ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye

In diplomacy, process is as important as substance.

It is in this spirit that I wish to draw attention to a growing practice in Abuja which, though often well-intentioned, runs contrary to established diplomatic procedure and the spirit of mutual respect that guides our relations.

It has become increasingly common for some Embassy officials, rather than transmitting a Note Verbale to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as required by international law and custom, they reach out directly by telephone to the State House, Honourable Ministers, or heads of agencies to pursue official matters, thereby bypassing the Ministry entirely.

At a recent meeting where I praised the ASEAN nations in Nigeria for upholding diplomatic protocol in this regard, I noted that adherence to proper channels strengthens, rather than hinders, partnershipI stressed: “Going forward, strict compliance with diplomatic channels will be expected…”

This was shortly before the important interactive session we had with the Diplomatic Community on Thursday 17th September 2026, when the Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, convened her first formal briefing with the Corps since assuming office as substantive Minister.

Her message was clear, candid and timely. I associate myself fully with it: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is your diplomatic home. Our doors and appropriate channels remain open, but established diplomatic channels must be respected.

Government has simplified our diplomatic operations
It is important to acknowledge that the Federal Government has significantly simplified diplomatic operations in Nigeria to make the work of missions easier and to avoid any vacuum in representation.

Today, a newly appointed Ambassador or High Commissioner is allowed to commence official functions and operate fully as soon as he or she submits the copie d’usage_ — the working copy of Letters of Credence — to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, without waiting for the formal presentation to Mr. President.

The new envoy is therefore at liberty to perform his or her duties, engage Ministries, Departments and Agencies and conduct bilateral matters, save only for events and ceremonies that would bring such envoy before Mr. President, until after the formal presentation of Letters of Credence.*

This facilitation was granted in good faith and in trust. That trust should be reciprocated with strict adherence to protocol.

The Vienna Convention Is Clear
As custodians of diplomacy, we are all bound by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961):

Article 41(1):“…it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.”

Article 41(2):“All official business with the receiving State, entrusted to the mission by the sending State, shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed.”

There is no exception for influence, familiarity, or access. To bypass the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is to violate a treaty we all signed.

The Ministry As A Bridge, Not An Obstacle
As the Honourable Minister emphasized during her briefing, and I reiterate:

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs remains the official channel of communication between Diplomatic Missions and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, including the Presidency, Federal Ministries, Departments and Agencies and other Government institutions.*

Missions must ensure that official communications and requests intended for these institutions are routed through the Ministry. This is not intended to impede access or create unnecessary bureaucracy. Rather, it ensures proper coordination, consistency and effective follow-up. The Ministry provides the institutional memory, diplomatic expertise and policy context necessary to support such engagements.

Bypassing established channels risks conflicting information, duplication and avoidable misunderstandings.

There is also an important principle of reciprocity. Just as Nigerian Missions abroad are expected to respect the diplomatic channels of their host governments, we expect the same consideration for Nigeria’s institutions.

As Amb. Bianca aptly put it: “The Ministry is not an obstacle between you and the Nigerian Government; we are your bridge to the Nigerian Government.”

The Abuse of Diplomatic Plates Must End
Equally worrisome is the increasing use of diplomatic number plates by unauthorized individuals who are not entitled to them under the Convention. This is a clear breach of Article 41(1).

Diplomatic plates are issued in trust by the receiving State to facilitate legitimate mission functions, not as a means to evade traffic regulations or law enforcement. This abuse creates security risks and brings the diplomatic corps into disrepute. It must stop.

Why This Backdoor Diplomacy Is Dangerous
Respect is reciprocal. If you want Nigeria’s diplomats to respect protocol in your capitals, you should respect protocol in ours.

1. Not doing so undermines the President: When embassies lobby the State House behind the MFA’s back, they deny the President the benefit of vetted, professional foreign policy advice.

2. It creates policy confusion: If a mission secures a phone promise from an MDA while the MFA’s official position differs, which one stands? The result is embarrassment for everyone.

3. It is a national security threat: Bypassing the MFA means bypassing security vetting. Sensitive requests slip through informal calls.

4. It breeds corruption of process: Backdoor calls are used to push positions and interests that would not survive transparency and glinteragency scrutiny.

_5. It insults our national institutions:The MFA is not a post office. It is the sole legal gateway for state-to-state communication.

