Dynamics of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Faux-pas: The Case of Oladimeji’s Badmus Right of Reply

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

Last week Sunday, we responded to Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar’s article, entitled “Foreign Policy and the Path to Peace in a Dangerous Neighbourhood.” The article was published on January 7, 2025 (vide https://newspointnigeria.com). In my reaction to the article, I made it clear that my reaction was not a critique of the author or his article, because the article was not only a good write-up but also has the potential to help the understanding of Nigeria’s foreign policy direction. Besides, it also has the potential to help project the country better if predicated on the Tuggar’s 4-D diplomacy. However, my article disagreed with the Minister on some foreign policy questions. 

In reaction to my own response to the Foreign Minister’s article, one Oladimeji Badmus wrote a right of reply entitled “Right of Reply: Re: Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy and Nigeria’s Non Alignment Policy, Beyond the Dangerous Neighbourhood.’ I read the right of reply with much enthusiasm in the hope to learn new things from him as a professional student. The opening sentence of his right of reply suggests that there is nothing to be learnt from the article. A physiognomic analysis of it points to an intention to only humiliate and degrade. I then quickly remembered how desperate efforts were made to humiliate Mrs Michelle Obama at the Ronald Reagan National Airport a fortnight ago and how she allowed patience, self-decency, self-dignity to prevail over indecency and incompetence of some racialist airport and airline authorities (vide VeedStory channel). Oladimeji Badru’s intention in his right of reply is similar, incoherent in writing, degrading in intention, and self-indicting in conclusion.

Indecency can allow for throwing bullets of abuse and launching of missiles to Oladimeji Badru in this case, but we are not like carpenters that claim to be engineers in Nigeria. I am a professional student that wants a Nigeria completely free from administrative chicanery. Hence, I hereby follow the example of Michelle Obama in responding to the Foreign Minister and his loudspeaker, Oladimeji Badmus, since the ‘right of reply’ appears to be delegated and very presumptuous.

 Oladimeji Badru’s Presumptions

Oladimeji Badmus tried to teach me how to write and what I should do, by especially saying that there is the need to stick to facts and attribute statements to those participating in this much discourse the way they said it and fairly. Very good advice. However, he cannot be teaching me what he is apparently guilty of. His allegations and apparent purport to be a foreign policy scholar lend much credence to this guiltiness. 

First, the article is written and described as a right of reply, hence I take it as another article written by the Foreign Minister, even though the said right of reply answered the name Oladimeji Badmus. The title of my own article was not as misrepresented by Oladimeji Badru.  It was titled, “Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy and Nigeria’s Non-alignment Policy: Beyond the Dangerous Neighbourhood.” The fundamental implications of the title as published by Oladimeji Badru are many. One, by using ‘right of reply,’ he necessarily gives the impression that he is another Minister of Foreign Affairs, or he is his official spokesperson, acting as a dutiful special or personal assistant, or that he has the mandate of the Foreign Minister. For me in this column, I treat it as a right of reply directly from the Foreign Minister in order to make the point that I did not write my article as a carpenter or bricklayer claiming to be an engineer as it is the case with many public commentators in Nigeria. I went to school and the school went through me without any whiff of braggadocio.

Second, in Oladimeji’s own presumed title, he put a comma after ‘Nigeria’s Non-Alignment Policy’ whereas I put a colon in my original article. He did not quote me well. By putting a comma, rather than the initial colon, the whole meaning of the title has been completely distorted. In plain English language, the word ‘and’ is known to be a conjunction creating a nexus. By putting ‘and’ between ‘Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy’ and ‘Nigeria’s Non Alignment Policy,’ it is simply meant to suggest that ‘Yusuf Tuggar’s Strategic Autonomy’ has implications for ‘Nigeria’s Non Alignment Policy and vice versa.’ This was part of what my reactive article did. By replacing the colon between the main and the sub-title, Oladimeji Badru did not see the ‘beyond the dangerous neighbourhood’ as a resultant of the main title. He saw it as an ordinary continuation of the main title. He argued that I did not reflect well what the Foreign Minister said but he is not even able to copy well a simple title. He distorted my title. What competence has he to explicate the body of my arguments if he is not able to even know the implications of a title? A title is not simply a summation of the essence of the body of arguments but also a reflection of editorial capacity. I write with much pride for ThisDay, a Newspaper of Record because it is meant to be read by serious sagacious minds. My audience is people who have eyes to see and ears to hear. My audience is very sophisticated. This is what Oladimeji Badru did not understand. He needs to know that one does not just dabble into what one knows very little about. Learning comes before teaching.

