• A weakening of ministerial authority
• An over-concentration of power in the Presidency
• A blurred distinction between political leadership and advisory roles
Such role confusion rarely plays well in foreign capitals, where institutional clarity is essential for credible, structured engagement.
Washington watches these details carefully. When a personal staff of the President leads senior statutory officers, America sees a system struggling to define itself.
2. Nigeria’s Diminished Diplomatic Access
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the visit is the level of U.S. officials Nigeria was able to reach. Despite its status as Africa’s largest democracy, biggest economy, and a leading security partner of the United States, Nigeria managed to secure only a meeting with a Congressman—not a Senator, not a Ranking Member, not a Committee Chair, and certainly not senior officials from the State Department, the Pentagon, or the National Security Council.
This naturally leads to a disturbing question:
Has Nigeria’s diplomatic influence in Washington declined to the point where we can only make our case to 1st term Congressman—not a Senator, not a senior diplomat, and not even the NSA or Chief of Staff to President Trump?
In diplomacy, access is currency. Nations are measured by the level of door they can open. For Nigeria to be restricted to mid-tier congressional access is a signal of waning influence—a development no serious country can afford to ignore.
Every major nation cultivates deep ties in Washington:
• Senators who shape foreign policy
• Senior NSC officials who advise the President
• State Department strategists
• Think-tank ecosystems that influence policy
• Lobbying firms that open doors
Nigeria appears increasingly absent from these networks. The Washington visit made this gap painfully visible.
3. The Puzzling Exclusion of the NIA
Equally significant is the absence of the Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Nigeria’s principal institution for external intelligence, strategic diplomacy, and covert foreign engagements.
Instead, the delegation included:
• The Inspector-General of Police (IGP)
• The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS)
• The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF)
• An ONSA Director of Foreign Relations
This composition raises critical questions about Nigeria’s institutional judgment:
• What is the IGP’s role in international diplomacy beyond policing?
• What does the CDS contribute to diplomatic negotiation outside military matters?
• What foreign policy experience does the Attorney-General possess that supersedes the NIA’s constitutional mandate?
• Why would a Director of “Foreign Relations” in the NSA’s office be preferred over the nation’s actual foreign intelligence service?
Excluding the NIA—an agency with decades of institutional memory, strategic networks, and diplomatic channels—weakens Nigeria’s negotiating posture and sends a message of internal incoherence.
That the Police Chief made the trip while the NIA DG stayed home is diplomatically baffling.
4. Security vs. Diplomacy: A Misdiagnosis of the Problem
The episode reflects a deeper issue: Nigeria increasingly frames complex geopolitical challenges as security or defence problems, rather than diplomatic ones.
But the matter at hand is not purely military.
It involves:
• intelligence
• international law
• bilateral trust
• geopolitical persuasion
• strategic communications
• high-level negotiations
This is the natural jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the NIA—not the Police Chief, not even the military hierarchy.
By misdiagnosing the nature of the challenge, Nigeria misaligned the instruments needed to respond effectively.
5. A Signal of Weak Coordination at Home
The Washington visit exposes something larger than a miscomposed delegation: it reveals a widening gap in Nigeria’s foreign policy coordination.
We are witnessing:
• weakened inter-agency harmonization
• over-centralization in the Presidency
• the marginalization of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• sidelining of the NIA
• the rise of informal foreign policy actors
• the erosion of longstanding diplomatic structures
In international relations, these gaps become visible instantly. And foreign partners calibrate their respect accordingly.
Nigeria, a nation with immense geopolitical weight, cannot afford to appear incoherent or unsure of its institutional architecture.
6. What Nigeria Must Learn From This Episode
To move forward, Nigeria needs an immediate recalibration of its foreign policy approach:
a. Restore Institutional Roles
Ministers should lead delegations in their domains. Intelligence services should guide strategic diplomacy. Advisory offices should advise.
b. Strengthen Our Reach in Washington
Nigeria must rebuild high-level access in the White House, State Department, Pentagon, Senate, and major think-tanks. A nation of our profile cannot be meeting Congressmen while rivals secure Oval Office conversations.
c. Reinforce NIA
The NIA must regain a portent role in external engagements. Its absence diminishes Nigeria’s voice and strategic intelligence. A nation speaks with one voice when its institutions are aligned—not when functions overlap and roles collide.
7. The Hard Question Nigeria Must Face
Ultimately, this episode forces us to confront uncomfortable truths:
• Why was the NSA—not a Minister—leading?
• Why did Nigeria not reach key decision-makers in Washington?
• Why was the NIA excluded from a mission requiring diplomatic intelligence?
• What does this say about Nigeria’s foreign policy governance?
• And most importantly: Is Nigeria losing influence on the world stage?
These questions demand honest national introspection.
Nigeria Must Correct Course Now. In diplomacy, perception is power. A poorly constituted delegation, limited access, and weakened institutional coherence send the wrong signals at a time when Nigeria needs strength and clarity. The Washington mission was more than a visit—it was a mirror.
And what it reflected is a Nigeria that must urgently reorder its foreign policy machinery if it is to remain a serious actor in global affairs. Countries rise or fall on the discipline of their institutions. Nigeria cannot afford to keep getting this wrong.