_6. It destroys reciprocity:The precedent we allow in Abuja becomes the treatment our envoys will receive abroad. If we accept bypassing the MFA to lobby the Villa in Abuja, should Nigeria expect to bypass the Presidency and Palaces of other sovereigns? The answer, in every capital, is No.

7. It erodes trust: When backdoor promises collapse — as they often do — missions blame Nigeria for “not keeping its words,” when no official word was ever given.

8. It exposes senior officials to manipulation: A direct call presents only one side of the story, without history, legal context, or institutional memory. The MFA exists to provide that balance.

Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Direction and Our Commitment
As Amb Bianca Ojukwu outlined, the foreign policy direction of the Administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, is anchored on the four Ds: Demography, Development, Democracy and Diaspora.*

Through Demography, we seek to harness the potential of our youthful population through education, technology, innovation, entrepreneurship and skills development. Development places economic diplomacy at the heart of our international engagement, with emphasis on trade, investment, infrastructure, agriculture, energy and technology. Democracy reflects our commitment to constitutional governance, strong institutions and the peaceful resolution of political differences, while Diaspora recognizes Nigerians abroad as important partners and assets in investment, knowledge transfer and national development.

These pillars place Nigeria and Nigerians at the center of our foreign policy.

Our approach is therefore Nigeria-centered, Africa-conscious and globally engaged.* We remain committed to our neighbours, ECOWAS and Africa, while engaging constructively with the wider international community.

Nigeria will equally continue to exercise strategic autonomy in its international relations. We seek friendship and cooperation with all nations, but our positions and partnerships will be guided by our national interest, mutual respect, reciprocity and our international obligations. Strategic autonomy does not mean isolation; it means preserving Nigeria’s sovereign right to determine the relationships and positions that best serve our people, Amb Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu pointed out.

In the same manner she noted that the Ministry is also paying renewed attention to outstanding Joint Commissions and Bi-national Commissions*, some of which have remained inactive due to administrative and logistical challenges. We intend to work with Missions to revitalize these mechanisms and use them more effectively to advance cooperation in trade, investment, security, education, technology, health, agriculture and other areas of mutual interest.

Ultimately, the strength of our diplomatic relationships should be measured not only by the warmth of our engagements, or the number of visits by Heads of State to Nigeria but by the tangible benefits our engagement ms produce for our people.

Nigeria Is Hospitable, Not Helpless
Nigeria is warm, generous, and open for partnership. But our hospitality must not be mistaken for weakness. Nigeria remains a willing, capable and strategic partner.

Do not bypass the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to lobby the Villa.

My Ministry’s job is to make your work easy. Use us.

The proper channel remains: Embassy → Note Verbale → MFA → MDA/Presidency → MFA → Embassy.

Under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda, Nigeria is open for business. But openness requires order.

Drop the phone. Pick up the pen. Write the Note Verbale.

Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Federal Republic of Nigeria

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

BY BOLAJI AFOLABI

Irrespective of religion or whatsoever belief, human beings, daily ask the Creator for guidance and direction before leaving their respective homes. For many people, given the realities of accentuating poverty, pervading hunger, corrosive hardship, disabling unemployment, and economic squalor that is sweeping the country, this request has become must-do.

A few months back, the writer was in Kubwa, at the instance of a senior friend for a prospective discussion. Kubwa, by the way is unarguably, the biggest and most populated satellite town in Abuja. Referred to as “Abuja Substitute” because many of those who work in the capital city live in Kubwa; a very heterogenous town populated by civil servants, the middle-class, businessmen, entrepreneurs, artisans, and those in the informal and semi-formal sectors.

The writer had a personal experience which confirmed the potency of this silent wish. Driving through the early-afternoon rain, after about 20 minutes, one was welcomed into the Mart View Lounge; venue of the meeting by the host. Impressed by the ambience, facilities, and services, the host beckoned on one of the senior staff members to lead us on a guided tour of the resort. The Lounge, in many ways can compete with a few of those in Gwarimpa, Jabi, Wuse, Garki, and Wuse 2 Districts. Towards the end of about an hour’s discussion, one’s attention drifted to a table not far off as four middle-aged men were engrossed in a hearty and engaging political talk.
A few minutes later, the name of the topic of this treatise featured prominently in their discourse.

Like a newshound who sniffed a potential scoop, one had to take a few, quick steps and joined the quartet to hear more. Shocked by the intrusion, the writer had to do a brief introduction, which proved useful after all. Convinced that “one of us” – though more of a local diasporan – had joined the “platform” they resumed discussions. With renewed enthusiasm, they rolled out reasons for being in the mood. Exuding confidence, they projected that TeeJay Yusuf would be voted as the next Senator for Kogi West in the January 2027 general elections.

