Foreign Minister Tuggar’s Inauguration Lecture at Achievers University: The Challenge of Quo Vadis?

Bola A. Akinterinwa

The Achievers University, Owo, Ondo State, played host to the Inauguration Lecture of its Institute of Diplomatic Practice, Culture, and Language Development (IDPCLD) on Monday, 30th March, 2026. The lecture, entitled “Strategic Autonomy as Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Direction in a Changing Global Order,’ was delivered by Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, OON, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The choice and delivery of the lecture was quite significant in several ways. 

First, the lecture was not simply pioneering, marking the official take-off of the IDPCLD, but also particularly marking the end of Ambassador Tuggar’s tenure as Foreign Minister of Nigeria. In other words, the lecture at the Achievers University was his last activity as Foreign Minister. Additionally, this last activity also served as a foundation laying for the IDPCLD’s diplomatic intellection. Secondly, on Thursday, 12th March, 2026 Ambassador Tuggar took active part in the public presentation of Strategic Autonomy as a Foreign Policy Grand Strategy for Nigeria: The Doctrine of 4-Ds as Definienda, edited by Bola A. Akinterinwa, Olatunji A. Olateju, and Usman Sarki.

What was interesting about the book launch, held at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Victoria Island, Lagos, was the revelation that the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration is seriously pursuing strategic autonomy as a foreign policy objective. Strategic Autonomy is about self-reliance. It is also about self-capacity-building in various ramifications. Explained differently, strategic autonomy is an immediate foreign policy tactic, while the ultimate objective of foreign policy or grand strategy is the achievement of la grandeur of Nigeria, of a self-confident Nigeria with the capacity to act independently without fear and political chicanery. Ambassador Tuggar made this clear in his lecture and thereafter submitted his letter of resignation. What then is the future of strategic autonomy as Nigeria’s foreign policy direction in a changing global order?

Tuggar’s Lecture and the IDPCLD

  The first relationship between Ambassador Tuggar’s lecture and the IDPCLD is the issue of special commendation. In the words of the inauguration lecturer, ‘I commend Achievers University’s leadership for establishing an institute whose name reflects an understanding of a point often overlooked in the study of international relations: that diplomacy is not merely a technical function of the state. It is a cultural practice, a linguistic craft, and disciplined form of human engagement shaped by history, identity, and perception.’ 

Ambassador Tuggar could not have been more correct in his commendation of the leadership of the Achievers University. The teaching and learning of international relations in Africa has largely focused on theory and to the detriment of praxis. Learners are not always well groomed in protocol and etiquette. Very little is known about dress diplomacy, food diplomacy, negotiation diplomacy. In Nigeria, there is no training in translation and interpretation diplomacy. There is no emphasis on training in the official (English and French) and working (Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish) languages of the United Nations. 

In fact, Nigerian elite ‘observe all due protocols’ at many private and official ceremonies which, unfortunately, is internationally uncivilised. Protocol is a type of agreement in international law. Treaty, convention, agreement, protocol, memorandum of understanding, gentlemen agreement, pacta concordatum, etc. are all agreements but with different connotations. Generally, protocols have an additional character in the sense that they complement main agreements. In this regard, they are referred to as additional protocols.

While a Convention is generally reserved for multilateral treaties of a law-making type, a protocol, which is a derivation from the Low-Latin word, protocollum, ordinarily means ‘first glued-in’ to a book or a summary or digest of the contents. In diplomacy, the meaning of protocol is different. As told by Sir Ernest Satow, who lived from 1843 through 1929, protocol is ‘the register in which the minutes of a conference were held. It is, of course, also employed in diplomacy to signify the forms to be  observed in the official correspondence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and in the drafting of diplomatic documents such as treaties, Full powers, Letters of Credence and Recall.’ More significantly, Sir Ernest Satow also made it clear that protocol ‘is added to a treaty in order to perfect or complete the treaty. The word protocol may accordingly, depending upon the context on which it is used, signify an addition to a treaty, a summary of official proceedings or a technique of the proper method of doing things, including official etiquette.’ 

Thus, it is not possible to observe ‘all protocols,’ due or undue. Before anyone can observe any due protocol, such a protocol must have first been established at the opening session of an event. Standing on an existing protocol can be valid if it is consistent with the order of precedence first established. If the leadership of the Achievers University had come up with the idea of an Institute of Diplomatic Practice, under which culture and language development are to be underscored, it is because diplomacy is also culture. There is no culture without a language. Culture and language define diplomacy. And true enough, traditional diplomacy of salutations in Africa, as well as the conduct and management of diplomacy from the traditional perspective, has generally been ignored. The Achievers University has therefore only shown commitment to the promotion of international and traditional diplomacy in political governance. This is also why the commendation of the now former Foreign Affairs Minister is quite apt and worth further reflecting on.

