An International strategy in Nigeria's Fourth Republic: A Critical Analysis of Some Unresolved Issues

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic: A Critical Analysis of Some Unresolved Issues

Ese C. Ujara

Department of Political Science and International Relations

Covenant University, Ogun State, Nigeria

eseujara@gmail.com

Jide Ibietan PhD

Department of Political Science and International Relations

Covenant University, Ogun State, Nigeria

olajide.ibietan@covenantuniversity.edu.ng

Abstract

This paper assesses Nigeria’s foreign policy in retrospect and analyzes the major unresolved 

issues that now exist as challenges to foreign policy in the Fourth Republic (1999-2017). As an 

evaluative study with reliance on secondary data, the study adopts the linkage approach as the 

theoretical framework which highlights the crucial impact of the interplay between the domestic 

and external environments on Nigeria’s foreign policy. The content analysis of data guided the 

findings, discussions and recommendations of the paper. Findings reveal an urgent need for re-

strategizing and re-formulation of Nigeria’s foreign policy to capture the internal and external 

dynamics of the Nigerian state, in order to maintain respect and relevance in the international 

system.

Keywords Analysis; Foreign Policy; Fourth Republic; Issues; Linkage Approach; Nigeria

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 41

The international system is symbiotic in nature, leading to the notion that no country can 

exist as an island. Since no state can avoid relating with others, states must frame their 

interactions systematically to aid the advancement of national interests in its relations with other 

states. Foreign policy is therefore an integral part of the activities of the modern state. A state 

without foreign policy therefore can be likened to a ship without a sailor (Abdul & Ibrahim, 

2013). In order to remain relevant in the international system, a state must articulate its foreign 

policy in the manner that it captures the state’s national interest. As Eze (2010, p. 79) succinctly 

puts it, “every nation’s foreign policy is or should be in service of its national interest.”

African-nationalism and Pan-Africanism were two factors that informed foreign policy 

thinking and orientation at independence and inception of Nigeria’s foreign policy. In 

underscoring these averments, the foreign policy thrust of the country has been guided by the 

following: African unity and independence, peaceful settlement of disputes, capacity to exercise 

hegemonic influence in the region, non-alignment principle, non-interference in the internal 

affairs of states, and economic cooperation and development within the region (Ukwuije, 2015, 

p. 110).

It is crucial to identify that the approach that guides the formation and execution of 

foreign policy objectives is dependent on some variables within and outside the state (Odubajo, 

2017). These variables can be subsumed under the domestic and external environments of 

foreign policy. The environment of foreign policy consists of the domestic and external factors, 

structures, dynamics and processes that guide the actions of foreign policy actors (Alli, 2010). 

Gitelson (1980) highlights that some of the major variables that affect the foreign policy choices 

of states (especially small or medium powers) include: the domestic situation of the state, the 

nature of its leadership base, and the state’s foreign policy orientations. The domestic situation of 

the Nigerian state is affected by factors such as ethnicity, religious bigotry, communal clashes, 

civil unrests, and militancy, to mention but a few; while the nature of the state’s foreign policy 

may be influenced by the personal idiosyncrasies of the individuals that represent the state in the 

foreign policy-making process. The state’s foreign policy orientation refers to the nature of 

foreign policy pursued in terms of being dependent or independent, proactive or reactive, bold or 

conservative. Other variables, according to Babawale (1988) include: the nature of a state’s 

economy, historical experiences, and the nature of the political society.