Thirdly, Oladimeji Badru gave the American spelling of my English spelling of neighbour and yet he is accusing me of not knowing how to quote well. What is the essence of having a teacher that is not better than the student? Let me state here with much humility that Nigeria’s foreign policy cannot but remain problematic for as long as laymen, masons bricklayers, etc. are the drivers in a diplomatic journey in which the travellers are seasoned ambassadors, top civil and public servants, only serving as observers. In other words, ‘Re’ was not part of my title but Oladimeji Badmus included it and ascribed it to me. To what extent can this type of ‘right of reply’ be credibly tenable when the source of information is distorted? 

Let me restate clearly why I reacted to Ambassador Tuggar’s article. It was offensively insulting and unbefitting of an experienced ambassador of Nigeria with a good diplomatic standing. He considered malicious and disingenuous whoever says that Nigeria does not have a foreign policy when the 1999 Constitution as amended provides for foreign policy objectives. I responded that it was neither of the two but, more often than not, a resultant of psychology of human differences. Oladimeji Badru made the matter worse by saying that I am casuistic. Before addressing this casuist issue, let me here again maintain that, by analytical deductive methodology, Ambassador Tuggar considered, consciously or otherwise, Strategic autonomy as another foreign policy objective without having to say so directly. The logic is that his definition of it is not in different from Abubakar Tafawa Balewa’s 1960 presentation of non-alignment. The definitional factors of the two are the same: self-preservation through the protection of the national interest and not following the lead of anyone blindly. This is what my interpretation of strategic autonomy is all about. 

Fourthly, without any jot of doubt and gainsaying, Ambassador Tuggar’s record of diplomatic performance is good. In this regard, Oladimeji Badru wants me to include him among the list of the great Nigerian Foreign Ministers by considering his ‘strategic autonomy’ as part of Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s Consultation Doctrine, Professor Ibrahim Gambari’s Foreign Policy Concentricism and Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji’s Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism. Why Not? I have little or no qualms about this but Ambassador Tuggar is yet to reach that level. A Major in the army knows that he is not a General. A senior Lecturer knows that he is neither a Reader nor a Professor. It is to enable Ambassador Tuggar qualify to be another great Foreign Minister, in fact to be more of a diplomatist, rather than an ordinary diplomat, that we have suggested to him that he should make his diplomacy of 4-Ds the pillar of Nigeria’s quest for ‘strategic autonomy.’ Strategic autonomy can be an objective and a technique of achieving the development goals of the Tinubu administration.

Let me assume here that Oladimeji Badru understands the meaning of ‘strategic autonomy’ in international relations. Every nation-state wants to be self-reliant to a great extent, in spite of the principle of interdependence. Strategic autonomy is transactional in the spirit of interdependence. It is about respect and capacity in international relations. While Ambassador Tuggar is underscoring the constitutional foreign policy objectives, we are talking about evolving a grand strategic foreign policy for Nigeria being the world headquarters of the black peoples of the world. When we talk about Nigeria’s foreign policy, it is actually, to borrow from the conceptualisation of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, that is, having a Nigerian foreign policy in Abuja, and then an Abuja foreign policy in Africa, an African policy in the world, and then finally a world policy in the homes of every African and Black man. Consequently, foreign policy calculations should not be localised.

Further Faux-pas and Dynamics 

Professor Agboola Gambari came up with the theory of foreign policy concentric circles à la Nigériana. Ambassador Tuggar is yet to come up with any foreign policy theory, but he has already laid the foundations for a possible theory. He called his 4-Ds a doctrine while I argued to the contrary, believing that it will be more appropriate to call it the diplomacy of 4-Ds. Doctrine is Latino-French in origin, doctrina (meaning teaching) and simply means  ‘a belief’ or a ‘set of beliefs.’ It also refers to a governmental principle in the conduct and management of foreign and military affairs. As such, is strategic autonomy an objective or not? 

