• $4.5m initial retainer, potential $9m renewal, sharpen scrutiny of lobbying spend
• FG insists Shettima’s mandate preserves Nigeria’s diplomatic standing
• Atiku questions lobbying spend amid concerns over lost presidential diplomacy
• Stakeholders demand justification for foreign lobbyists despite Nigeria’s diplomatic corps

Nigeria’s decision to engage a United States lobbying firm has raised questions about the cost, purpose, and effectiveness of its diplomatic strategy, particularly given that the country already maintains a foreign affairs ministry, diplomatic missions, and career diplomats.

The concerns deepened following President Bola Tinubu’s third consecutive absence at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), leaving Vice President Kashim Shettima to lead Nigeria’s delegation to the 81st session in New York.

The development renewed scrutiny of what Nigeria could be losing due to the President’s repeated absence from one of the world’s largest gatherings of political leaders, particularly as the country seeks foreign investment, development financing, stronger security partnerships, and greater influence in global affairs.

The scrutiny has become more pointed against the backdrop of Nigeria’s reported engagement of a United States lobbying firm under a contract that could cost up to $9 million.

Documents filed under the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) show that Kaduna-based Aster Legal retained Washington-based DCI Group on behalf of Nigeria in December 2025. The initial six-month retainer was $4.5 million, or $750,000 monthly, with an arrangement that could take the total value to $9 million if renewed.

The stated purpose of the engagement included helping Nigeria communicate its actions concerning the protection of Christian communities and maintaining United States support for countering jihadist groups and other destabilising elements in West Africa.

The contract was not for UNGA attendance, and there is no evidence that the government entered into it because Tinubu has stayed away from the General Assembly. However, the coincidence of repeated presidential absences and millions of dollars committed to professional advocacy in Washington has sharpened debate over Nigeria’s diplomatic strategy.

The central question is whether Nigeria is securing sufficient diplomatic, economic and strategic returns from the way it deploys its leaders, diplomats and resources abroad.

An international scholar at the University of Ilesa, Dr Adebukola Ayoola, questioned the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Nigeria’s career diplomats if external firms must be paid millions of dollars to present the country’s case.

“What is the job of the Foreign Affairs Ministry and the retinue of career diplomats charged officially with such responsibility?” she asked.

Ayoola argued that Nigerians should be capable of presenting the country’s case and called for greater accountability in the management of public resources.

She also questioned what she regarded as excessive reliance on foreign expertise, maintaining that Nigerian diplomats possess considerable negotiating experience.

The cost of what cannot be measured
The debate becomes more complicated because the cost of a missed diplomatic opportunity is difficult to quantify.

Ayo Olukoju is Professor of History and Strategic Studies at the University of Lagos and former Vice Chancellor of Caleb University. He noted: “UNGA is practically performative, giving individual leaders a chance to enjoy global viewership.”

Yet visibility can also have diplomatic value, particularly for a country seeking investment, security cooperation, climate finance, development assistance and greater influence in international institutions.

For Nigeria, the question is whether that visibility is being converted into tangible national interests.

This is also where the government’s defence of delegation faces its most practical test.

If Shettima and the delegation secure substantial investment commitments, deepen security partnerships, mobilise development financing and advance Nigeria’s diplomatic priorities, the administration would have concrete grounds for arguing that the alternative arrangement is delivering results.

Conversely, the absence of such measurable outcomes would leave unanswered questions about whether opportunities available through presidential engagement are being lost.

The $9 million lobbying arrangement sharpens the issue because it provides a visible price for one aspect of Nigeria’s international advocacy.

The initial $4.5 million retainer is a concrete expenditure; the potential $9 million is the maximum value if the arrangement is renewed. The cost of missed diplomatic opportunities, however, cannot readily be calculated.

Nigeria may never know whether a meeting that did not happen would have produced an investment, whether a conversation would have changed a policy decision or whether presidential intervention would have accelerated an agreement.

That makes transparency and measurable outcomes particularly important.

Rather than simply defending the President’s absence as procedurally permissible, the Federal Government will increasingly have to demonstrate what its chosen model of international engagement delivers.