One decided to play the devil’s advocate to ascertain their understanding of politics, particularly in Kogi West, extrapolate the antecedents and past achievements of Yusuf vis-a-vis his chances. Taking these as challenges, the four-men; like brilliant students in an exam acquitted themselves creditably.

In great measures, reports and observations confirmed the opinions and comments by the quartet. In his tour of duty as the representative of Kabba-Bunu/Ijumu Federal Constituency, between 2011 and 2023, Yusuf, confirmed the words of Stephen Covey that, “what you do has far greater impact than what you say.” This, he started early. One recalls that at an event held in Abuja – a few weeks before the 2011 general elections, he made some bold statements, which many described as the usual melody by politicians.

Yusuf declared, “by the Grace of God, I am going to hit the ground running after winning the elections,” and pledged to begin “an immediate education initiative for secondary school students.” Finally, he promised, “I will bring a new phase of responsiveness, resourcefulness, and responsibility to representation. I will be different.”

Barely a month after Inauguration as a Member of the 7th House of Representatives, Yusuf organized a four-week summer school studies for students, called “Back-To-School” in seven centres spread across the constituency. He confirmed Abraham Lincoln’s counsel that, “commitment is what transforms a promise to reality,” as he sustained and improved the curriculum, structure, and benefits of the initiative for 12 years.

The centres were increased to over a dozen for more coverage; participation increased from the initial 2,000+ to over 10,000 – including students from other communities and states holidaying in Kabba-Bunu/Ijumu Federal Constituency; scholarship and other incentives were increased. To enhance the intelligence quotient, confidence, and capacity of students, the annual “TeeJay Yusuf/NTA Kabba Quiz Competition” was added.

At a function, Yusuf confessed that his passion and bias for education is borne out of the realization that, “it is the bedrock for personal growth, community development, and national transformation.”

From records, Yusuf eminently discharged his responsibilities as the representative of his constituency. For 12 years, he excelled in each of the three primary duties of a Legislator; Law-Making, Oversight, and Representation. He moved about 100 Motions, and 20 Bills; that are people-focused, development-driven, targeted at good governance, and the development of public institutions.

At every point of legislative work, either at plenary sessions, committees discourse, or oversight engagements, Yusuf’s commitment and contributions were visibly evident. Never a back-bencher, seat-warmer, or one to go “deaf and dumb” when national issues were discussed and debated, he canvasses his points with detailed analysis, unmistakable patriotism, and resolute conviction. A senior journalist who craved anonymity confirmed that, “TeeJay Yusuf was one of the brilliant minds that made the 7th House the delight of many people. He is fearless, bold, intelligent, and takes position on issues not minding if he is alone.”

In representation, which involves constituency development, Yusuf’s style was different and unique. Deploying his social crusader and negotiation skills, acquired as a student unionist and former Secretary-General of the National Association of Nigerian Students, (NANS), he collaborated with public servants, colleagues, and other like minds – some are from his constituency, Kogi West, and Kogi State. For him, attracting projects and programmes to the people is not, and can never be a “one-man show.” Yusuf declared that, “though the Legislator will be the anchor, the efforts and input of others is necessary.” The results of this and his commitment to development crystallized to numerous projects, programmes, and initiatives across the 30 Wards of Kabba-Bunu/Ijumu Federal Constituency. For 12 years, his footprints in education, healthcare, power, water, roads, agriculture, skills development, employment generation, and some other sectors were visible in many towns and communities within the constituency; and even beyond.

Over the years, conscious of the enormous natural endowments and human resources in Kogi West, Yusuf has always reached out to communities and people outside his constituency. At every point, he builds enduring bridges of relationships and interactions with different people; irrespective of age, tribe, religion, and political affinities. To underscore the importance of unity as a strategic ingredient for development, he pioneered the “Interactive Dinner For Public Servants And Others” in 2013. The initiative which ran for about a decade, became a veritable platform for connectivity, networking, unity, and community development. Mr. Ola Fatoye, a retired federal bureaucrat confessed that, “unknown to the Initiator, many of us leveraged on the platform for career progression. Some of the friends I made at the yearly event contributed massively to my career till I retired, and even now. Sadly, none of our legislators are doing a similar programme.”