Specific to the Nigerian foreign policy sphere, Ashiru (2013) identifies a number of 

factors that have determined the nature of Nigeria’s foreign policy since independence and have 

formed the basis of the domestic and external environments of Nigeria’s foreign policy. These 

determinants include: the eruption of multiple power centers in regions and regional economic 

groupings such as the European Union (EU) and Economic Community of West African States 

(ECOWAS); formation of the African Union (AU) (formerly known as Organization of African 

Unity (OAU)); the waves of dictatorships and democratic transitions across Africa and the 

Middle East; Nigeria’s increasing population; and the continuous existence of domestic and 

external challenges arising from issues like terrorism, climate change, arms proliferation, 

transnational crimes, oil bunkering, militancy, and migration, among others. A study conducted 

by Fayomi, Chidozie & Ajayi (2015) submits that the country’s foreign policy efforts have been 

countered by an image predicament embedded in domestic crises experienced over the years.

The pursuit of an Afrocentric foreign policy, with goals of emerging as Africa’s foremost 

state, has continued to guide Nigeria’s foreign policy aspirations to date (Ade-Ibijola, 2013). 

However, Nigeria’s efforts have been truncated by certain challenges which arise from poor 

leadership, corruption, developmental hindrances (Imoukhede, 2016), the country’s image crisis,

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 42

ineffective representation of Nigerians in diaspora, and the seeming lack of will to engage the 

principles of reciprocity as it relates to its external relations (Chidozie, Ibietan & Ujara, 2014; 

Fayomi et al., 2015; Egwemi & Ochim, 2016).

This paper analyzes Nigeria’s foreign policy, specifically in the Fourth Republic (1999-

2017), with the goal of identifying some unresolved issues in Nigeria’s foreign policy that now 

form its major challenges in the Fourth Republic. It utilizes the linkage approach as theoretical 

framework to explain the intricate relationship between the internal and external environments in 

the foreign policymaking process. The paper is structured as follows: the first section introduces 

the study. The second section presents the method. Sections 3 and 4 discuss the concepts, and 

review literature on Nigeria’s foreign policy in retrospect and the theoretical framework on 

which the study is predicated respectively. Section 5 presents the discussion on Nigeria’s major 

foreign policy thrust. Section 6 deals with some unresolved issues (domestic challenges; 

Nigerians in diaspora; image crisis; reciprocity) in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. The paper 

concludes in section 7 with prospects for Nigeria’s foreign policy being identified and 

recommendations proffered.

Methodology

This paper adopts an evaluative approach. The application of linkage theory in analyzing

issues in Nigeria’s foreign policy in the Fourth Republic is anchored on a historical design which

allows for inquiry into past events with the goal of making interpretations of past events for 

current and future implications (Folarin, 2010). This informs the robust review of Nigeria’s 

foreign policy thrust in the Fourth Republic, noting some unresolved foreign policy issues 

(discussed in Section 6 of this paper) within this period. Data were collected from secondary 

sources such as: the internet, newspapers, journals, and books. Content analysis was conducted 

on the data, and this illuminated the discussion, recommendations and conclusion of the paper.

The Concept of Foreign Policy

Foreign policy, as is the case with many other concepts in the social sciences, does not 

possess a universal meaning, thus several scholars have different conceptions of foreign policy. 

In this light, Ade-Ibijola (2013) sees foreign policy as the objectives which constitute a 

comprehensive plan that serve as goals that a country hopes to achieve in its relation with other 

members of the world. In other words, Ade-Ibijola (2013) states that every country constructs a 

plan with certain key goals that it seeks to achieve in its relations with other states in the 

international system so as to avoid steering without direction in the waters of international 

relations.

Ota & Ecoma (2015) identify foreign policy as a strategy that is properly articulated and 

designed in a coordinated manner by institutionally-designated decision-makers in a bid to 

manipulate the international environment to achieve identified national objectives. This 

conception presents foreign policy as an instrument of power via which states can react to events 

in the international environment by its actions or inactions for the purpose of advancing national 

goals.

In explaining the interplay between domestic and foreign policy, Ukwuije (2015) 

conceives foreign policy as an offshoot of public policy that cannot actualize certain aspects of 

domestic policy without full and proper interaction with other countries. This assertion connotes

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 43

that public policy subsumes foreign policy, therefore foreign policy serves the purpose of 

achieving domestic policy on international front. 

