Nigeria’s Strategic Shuttle Diplomacy: The Case  of  PBAT’s State Visit to Britain 

Bola A. Akinterinwa

Shuttle diplomacy was coined at the time of Henry Kissinger in the 1970s to describe the Kissingerian efforts at mediating the Middle East conflict. Conceptually in international relations, it is considered a negotiation method requiring a mediator in a given crisis to travel back and forth to disputing parties in order build trust, facilitate accords, and promote direct communications. Shuttle diplomacy also refers to the frequent movement of a negotiator between capitals. When shuttle diplomacy is qualified by the word ‘strategic’, the meaning is no longer simply about communication and mediation but also travelling in pursuit of specific national interest. As explained by Google, ‘while standard shuttle diplomacy is about communication, the strategic layer is about active manipulation of the negotiation environment to force a breakthrough.’

Explained differently, it is the act of manipulation of the negotiation environment and the factor of forcing a breakthrough that make shuttle diplomacy different from strategic shuttle diplomacy. In the context of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s strategic shuttle diplomacy, the purpose is to shift from a domestic-driven foreign policy making to international-driven foreign policy making in such a way that domestic situations are re-explained to the world that Nigeria is not as bad as she is being internationally presented and that Nigeria should be seen as a beautiful damsel that can always be friendly courted. 

Thus, foreign policy and the international environment are being used to promote the doctrine of 4-Ds (Democracy, Development, Demography, and Diaspora) as definienda for strategic autonomy, on the one hand, and strategic autonomy, as a foreign policy grand strategy for Nigeria, on the other hand. It is against this background that PBAT’s state visits, and particularly, the last one to Britain, should be understood.

Nigeria’s Shuttle Diplomacy, 2023-2025

There are many types of visit in international relations: official, unofficial, officious or courtesy, working, and state. Official Visit and State Visit have many things in common but the differences are also distinct. The distinction lies largely at the level of ranking and the extent of ceremonial pomp and the type of invitation. While State Visit requires an invitation by the Head of State of the country to be visited, Official Visits are often initiated by the visiting Head of the country seeking to go on visit. For a state visit, the ceremony is generally of high pomp, involving a 21-gun salute, inspection of military guard of honour, elaborate arrival and departure ceremony, as well as special banquet, called State Dinner. As for Official Visit, the banquet is called Official Dinner. The ceremony for official visit is generally not elaborate. Additionally, a State Visit occurs once during a presidential term while official visit can be many for ongoing diplomatic business.

Unofficial visit in diplomacy is when a leader or a high-ranking government official goes on a foreign trip for non-governmental purpose, for personal or private reasons. Unofficial visits do not require application of due protocol. The unofficial visitor can interact with his or her counterparts but without any governmental connotation. Airport reception may not be an obligation for the receiving State. The unofficial visitor bears the financial burden of his or her visit, and therefore the receiving state is not involved in the area of hospitality or hospitalization if need bes.

Unlike unofficial visit, an officious visit has the features of both official and unofficial visits. For example, when a government official is invited to a diplomatic reception organized by a diplomatic agent and the invited government official attends the event, the government official is only attending in his private capacity and not on behalf of his own government. Thus, attending as a government official without the character of governmental representation in a governmental event, is an illustration of an officious visit. It can also be likened to a courtesy visit which is also informal.

Working visit is a diplomatic trip with a focus on performing certain tasks, projects, etc. rather than engaging in ceremonial activities and protocolar functions. It should be recalled that Nigeria’s First Executive President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, was scheduled to pay an official visit to France in 1981 after visiting London on March 17-20, 1981. The visit to France did not take place because French President François Mitterrand preferred not to go to the airport to receive the Nigerian leader, considering that Alhaji Shagari was coming to France on a ‘working visit’ and not on official visit. 

The argument was considered by the Embassy of Nigeria on Avenue Victor Hugo as offensive but this was not really the major source of Nigeria’s grievance. The offending reason was the issue of President Mitterrand instructing Mrs. Georgina Dufoix, a Secretary of State for Family Affairs in 1981 and who became Minister of Social Affairs and National Solidarity in 1984 to receive President Shagari. In the eyes of the Embassy of Nigeria in Paris, Mrs. Dufoix was too junior an official to receive Nigeria’s President. As President Mitterrand was holding on to the argument of Shagari’s visit being a working one, President Shagari aborted the so-called working visit to France and flew directly to Germany where a red-carpet welcome was organized for him. The essential point being made here is that the type and nature of a visit can define the quality of reception to be given either at the airport, banquet, or other ceremonies.

In other words, on the continuum of diplomatic visits, state visit is the most important and it is at the crescendo of the continuum. PBAT has gone on several state visits abroad: France on 27 November 2024, Saint Lucia in June 2025, Turkiye in January 2026, and the United Kingdom in March 2026. Unlike the state visits to France, Saint Lucia, Turkey, the state visit to Britain is quite significant in expression of sentiments, quality and place of reception.

The state visit to France in 2024 was the first state visit by a Nigerian leader in 24 years. The purpose was to strengthen ties in the areas of agriculture, security, education, energy transition and innovation. He was received at the Presidential palace, L’Elysée after having been given full military honours at Les Invalides, founded in 1670 as a military hospital. 