At the end of the 81st UNGA, therefore, the more useful questions may be straightforward: How many investment commitments were generated? What security partnerships were strengthened? What development financing was mobilised? What diplomatic positions were advanced? What concrete outcomes emerged from the bilateral meetings? And what did the lobbying expenditure deliver that Nigeria’s existing diplomatic machinery could not?

The answers would provide a more meaningful assessment than arguments over whether a President must physically attend every UNGA.

For now, the administration has established that Nigeria is represented in New York, with Shettima leading a high-level delegation and retaining the country’s formal place in the Assembly.

But representation is not necessarily the same as influence, and influence is not necessarily the same as measurable national gain.

After three consecutive presidential absences, alongside a U.S. lobbying engagement involving a $4.5 million initial payment and a potential total of $9 million, the question confronting the Federal Government is increasingly one of results:

What has Nigeria gained from its chosen model of international engagement, and what opportunities, influence and public resources might it be losing?

FG insists Tinubu’s UNGA absence leaves no diplomatic vacuum
Meanwhile, Tinubu attended the 78th UNGA in 2023 but did not attend the 79th session in 2024 or the 80th in 2025. He has again delegated Shettima to lead the Nigerian delegation to the 81st session, whose high-level week opened on September 22.

The Federal Government has maintained that there is no diplomatic vacuum.

Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, said Shettima had the President’s full mandate and would participate in high-level meetings and bilateral engagements on Nigeria’s behalf. The Presidency has also said Tinubu is on annual leave and that delegating the Vice President does not diminish Nigeria’s diplomatic standing.

Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Jimoh Ibrahim, similarly defended the arrangement, saying more than 60 per cent of those listed to speak at the current UNGA are represented by vice presidents or foreign ministers.

Ibrahim said Nigeria would retain its designated position, including its front-row seat, while Shettima and Foreign Affairs Minister Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu will participate in high-level engagements. Shettima is expected to deliver Nigeria’s national statement and hold bilateral meetings with world leaders, international organisations and development partners.

Presidential aide Ademola Osodi has also dismissed suggestions that Tinubu’s absence affects Nigeria’s international standing, saying the President’s focus is currently on domestic responsibilities.

But while these explanations establish that Nigeria is represented, they do not entirely answer what the country may be missing when its President is not personally at the table.

‘Repeated presidential absence raises questions over diplomatic impact’
Olukoju stressed that the distinction between representation and presidential presence is important.

He described heads of state as the “face of a country and its chief diplomat”, arguing that personal diplomacy, reputation, charisma and negotiating ability remain important instruments of international relations.

In his view, UNGA is more than a formal gathering where countries deliver prepared statements. It is also a concentrated diplomatic marketplace where presidents, prime ministers, investors, development institutions and international organisations converge.

A Nigerian President physically present in New York can hold several bilateral meetings within a few days, make direct appeals to heads of government, pursue investment opportunities and discuss security, trade, climate finance, debt and development partnerships at the highest political level.

Olukoju said personal diplomacy could sometimes shorten the time required to reach agreements because issues that might otherwise pass through several bureaucratic and diplomatic channels could receive direct presidential attention.

“Delegating the headship of the Nigerian delegation to the Vice-President for three successive years is not good enough,” he said, arguing that repeated presidential absences would naturally attract criticism unless explained by compelling circumstances.

However, he acknowledged that delegation could serve the national interest where another representative was better equipped to perform the required diplomatic role.

“If the issue is optics, such as concerns about a president’s ability to communicate effectively or physical limitations that could make his appearance counterproductive, the national interest might justify sending a better-equipped representative,” he said.

He added that a well-prepared Vice President could perform effectively if given a clear mandate, noting that such an arrangement had existed since the Buhari administration.

“That said, I prefer this arrangement to a sub-optimal performance by the President,” Olukoju said.

His argument therefore shifts the focus from whether delegation is permissible to whether it is producing measurable diplomatic results.

Adenikinju: Tinubu’s absence raises visibility concerns, but losses remain unquantified
Prof Adeola Adenikinju, an economist at the University of Ibadan, noted that the more fundamental issue is how Nigeria is perceived by its international partners.