With his emergence as a candidate for the Kogi West Senatorial elections scheduled for January 2027, many people – including supporters, political associates, and some other groups – are optimistic that the time is now.

Recall that he made an unsuccessful bid for the same position in 2023. However, many people argue that having had 12 unbroken years in the House, where he acquitted himself as a consummate and committed legislator who was (and still) readily accessible and available to the people, prioritizing their needs and desires in the course of being their voice and solicitor, 2027 is the most appropriate time to promote him to the Red Chamber.

Some others affirmed that, in and out of public office, he has refused to be individualistic, preferring rather, to work and seek for the good of his people. It is generally believed that, if successful, he will do the same for the contiguous catchments across the sprawling sub-country of Kogi West, which stretches from Chikara, abutting the Federal Capital Territory, (FCT), onwards to Egbe in Yagba West LGA. They are confident that with the enormous legislative experience in his pouch, the entire 85 wards, in the 7 LGAs constituting the Senatorial District will be the ultimate beneficiary, if he is entrusted with the collective electoral franchise of the people.

* BOLAJI AFOLABI, a Development Communications specialist was with the Office of Public Affairs, The Presidency, Abuja.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The Dangerous Normalisation of Leaked Private Conversations

By

Ken Harries, Esq.

There is a point at which political contestation ceases to be an argument about ideas and becomes an assault on the very boundaries that make civil society possible. That point is reached when a private telephone conversation is allegedly recorded, extracted from its original context and released into the public domain as political ammunition.

The latest controversy surrounding an audio recording purported to be a telephone conversation between Senator Godswill Akpabio and Sandra C. Duru, a.k.a. Professor Mgbeke, therefore deserves to be examined beyond the personalities involved. It raises a much larger question: What happens to a society when private conversations become raw material for public propaganda?

Recent reports indicate that Sandra Duru released a nine-minute audio recording on social media and presented portions of it as a private conversation involving the Senate President. Yet, significantly, the recording has not been independently authenticated, and questions remain about the identity of the voices, the circumstances in which the conversation was recorded, and whether the excerpts constitute the complete conversation. Those uncertainties are not minor technicalities; they are at the heart of responsible public communication.

PRIVACY IS NOT A POLITICAL LUXURY
Nigeria’s Constitution is unequivocal in recognising privacy as a fundamental right. Section 37 guarantees and protects the privacy of citizens, including their homes, correspondence and telephone conversations. That constitutional safeguard does not disappear because the individuals involved are politicians, public officials, activists or controversial personalities. Indeed, public office should never be interpreted as a wholesale surrender of personal privacy.

The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 reinforces this principle by establishing a legal framework for protecting personal information and regulating its processing. Among its stated objectives are the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, the safeguarding of personal data, and the requirement that personal data be processed in a fair, lawful and accountable manner.

The central question, therefore, is not whether an audio recording can generate political excitement; it obviously can. The question is whether private communication can be captured, processed, edited, reproduced and disseminated for political purposes without lawful justification, proper authorisation or regard for the rights of the people whose voices and personal information are involved. That is a much more serious question.

THE CYBER DIMENSION CANNOT BE IGNORED
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, as amended in 2024, also contains provisions concerning unlawful interception of non-public computer communications and judicially authorised interception of electronic communications. The legislation defines interception broadly enough to include listening to or recording communication data in specified circumstances. But legal precision matters, particularly when criminal liability is being discussed.

It would be premature for commentators to declare, without establishing the facts, that the mere existence or publication of this particular audio automatically constitutes a criminal offence under the Cybercrimes Act. If, however, the evidence establishes that a private electronic communication was intercepted or obtained without lawful authority, the circumstances could raise serious questions under the applicable constitutional, data-protection and cybercrime frameworks. That is precisely why an independent investigation matters: the law should determine the legality, not social media.

PUBLIC INTEREST IS NOT A BLANK CHEQUE
There is another important distinction that the Nigerian public must begin to make. A matter involving a public official may be of public interest without every private conversation involving that official becoming public property. Public interest is not the same thing as public curiosity.

A genuine public-interest disclosure ordinarily requires more than the ability to attract clicks, outrage or political engagement. It requires consideration of authenticity, context, provenance, relevance and the legitimate rights of the people involved. A fragment of an alleged private conversation, detached from the circumstances in which it occurred and presented to millions of people without independent authentication, can easily become something very different from responsible whistleblowing.