The state visit to Saint Lucia on 28 June 2025 was the first state visit by an African leader to the island since the visit of President Nelson Mandela in 1998.  He was received with full military honours by Governor General Cyril Errol Melchiades Charles and Prime Minister Phillip J. Pierre. The visit enabled the formal establishment of diplomatic ties. PBAT addressed a special session of the Saint Lucian Senate and House of Assembly at the Sandals Grande Saint Lucian in Gros Islet. 

The 3-day state visit to Turkiye on 26 January 2026 upgraded Nigeria’s bilateral cooperation to the level of strategic partnership. PBAT was received at the Ankara Esenboga Airport by a delegation led by the Turkish Minister of National Education, Yusuf Tekin. During the visit, nine agreements were done in the key areas of defence and security, especially concerning military cooperation, counter-terrorism, and joint defence industry production; economy and trade; education and culture. The visit is in further diversification of the pattern of Nigeria’s international cooperation.

On the most recent and important state visit to Britain, it was more symbolic. It was the first State Visit by a Nigerian leader in 37 years, reminding of General Gowon’s state visit in June 1973 when the Queen received him and jointly rode in her Royal Cart. PBAT was received at the Windsor Castle and was hosted by the British Monarch, King Charles III. The visit enabled PBAT to repair the international perception of Nigeria as a fantastically corrupt country and the presentation of Nigeria in bad light by Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative opposition, as a country of social disorder.

More interestingly, the state visit was also quite significant from the perspective of Nigeria’s First Lady, Oluremi Tinubu, who was scheduled to preach at the Lambeth Palace and meet the Representatives of the Church of England, Sarah Mullally. Sarah Mullally, as Head of the Anglican Church, raised opposition in Africa, and particularly in Nigeria. For instance, not only are many Catholics against homosexuality in the Catholic fold, a conservative group of Africans, which called itself Movement of Authentic Anglicans, also held a meeting in Abuja in March 2026 under the auspices of the Global Anglican Future Conference. The meeting elected Laurent Mbanda, the Archbishop of Rwanda, as their chairman. The movement is hostile to the election of Sarah Mullally as Head of the Anglican Church worldwide. This point is to suggest that one critical area of discussion in Nigeria-Britain bilateral ties should be of concern.

And perhaps most interestingly is the aspect of PBAT being an opposition refugee element and a presidential dignity in the U.K. It should not be forgotten that PBAT was given shelter by the U.K. during the military dictatorship of the late General Sani Abacha who was after the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO). By the time the U.K. was assisting, that Bola Ahmed Tinubu would one day become the Nigerian leader might have been contemplated but the timing of his coming to the U.K. on state visit could not have been contemplated. Atat best, a matter of speculation, it could have been. 

PBAT’s State Visit and Nigeria-Britain Ties

PBAT’s state visit has the potential to be taken advantage of especially by virtue of BREXIT. The British withdrawal of membership from the European Union is consistent with the spirit of strategic autonomy. The UK wants to be self-reliant as a big power. The EU is strongly promoting the EU currency while Britain wants to continue sustaining the British pound sterling as the second international currency after the US dollar. Brexit requires the need for Britain to open its doors more widely to Nigeria, being an important major market for the European Union. In the same vein, Nigeria’s current pursuit of strategic autonomy, particularly in the area of defence and security, necessarily attracts both countries.

Their trade relationship is quite good with a trade value of about £8.1 billion pounds sterling in early 2026. In the period from 2010 through 2015, that is, under the presidency of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, Nigeria had bilateral trade surpluses with the crescendo reaching more than N1 trillion in 2012. Following the accession of General Muhammadu Buhari to power in 2015, trade began to slump as a result of global low oil prices and reduction in oil production. The value of volume of trade was put at about £6.9 to £7.2 billion in 2024. Nigeria’s trading items were basically oil and gas while Britain’s main exports to Nigeria were refined petroleum and machinery. One major dynamic of the boost in trade is the UK-Nigeria’s Enhanced Trade and Investment Partnership (ETIP), which was done in 2024 and which supports agriculture, finance, and technology.

In 2016, Nigeria imported goods valued at N362.87bn and exported goods worth only N300.66bn, meaning a trade deficit. This was the beginning of the period of trade deficit for Nigeria while the UK businesses were thriving better. For example, the UK market share in Nigeria increased from 6.6% in 2022 to 9.6% in 2023. With the rise in value of British trade with Nigeria to about £8.1bn in 2025, Nigeria is UK’s second-largest trading partner in Africa. 

Britain is considered another Nigeria or a second home for Nigerians, colonial impact being a major dynamic. The number of Nigerians granted British citizenship is always averagely on the increase. In the period from 1998 through 2009, for example, the number of granted citizenships on a yearly basis was not less than 3000: 3,550 in 1998, 5,594 in 2000, 6,290 in 2001, 6,480 in 2002, 6,615 in 2005, 6955 in 2009, etc. The impact of London on Nigerians is to the extent that a village known locally as Abiriba in Abia State, because of its beauty, is referred to as ‘Small London.’ Consequently, the large population of Nigeria in the United Kingdom clearly justifies PBAT’s state visit to Britain. This is in spite of the global rating of Nigeria as number 4 on the impact of terrorism.