Eze (2010) simply states that foreign policy is the basis on which a state can engage with 

another state or subjects of international law, such as international organizations. This view is 

corroborated by Barika (2014) who argues that the concept of foreign policy is implicit in the 

fact that national interest is the guiding factor for nations in the formulation and execution of 

their foreign policies. However, he boldly identifies that the formulation of foreign policy is 

limited by the dictates of international law, treaty obligations and the leadership roles and 

responsibilities in international organizations assumed by the state with proper consideration to 

the foreign policy of other states. Inherent in these conceptualizations by Eze (2010) and Barika 

(2014) is the role of international law, non-state actors and very importantly, the foreign policies 

of other states. Their position on the subject is that when states begin to formulate or restructure 

their foreign policies, they should do so bearing in mind the need to align with statutes of 

international law, their commitments in regional or international institutions and the nature of 

foreign policies of other states, especially the neighboring countries. The fulfillment of these 

criteria will not only enable the state to properly pursue national interest, but within the ambit of 

international law and the capacity to respond to actions of other states in the region or globe. The 

next section reviews Nigeria’s foreign policy in retrospect.

Nigeria’s Foreign Policy in Retrospect

Nigeria’s first Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, set the stage for Nigeria’s 

foreign policy in 1960 when he identified the major components. As summarized by 

Enikanolaiye (2013, p. 19), they include in no particular order: respect for territorial integrity,

good neighborliness, sovereign equality of states, commitment to decolonization and eradication 

of racist minority rule from Africa, promotion of the rights of the black man under colonial rule,

promotion of Pan-Africanism and African Unity, respect for the principles of the United Nations 

Charter, and non-alignment. This foreign policy orientation was however criticized as being 

conservative and pro-West, while the bold policy moves that were required for the achievement 

of the policy he advanced were seen as inconsistent (Adebajo, 2008; Meierding, 2010), despite 

the fact that he laid the foundation for the pursuit of Nigeria’s foreign policy based on the 

aforementioned conditions.

Military incursion into politics from 1966-1979 changed the nature of Nigerian foreign 

policy behavior. In accordance with the nature of the military, Nigeria’s foreign policy was more 

assertive as seen in the leading roles it played in the Organization of African Unity, undisputed 

leadership of the sub-region, formation of Economic Community of West African States in 1975,

and the support for liberation movements during this period (Odubajo, 2017:18), in spite of the 

setbacks encountered during the Civil War (1967-1970) (Imuokhede, 2016, p. 7). By 1979 when 

President Shehu Shagari took over, Nigeria’s foreign policy output experienced a decline due to 

several domestic factors such as corruption, misplacement of priorities, inefficiency and 

ineffectiveness of the bureaucracy (Odubajo, 2017). The Buhari-Idiagbon regime sought to 

restore the battered image of Nigeria by ushering in anti-drug and anti-corruption policies which 

they engaged stridently; the regime was also able to avoid dependence on any international 

financial institution through borrowing (Chidozie, Ibietan & Ujara, 2014). However, the 

allegations of human rights violations, especially the Umaru Dikko affair, served as a major 

setback to the foreign policy aspirations (Aremu, 2015).

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 44

General Ibrahim Babangida in 1990 formed the ECOWAS Monitoring Group 

(ECOMOG) and funded most of its operations. Egwemi & Ochim (2016, p. 123) record that 

while the ECOMOG lost over 500 soldiers, Nigeria suffered huge human and capital losses from 

resources contributed in comparison to other states. General Babangida’s administration adopted 

economic diplomacy as a foreign policy instrument in a bid to tackle Nigeria’s financial 

challenges through the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) and consequently to re-energize

Nigeria’s hegemonic leadership in Africa (Imuokhede, 2016). His regime experienced image 

crisis due to widespread corruption within the country and the annulment of the June 12, 1993,

presidential election that was to usher in a democratically elected government (Chidozie et al., 

2014, p. 53), but instead created a contraption tagged as interim government, which was later 

overthrown by General Sani Abacha in a palace coup.