It can become narrative engineering, particularly when selected material is used to encourage the public towards a predetermined interpretation. When such narrative engineering is repeatedly used to shape public perception, it begins to resemble propaganda rather than public accountability.

THE MORAL QUESTION
There is also a moral dimension that no statute can completely capture. Politics is already a theatre of suspicion, rivalry and competing narratives. If every private conversation is potentially a future weapon, trust disappears from public life. People stop speaking candidly, officials become afraid of legitimate conversations, and citizens become unwilling to engage public figures.

Political communication then gradually degenerates into a marketplace where the most sensational fragment—not necessarily the most truthful account—commands the greatest attention. This is where the conduct surrounding the dissemination of private conversations raises profound ethical questions.

A society that normalises the conversion of private conversations into political weapons risks producing a culture in which nothing is private, context is disposable and reputation is collateral damage. That is not democratic accountability; it is the erosion of the ethical architecture upon which democratic accountability depends.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE “MERCHANT OF PROPAGANDA” MODEL
There is a growing phenomenon in digital politics in which controversy itself becomes a political commodity. The objective is no longer necessarily to establish facts, but to generate a continuous stream of allegations, recordings, screenshots, insinuations and counter-allegations until the public becomes emotionally exhausted and truth becomes indistinguishable from repetition.

The danger is particularly acute when the communicator becomes both the source of the allegation and the narrator of the evidence. That model creates an obvious credibility problem because the public is effectively being asked to accept not merely the allegation but also the interpretation supplied by the person disseminating it.

That is why independent verification is indispensable. A recording should be authenticated, its provenance established, its full context examined and any editing disclosed. The circumstances of its acquisition should also be investigated. Where there are allegations of unlawful interception or misuse of personal data, the appropriate regulatory and law-enforcement authorities should be allowed to do their work.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION HAS RESPONSIBILITIES
Freedom of expression is indispensable to democracy, but so is the right to privacy. These principles should not be presented as enemies. Responsible journalism, legitimate whistleblowing and public-interest disclosure have their place, but none of them should become convenient labels for every unauthorised exposure of private communications.

The democratic answer to disputed conduct is evidence, investigation and due process—not digital vigilantism. If the recording is authentic and contains evidence of wrongdoing, the proper response is to submit the evidence to the appropriate institutions and allow the facts to be tested. If it is unauthorised, manipulated, selectively edited or misleadingly presented, those facts should also be established through proper investigation. Either way, the truth deserves a process more rigorous than a Facebook post.

THIS IS BIGGER THAN AKPABIO
The most important lesson from this episode should not be about Senator Godswill Akpabio alone; it should be about the Nigeria we are creating. Today, it may be a conversation involving a Senate President. Tomorrow, it could be a judge, journalist, businessman, civil servant, academic, clergy member or ordinary citizen.

If the principle becomes that anyone who possesses a private recording is entitled to publish it whenever politically convenient, then privacy ceases to be a right and becomes merely a temporary privilege enjoyed by those who have not yet been recorded. That is a dangerous trend with implications extending far beyond the personalities involved in the present controversy.

The constitutional guarantee of privacy cannot be selectively defended, data protection cannot become a slogan deployed only when convenient, and cybercrime legislation cannot be invoked selectively. Political communication cannot be allowed to become a free-for-all in which reputations are tried and convicted on social media before evidence is examined.

LET THE LAW SPEAK
There is, therefore, a compelling case for the relevant authorities to establish the facts surrounding any purported private telephone recording now circulating. Who made the recording? How was it obtained? Was consent given? Was the communication intercepted? Was it edited? Who first disseminated it, and for what purpose? What personal data were processed? Was there a lawful basis for that processing? And does the dissemination violate any applicable constitutional, statutory or judicial protection? Those are questions for evidence, not conjecture.

There is, however, a broader principle worth defending: private communication should not become political ammunition merely because it can generate attention. A democracy requires trust, evidence, restraint and respect for the law. Public accountability is strengthened, not weakened, when allegations are subjected to verification and established processes rather than determined by the velocity of social-media circulation.

The real moral deficit in contemporary public discourse is not that people disagree. It is that the boundaries between legitimate scrutiny and intrusion can become dangerously blurred when private material is circulated without adequate attention to authenticity, context, provenance and applicable law. Once society becomes indifferent to those boundaries, everyone—not merely public officials—has reason to be concerned about the future of privacy.

Ken Harries, Esq., is an Abuja-based Development Communication Strategist.