In the words of Oladimeji Badru, ‘the Minister mentioned Strategic Autonomy as the fulcrum of the Tinubu Administration’s agenda, not as a sixth foreign policy objective for Nigeria. Nowhere in his article did he try to amend the Constitution and ascribe it additional foreign policy objective. What Akinterinwa has done here is to use casuistry to turn epistemology (strategic autonomy), Democracy, Democracy and Diaspora, etc.) into ontology (the five foreign policy objectives of Nigeria stated in the constitution). These are two different things.’ 

Far from being two different things. What is casuistry? What is epistemology? What is ontology? In their ordinary senses, put philosophically, ontology is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of human beings in terms of their properties. Epistemology is about how one acquires knowledge, with emphasis on the sources. Like ontology, epistemology is also a branch of philosophy. If Oladimeji Badmus is talking about the study of the nature and how my knowledge of what I wrote had been acquired, I would not have had any qualms because ontology and epistemology are about the study of existence. However, when he talks about casuistry which has two basic meanings, I need to invite him and the Foreign Affairs Minister to a fresh and open debate on the subject matter for saying that I used casuistry to turn epistemology into ontology. Is it that the two of them do not know the meaning of casuistry? 

This is an unacceptable faux pas and insult not to me but to the exegesis that I gave.

Casuistry, going by the dictionary definition, is the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in terms of moral questions. It is synonymous with fallaciousness, fudging, chicanery, and quibbling. Fudging is about the manipulation of facts or figures in order to present a desired picture or dealing with an issue vaguely in order to conceal the truth and mislead. Casuistry is also explained as the resolution of moral problems by applying theoretical rules. The Foreign Minister and Oladimeji Badru should draw attention to what I have said that is casuist, fallacious, fudging, or that has the character of fraud or chicanery. Being a Minister does not mean insulting people who try to draw attention to policy remissness of the government. Insulting people without justification is nothing more than intellectual myopia. The Foreign Minister and Oladimeji Badru cannot afford the luxury of engaging in intellectual fisticuff without substantiation. They may not agree with my evaluation of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Does the Foreign Minister not know the implications of not understanding the implications of not having plenipotentiary ambassadors abroad? Nigerians are asking why PBAT took his children, Seyi and Yinka, as members of official delegation during an official trip. Has the Foreign Minister given reasons to educate Nigerians as to why? What is ideal for the Foreign Minister and Oladimeji Badru is to provide counter-points, one by one, to my alleged misgivings if any. They assumed if not claim that I had asked the Foreign Minister to seek a bill to re-address Nigeria’s foreign policy. They even want to teach me lessons on introduction to politics meant for 100-level students of political science. This is unnecessarily belittling.

When Oladimeji says that ‘Akinterinwa should have instead listed strategic autonomy along with Bolaji Akinyemi’s Consultation Doctrine, Gambari’s Concentricism and Olu Adeniji’s Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism,’ Oladimeji Badru should learn that the foregoing principles came with critical arguments. He should please read a bit of the historiography on the consultation doctrine propounded at the foreign policy conference held in NIPSS in Kuru to understand what led to it. He should understand Professor Akinyemi’s definienda of the Technical Aid Corps scheme and his Concert of Medium Powers, etc. He should also know that Professor Agboola Gambari did not simply sit on an armchair to recommend his policy of ‘foreign policy concentricism.’ In fact, if Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji agreed with Professor Gambari but opted that concentricism should be very constructive in design and approach, and beneficial to all Nigerians in outcome, it was on the basis of powerful arguments.

For Ambassador Tuggar, he simply told Nigerians and the world that ‘strategic autonomy is the fulcrum of the Tinubu administration. What is a fulcrum in physics or in this case? Simply put, it is synonymous with epicentre, pivot, etc. If Oladimeji Badru can even admit that ‘strategic autonomy is the 21st Century version of Balewa’s non-alignment’ and that if non-alignment was never mistaken to be a foreign policy objective, how can strategic autonomy be deemed to be one?’ This question shows the limitation in Oladimeji Badru’s knowledge of the subject matter. The question is myopic. 