Secondly, the inauguration lecture generated interesting debate during the interactive session, especially regarding the feasibility and implementation of strategic autonomy as a foreign policy and domination of foreign languages in Africa. Professor Gbenga Fasiku, former Director of the Institute of Cultural Studies, and current Dean, Faculty of Arts, Obafemi Awolowo University, who chaired the occasion, explained that language is necessarily an essential or integral feature of culture. He defined language as a way of life, an identity, and character of a people. As he put it, language ‘defines how a people define and interact with reality, it defines how a people is perceived and how they perceive others.’ The implication of the colonialists targeting Africa’s languages and describing them as vernaculars is nothing more than actually destroying Africa’s cultures. It is the language, the first pillar of culture, that is destroyed, he explained.

In his reaction to the postulation of Professor Fasiku, Associate Professor Raphael Abimbola of the Department of Mass Communication of the Achievers University, observed that ‘the bane of Africa’s development is the domination of foreign languages over indigenous languages. It has been proven that no nation has attained strategic autonomy in terms of technological, cultural, and economic development using a foreign language.’ More importantly, Associate Professor Abimbola said ‘the Europeans that colonised us in Africa forced their languages, English, French, and Portuguese, etc., on their former colonies and treated our indigenous languages as inferior and worthless.’

Consequently, Associate Professor Abimbola wanted Nigeria, in particular, and Africa, in general to borrow from Japan that set aside English language as a medium of instruction a century ago and China who have ‘developed home-grown technologies… to power inventions. African leaders must wake up and develop a deliberate policy that will make our languages instruments of strategic autonomy in all ramifications.’

It is in recognition of the need for African leaders to wake up and develop a deliberate policy that has prompted the Achievers University to provide the intellectual foundations for the intellection. For example, as explained by Professor Omolola O. Irinoye, the Vice Chancellor on extended leave and who represented the Pro-Chancellor at the event, ‘Achievers University’s focus on grooming leaders for the future is intentional. Leaders must have high competency in the cultures and languages of local, national and international diplomacy, bearing in mind the contradictions of similarities and differences across human race and comity of nations.’

More important, Professor Irinoye added that ‘establishing the IDPCLD is deliberately putting a structure in place that will sustain continuous intellectual engagements, endear actions to promote national distinctive identity, conduct capacity building for sustained competency enhancement in diplomatic practice, advancement of expansive cultural diversity, and languages in Nigeria internationally.’ 

While not disagreeing with the big professors, several students drew attention to many thought-provoking questions. Miss Esther Akintewe, a 400-level student of political science noted that political parties are governed by fame and sentiments in Nigeria, rather than by ideologies, and therefore, she asked the extent to which strategic autonomy could be possible ‘with leaders who are not selected by their level of competence.’ In the same vein, a 200-level student of political science, Salisu Oluwaseyi Peter, asked whether it could be possible to extend the Achievers university lecturers’ habit of enabling people to think independently and logically in order to be truly independent and free from external interference. 

The Challenge of Quo Vadis?

More importantly, Ejeh Alexander Simon of the Public Health Department raised the issue of intellectual arrest, which made Africans the enemies of their own pride and strength and cultural arrest, which made what was prime to Africans looked disgusting. Africa’s mother tongue was removed by the colonialists in Africa. In essence, Mr. Ejeh said the colonialists ‘succeeded in making a mockery of ourselves, none of our Native languages is in the top first 5 subjects of core studies.’ What is the future of this intellectual and cultural arrest by the colonialists and by other foreign powers? This is one challenge that the quest for strategic autonomy has to address? 

From the foregoing, and without any whiff of doubt, Nigeria’s quest for strategic autonomy cannot but be most appropriate in shaping the making of a new world order. Questions are being asked about the extent to which Nigerian leaders can accept to think independently and liberate themselves from mental enslavement. Strategic autonomy as a foreign policy objective is much concerned about the questions raised. The world is currently witnessing an emerging American world order with militarisation of US foreign policy under President Donald Trump. Now that Donald Trump is contemplating withdrawing from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and trying to also explore the possibility of replacing the United Nations with his Board of Peace, what is the future of Nigeria’s quest for strategic autonomy? In other words, should we begin to anticipate a strategically autonomous Nigeria when relating with Donald Trump’s Board of Peace or with a world without the United Nations?

The challenge of quo vadis is also raised here because Ambassador Tuggar tendered his letter of resignation of his appointment as Minister of Foreign Affairs at about 4 pm. As the chief implementer of the quest for strategic autonomy, and having resigned, what happens to the quest? Will the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Bianca Ojukwu, sustain the quest? Will the rule of change and continuity be sustained? This is another first challenge.