“The Vice President is already there with a very strong team from the Nigerian government,” he said.

Rather than focusing exclusively on the President’s physical presence, Adenikinju said the government should be concerned about whether Nigeria is regarded as sufficiently credible to attract international confidence.

“What is more important is their perception about your government,” he said, asking whether Nigeria’s approach could “attract votes of confidence from the international partners”.

His position suggests that a strong delegation can mitigate the practical consequences of presidential absence. But it does not eliminate the question of whether greater presidential visibility could strengthen Nigeria’s efforts to attract investment and international partnerships.

The potential loss, therefore, may not be a missed speech at UNGA. It could be a bilateral meeting that did not take place, an investor who did not gain direct access, a diplomatic relationship that was not strengthened or an issue that remained at ministerial level rather than receiving presidential attention.

There is, however, no publicly established monetary value for such losses.

Nor has it been established that Nigeria lost a specific investment, loan, trade agreement or diplomatic concession because Tinubu was absent from UNGA in 2024, 2025 or 2026.

That distinction is important.

Atiku questions lobbying spend, presidential diplomacy
The issue has nevertheless attracted political criticism.

Former Vice President and African Democratic Congress (ADC) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has questioned why Nigeria would spend millions of dollars on lobbyists in Washington while the President repeatedly stays away from a gathering where he could personally meet American officials, world leaders and other influential actors.

Atiku has argued that repeated absence from UNGA could mean Nigeria is losing opportunities for direct presidential diplomacy and has also questioned the rationale for the reported lobbying expenditure.

His argument, however, does not establish that the DCI Group contract is a substitute for presidential diplomacy. The two are different instruments.

A lobbying firm works principally through advocacy, communications and access to policymakers, while a President operates through state-to-state relations, bilateral negotiations and political authority.

The issue, therefore, is whether the combination of instruments being used by Nigeria represents an effective and accountable deployment of public resources.

Gbadamosi: What exactly are Nigerians paying for?
That concern is raised more directly by Babatunde Gbadamosi, a former gubernatorial candidate in Lagos State and international businessman.

Gbadamosi questioned why Nigeria should spend heavily on foreign lobbyists when it already maintains a diplomatic service and missions abroad.

He called for disclosure of the financial implications of such engagements, including the scope of the contracts, beneficiaries, deliverables and measurable outcomes.

His concern extends beyond the headline $9 million figure.

The initial six-month retainer is $4.5 million, while renewal could take the total value of the arrangement to $9 million. For a country operating under severe fiscal pressures, the question is whether the expenditure is producing results commensurate with its scale.

That becomes particularly relevant because the stated objective of the DCI Group engagement concerns Nigeria’s image and security narrative in the United States.

If millions are being spent to communicate Nigeria’s position abroad, Nigerians would reasonably expect evidence of what the engagement has achieved.

Was U.S. policy influenced? Was additional security assistance secured? Were misconceptions about Nigeria corrected? Did the engagement produce new partnerships? Did it improve Nigeria’s standing among American policymakers?

Without measurable answers, the debate inevitably shifts from diplomacy to expenditure.

Nigeria’s lobbying spend raises questions over diplomatic capacity, says Ojo
Prof Gbade Ojo of the University of Ilorin approached the matter from a different angle.

While questioning the scale of the expenditure, Ojo said the quality and capacity of some diplomatic appointments might help explain why governments sometimes turn to professional lobbyists.

“With the corruption complex here, it is difficult to justify the humongous expenditure on lobbyists abroad,” he said.

He questioned why Nigeria would rely on lobbyists when it already had substantial numbers of diplomats on the ground.

At the same time, Ojo acknowledged that some ambassadors might lack the experience or influence required for particular assignments, especially where appointments are influenced by political considerations.

His position suggests that the lobbying debate cannot be reduced simply to a choice between foreign firms and Nigerian diplomats. If the government believes external professionals are necessary, it would need to demonstrate what specialised capacity they provide that existing diplomatic institutions cannot.

It would also need to show what Nigeria has received in return.