Since President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assumed office in May 2023, Nigeria’s foreign policy has been marked by a combination of assertive posturing, economic diplomacy, and rhetorical commitment to regional leadership. However, more than two years into his presidency, the outcomes of his foreign policy remain uneven. While Tinubu has maintained an active presence on the international stage, many argue that his foreign policy is long on optics and short on substance, with major contradictions and strategic missteps undermining Nigeria’s global posture.
The first area of engagement is democracy promotion, which is central in Tinubu’s regional diplomacy, especially in West Africa. As chairman of ECOWAS, Tinubu attempted to reassert Nigeria’s leadership by responding decisively to the coup in Niger Republic in 2023. He quickly called for sanctions and floated the idea of military intervention. However, the move backfired. The lack of regional consensus and the political defiance of military regimes in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso resulted not only in the abandonment of military intervention but also in the eventual withdrawal of those countries from ECOWAS. This sequence of events has exposed Nigeria’s diminished influence in the region. Rather than reinforcing democratic norms, the episode reflected a foreign policy that is reactive, overly confident, and lacking in diplomatic tact.
In terms of development, Tinubu has prioritized economic diplomacy as a way to attract foreign investment and stabilize Nigeria’s struggling economy. Several high-profile agreements have been signed with countries like China, India, and the Netherlands. These include deals for industrial parks, solid minerals and energy collaboration, and waste-to-energy initiatives. However, concerns about the lack of transparency in these deals remain .Key questions remain unanswered: What are the terms of these agreements? How will they be monitored? Who benefits? Many observers fear that these projects may serve more as short-term political wins than long-term development strategies. Additionally, foreign investments are not likely to thrive without parallel improvements in domestic infrastructure, security, and rule of law—areas where Nigeria continues to falter.
While Tinubu has emphasized Nigeria’s youthful population as a diplomatic asset and praised the importance of diaspora engagement, his administration has not produced a clear roadmap for harnessing these resources. Programs such as diaspora bonds and student exchanges have been discussed but remain largely underdeveloped. In the meantime, brain drain continues as young professionals and students leave the country in search of better opportunities, reflecting a deep disconnect between diplomatic narrative and domestic reality.
Tinubu’s economic diplomacy has received praise in some quarters for securing pledges of foreign direct investment and strengthening Nigeria’s global economic image. Nigeria joined BRICS as a partner and revived preferential trade arrangements under the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA). Many of the foreign inflows are loans or short-term financial instruments rather than sustainable investments. Moreover, the fundamentals of the Nigerian economy remain shaky. High inflation, widespread insecurity, and inconsistent policy implementation continue to discourage long-term investors.
A major source of concern is Tinubu’s approach to regional leadership, especially within West Africa. His handling of the ECOWAS crisis after the wave of military coups has not only exposed Nigeria’s limited diplomatic capacity but also damaged the country’s reputation as a stabilizing force in the region. The threat of military intervention, though never actualized, alienated neighboring countries and reinforced perceptions of Nigeria as a regional bully rather than a consensus builder. While Tinubu has hosted high-level security summits and counterterrorism initiatives, critics point out that these international engagements contrast sharply with Nigeria’s own deteriorating security situation. Kidnappings, terrorism, and communal violence continue to plague large parts of the country, raising doubts about the government’s credibility as a regional security partner.
Tinubu has also sought to pursue a multipolar foreign policy, avoiding strict alignment with any one global bloc. He has engaged with traditional Western allies, while simultaneously strengthening ties with China, Russia, India, and Middle Eastern powers. On the surface, this appears pragmatic. However, the lack of a clear strategic direction has made these relationships seem opportunistic rather than carefully calculated.
Perhaps the most glaring shortcoming of Tinubu’s foreign policy is the absence of a publicly available strategic blueprint. Unlike some of his predecessors, Tinubu has not released a formal foreign policy document outlining his administration’s priorities, principles, or measurable goals. Instead, the country’s external engagement appears to be driven by summit diplomacy and presidential appearances abroad. This form of foreign policy management may win temporary media attention, but it leaves little in terms of institutional direction, consistency, or accountability. Foreign policy should be more than presidential visits and ribbon-cutting ceremonies. It must be grounded in a clear understanding of national interest, and this clarity is still missing.
In conclusion, President Tinubu’s foreign policy since 2023 has reflected ambition and energy, but it has fallen short in coherence, consistency, and strategic planning. The administration’s heavy emphasis on economic diplomacy has not been matched by sufficient domestic reform or institutional coordination. Its attempts at regional leadership have often been clumsy, and its global outreach, though wide, lacks strategic depth. If Nigeria is to reclaim a serious place on the world stage, Tinubu’s foreign policy will need more than catchphrases and contracts. It will require vision, humility, and above all, a commitment to aligning international goals with domestic transformation.