A third challenge is the issue of conflict between self-assertive national sovereignty and collective regional sovereignty or continental sovereignty. Increasingly, several African countries are reaffirming their national sovereignty to the detriment of regional sovereignty. For example, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have withdrawn their membership of the ECOWAS in order to establish the Alliance of the Sahel States (ASS). Even though the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community provides for the possibility of regional and sub-regional organisations in its Article 1(d) and Article 1(e), the establishment of sub-regional organisations in the mania of the ASS is negativistic and unfriendly in character. Establishment of sub-regional organisations by way of protest and anger cannot be helpful to the objective of continental or regional integration. If there is no quarrel and a regional organisation is expanding, prompting the need to establish a sub-region, this development is acceptable, as it is integrating by dividing. Integrating as a result of political grievance can only foster centrifugal politics in outcome.  

Fourthly, there is the challenge of expansionist tendencies of Nigerians abroad which negates the spirit of strategic autonomy. Elements of the Igbo ethnic group in Nigeria have tried to establish traditional chieftaincy kingdoms in their host countries abroad. Recall the case in Ghana. The Igbo people living in Ghana, led by Eze Dr Chukwudi Jude Ihenetu tried to create in July 2025 an Igbo village on 50 acres of land, with a palace where he would serve as the King. Ghanaians saw this as a foreign kingdom and, therefore, vehemently opposed it. The problem was resolved when Dr Chukwudi explained that he did not intend to create any sovereign kingdom in Ghana and that his intention was only to promote Igbo culture and foster unity among the Igbos in diaspora.

There was also another attempt by the Igbo people to have a kingdom for themselves in South Africa with their unlawful coronation of a Nigerian Igbo king in Eastern Cape. The Progressive Forces of South Africa violently condemned the coronation. South Africans have argued that they cannot live safely where the Igbo people reside and that they had petitioned through the Nigerian High Commission but to no avail. What was considered most disturbing about the coronation was the announcement that more Igbo people would be invited from Nigeria to come and settle in Eastern Cape to which all the traditional chiefs in the area are vehemently opposed. True, Nigeria had played positive and active parts in the restoration of dignity for black South Africans but there is also the problem of xenophobia and particularly Afrophobia. However, this should not be confused with an allegation of coronation of an Igbo king in the Eastern Cape where the issue raised is about sovereignty.

Fifthly, it has been generally observed that the implementation of the quest for strategic autonomy requires the involvement of everyone, particularly at the nuclear family level. As such, how does the government want to go about it? Public sensitisation and mobilisation of people has become a desideratum. In the same vein, the aspect of intellection process of the quest cannot be taken lightly. The Achievers University, in consonance with its vision, has to partner with Government and other academic institutions in further articulating the conception of strategic autonomy. In the mania of Ambassador Tuggar’s postulation that there is no country without diplomats or diplomatic missions in the world, meaning that a Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a necessity but its budget is nothing to write home about. In fact, during his send-forth at the Tafawa Balewa House in Abuja, Ambassador Tuggar not only made it clear that the budget of the Foreign Ministry is smaller than that of the National Youths Service Corps, but also that Nigeria’s diplomatic missions cannot operate in isolation. In the same mania, the execution of the quest for strategic autonomy cannot be done in isolation. It requires all hands to be on deckThe leadership of Achievers University must therefore go beyond the establishment of the IDPCLD and begin to work on the strategic autonomy of the Achievers University in national and international relations. 

Sixthly, there is also the conflict of interest between foreign military bases and quest for strategic autonomy. In the Middle East, the military strategy of the United States is about the forward deployment of U.S. military power in order to prevent perceived enemies from being able to threaten U.S. interests in any part of the world. The U.S. strategy is also possibly to ensure the protection of countries hosting U.S. military bases. 

However, the ongoing Israelo-American aggression on Iran and the escalation of the aggression into Iranian missile attacks on U.S. military bases in some Gulf States have prompted the consideration of possible closure of U.S. military bases in the Gulf States. If the military bases are closed, what are the alternative possible new locations? Possibly in Nigeria? It is not likely. The Burkinabé leader, Ibrahim Traoré, has warned Nigeria on the implications of Nigeria possibly accepting to play host to unwanted U.S. military bases in the Sahel. Accepting US military base in Nigeria is seen as an acceptance to be used as an instrument of surveillance on the Sahel on behalf of the United States and France. The Alliance of Sahel States considers that it is fighting recolonization and that it would be most unfortunate for Nigeria to accept to undermine the ASS and other African leaders. And true enough, Nigeria has a foreign policy of non-acceptance of foreign military bases in Africa. Will that foreign policy change under PBAT? Time will tell. But this uncertainty clearly shows the essence of Ambassador Tuggar’s lecture at the Achievers University. The idea has been thrown open and the intellection can now begin.