During the state visit, Nigeria and Britain signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Migration, A Statement of Intent on Cooperation on Organised Immigration Crime and Border Security, and another Statement of Intent on the expansion of business visa for U.K. business companies in Nigeria. As reported by Michael Olugbode of ThisDay, Nigeria’s Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, said ‘this partnership is a testament to our shared determination to build a migration system that is safe, orderly and mutually beneficial.’ Additionally, Minister Tunji-Ojo, considering that Nigeria wants to build a trillion-dollar economy which requires the removal of barriers hindering trade and economic cooperation, assured the British audience that ‘the great people of Nigeria are open to endless possibilities of growth and socio-economic development.’ The understanding reached on the £746 million financing deal aimed at modernizing the Lagos Port Complex in Apapa and the Tincan Island Port is also particularly noteworthy. Both ports are critical gateways for importation and exportation of goods.

In the area of security, PBAT showed much enthusiasm in seeking the help of the British. In the words of PBAT, ‘our West African region faces complex terrorism challenges with roots in the Sahel. Nigeria carries an enormous responsibility to help safeguard regional stability.’ More importantly, PBAT made it clear on Wednesday, March 18, that, ‘in confronting these threats, partnership with the United Kingdom remains essential and I look forward to my meeting with Prime Minister Keir Stammer tomorrow (Thursday, March 19, 2026). PBAT and the British Prime Minister have met and discussed. How the joint strategic calculation against terrorism will work remains a speculation. 

As president, PBAT expressed his profound gratitude to the British thus: ‘Your Majesty, I wish to express Nigeria’s deep gratitude to this great nation for the refuge and support it extended during the dark years of military dictatorship. Like any Nigerians involved in the pro-democracy struggle, I found safety here, and I recall that my residence was placed under Metropolitan Police surveillance for protection following threats from agents of the junta. That solidarity remains etched in our collective memory, and it is deeply humbling for me to stand before Your Majesty today as the President of a democratic Nigeria.’ These words of PBAT are very sentimentally touching. They reflect the personal dimension to the state visit. It has the potential to also greatly influence the attitudinal disposition of PBAT towards the U.K. in the foreseeable future.

What about the pride of being ‘the first Nigerian leader to speak here at Windsor Castle, which has served the British Crown for nearly a millennium’? All these factors point to the coming of better days in Nigeria-U.K. bilateral entente. And as PBAT envisages it, ‘as one of the largest nations within the Commonwealth, Nigeria looks forward to contributing constructively to the continued growth and vitality of this global community.’

In whichever way PBAT’s state visit to the U.K is looked at, there is no disputing the fact that he is doing pretty well at the level of foreign policy. Nigeria’s tactical and strategic foreign policy calculations are perfectly thought out within the quest for strategic autonomy. PBAT is using the external environment to address domestic questions. Even though people complain about economic hardship and insecurity at home, it is foreseeable that Nigeria will be given international support in containing the security problems for various reasons. First, the West is vehemently opposed to their influence being neutralized by Russia and China in Africa. Secondly, Nigeria still remains a major terra cognita for strategic raw materials in which everyone is interested. The British cannot but continue to be interested in Nigeria’s. Thirdly, the issue of indissolubility and indivisibility of Nigeria cannot but be of major concern to the British.

The British are interested in a big and prosperous former colony, like Nigeria, but the survival of Nigeria as a united nation-state is seriously under threat. The late Muammar Gaddafi of Libya predicted that Nigeria would never have peace until Nigeria is divided into Muslim North and Christian South. The supporters of the terrorists are in government sustaining the terrorists. To what extent can the British be helpful in flushing out the terrorists in government? 

Even though Nigeria has been witnessing an uninterrupted democratic rule since 1999, the mere fact that there was an attempted coup under PBAT means that democracy is yet to take its root. Nigeria is still democratically fragile. Consequently, the adoption of a foreign policy doctrine of 4-Ds (Democracy, Development, Demography, and Diaspora) as a dynamic of the quest for strategic autonomy can be helpful in controlling coup making if taken more seriously. PBAT’s shuttle diplomacy has largely helped in polishing Nigeria’s international image. PBAT is on record to have undertaken 28 foreign trips and has logged more than 245 days abroad within 33 months. Of these trips, four of them were State Visits:  France in 2024, Saint Lucia in 2025, Turkiye in January 2026, and the United Kingdom in March 2026. The U.K state visit is characterized by much humour with King Charles III’s joke expressed in Pidgin English: ‘Niger no dey carry last.’ What does the monarch really mean by this? He partly welcomed PBAT in Yoruba language which is an expression of personal and official friendship. Efforts should be specially made by the PBAT administration to build on the outcome of the visit by particularly reconciling King Charles III’s warm reception and Prime Minister’s lackadaisical policy of receiving PBAT at a distance. More important, the visit shows the division between King Charles III school of thought and Kemi Badenoch’s school of thought on the personality of Nigeria.