The Minister might have not said that he or the government is pursuing strategic autonomy as an objective, but why is it the fulcrum of governance? Oladimeji Badru considers that strategic autonomy is the 21st version of non-alignment, in which way is the new version different from the old? I have said and still posit here that the Foreign Minister is rightly pursuing a sixth foreign policy agenda. No one is saying he should present any bill for the purpose but that strategic autonomy can be a very good foreign policy objective when particularly built on the 4-Ds. I have advocated a number of times a foreign policy grand strategy for Nigeria for the same reasons of the 4-Ds. I still believe in it. If the Foreign Minister does not feel comfortable with it, how is this casuistry? 

In direct response to the question as to how strategic autonomy can be an objective, I ask here two questions as well: first, the 1999 Nigeria Constitution provides that the respect for international law and treaty obligations is a foreign policy objective? Oladimeji Badru tried to argue that this might have been a mistake. If he sees it as a possible mistake, it means that he agrees with my position at least. But for how long should the mistake be condoned? 

Secondly, strategic autonomy can be an objective because it can serve the purposes of national and international peace and security. It is an attribute of political independence and sovereignty. It helps the giant status of Nigeria in Africa and particularly in the West Africa region. If by the act of respecting, there is a foreign policy objective what prevents any serious patriot from advocating the pursuit of strategic autonomy as an objective. As said earlier, I have advocated in this column many times the need for a national grand security strategy, but who bothers to listen and seek the understanding of it?

Another main foreign policy faux pas is that many people have self-ascribed the status of a specialist or expert, pontificating about what, at best, they never understand. When people say half education is dangerous, they may be right but half education is still better than not being educated at all. To be ill-educated, or to be educated based on falsehood, and then talking authoritatively as experts is a major bane in policy making in Nigeria. In a country where the Association of Retired Career Ambassadors of Nigeria (ARCAN), the Academy of International Affairs (AIA), the Nigerian Society of International Affairs (NSIA), Nigerian Society of International Law (NSIL), the Society for International Relations (SIRA), etc. exist, it is most shameful that the Foreign Minister could not be better defended with better and superior arguments. 

I repeat for the umpteenth time, Ambassador Tuggar’s write up, for me, is his best so far in the projection of Nigeria’s foreign policy and defence of the Tinubu administration. In further assisting the administration, we have suggested making strategic autonomy the main focus, by using the external environment to enhance domestic agenda and using the 4-Ds as foundational pillars. This is what constitutes a casuist in the eyes of the Minister and Oladimeji Badru. This is why they see contrary views as disingenuous. There are other allegations that need no response because they are resultants of differences in perception for which psychology of human differences permits.

However, it has become necessary to stop Nigeria from playing host to professional carpenters purporting to be engineers. This is why political governance has not helped creativity and national development. This column, which is specialised and meant for the sophisticated minds in the art and science of diplomacy, adopts the educational philosophy of Albert Einstein, the German physicist, who has argued that education is not about the learning of facts, but about the training of the mind to think. In other words, this column is more about hard thinking on international life.

This may be why it is difficult for a carpenter not to have the capacity to understand. We stand by the hard facts in our article: that strategic autonomy is not only a re-explanation of the principle of non-alignment as defined by Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa on August 20, 1960; that strategic autonomy, as defined by Foreign Minister Tuggar, is very good as a foreign policy strategic focus; and that the diplomacy of 4-Ds can serve well as the foundational pillars of a possible strategic autonomy agenda. I never said the Foreign Minister should seek parliamentary bill. All I theorised is that strategic autonomy can be a good foreign policy objective. I have not been casuistic or disingenuous but have posited that the indissolubility and indivisibility of Nigeria is more of a myth than reality. If the Foreign Minister and Oladimeji Badmus believe that I have engaged in casuistry or wrong, let a fresh public debate now begin to educate Nigerians, rather than insulting me.