Foreign policy under the late General Abacha’s regime (1993-1998) was isolationist and 

confrontational in nature. While still maintaining the Afrocentric policy, Nigeria’s image was 

marred by the extra judicial killings of the Ogoni Eight compatriots and Ken Saro-Wiwa, 

resulting in Nigeria’s suspension from the Commonwealth and ultimately leading to the 

country’s pariah status (Afinotan, 2015, p. 179). The return to democratic rule with Chief 

Olusegun Obasanjo as president saw Nigeria’s attempts at restoring her battered image via 

shuttle diplomacy (Oni & Taiwo, 2016), as well as the focus on economic diplomacy which 

sought to attract Foreign Direct Investments and partnerships from the West for the purpose of 

engendering economic development (Nwanolue & Iwuoha, 2012). This administration is noted 

for its success at restoring the battered image of Nigeria globally in spite of the internal 

challenges it encountered.

The late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s administration tried to shift foreign policy 

focus to citizen diplomacy in a bid to identify with the interests of Nigerian citizens and the 

protection of the welfare of citizens both at home and abroad. However, due to his ill health, he 

could not see the policy to fruition (Imoukhede, 2016). His vice president, who later took over as 

president following Yar’Adua’s death, maintained to a large extent Yar’Adua’s foreign policy 

goals but also adopted the instruments of shuttle and economic diplomacy in rebranding 

Nigeria’s image in a bid to attract foreign investments (Adeola & Ogunnoiki, 2015).

President Goodluck Jonathan lost the elections in 2015 to President Muhammadu Buhari 

who has since assumption of office been faced with myriad domestic challenges that constrained 

foreign policy outputs. Odubajo (2017) states that the foreign policy agenda of this 

administration is targeted at courting regional cooperation in the fight against the Boko Haram 

menace, attracting Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), and partnering with states, especially 

Western nations, in the fight against corruption.

It can be observed from the foregoing that since the Balewa era, Nigeria’s foreign policy 

has been supportive of the pursuit of African interests with potential to be Africa’s foremost 

state. Some of the aspects in which the country’s foreign policy has experienced continuity 

include the settlement of disputes in Africa, participation in peacekeeping missions, and the 

support provided in the resolution of crises in countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone, to 

mention but a few. Ade-Ibijola (2013, p. 568), notes categorically that Nigeria has expended over 

$10 billion and lost over 2,000 soldiers in the process of providing support to Africa and the 

world on bilateral and multilateral platforms.

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 45

Theoretical Framework and Application of Theory

In foreign policy discourse, the state remains the basic actor in the international system. 

Thus, to obtain relevance and respect in the international system, a state must conduct its 

relations against the backdrop of influences from two environments (Odubajo, 2017). Alli (2010) 

identifies these environments as the domestic and the external. 

The Linkage Theory evolved from systems analysis and has its roots in the notion that the 

term linkage refers to any recurring behavioral sequence that originates in one system and is 

reacted to in another (Rosenau, 1969; Frankel, 1972). The mutually reinforcing nature of 

elements within a system is reflected similarly in international relations. The interconnected 

nature of international relations informs the linkage theory and presents the argument that 

domestic and international politics are so interrelated that they should be simultaneously 

analyzed (Gourevitch, 1978). Pada (2006) also posits that the merger that exists between 

domestic and international factors is fully captured in James Rosenau’s Linkage Theory. The 

theory establishes that domestic factors influence foreign policymaking and vice versa, thereby 

causing a linkage between the national and international affairs of a state. Rosenau (1969) seeks 

to understand the relationship between domestic and foreign policy. He focuses on the intricacy 

between national political systems and the evolution of foreign policy events and processes 

(Starrels & Mallinckrodt, 1978). Rosenau (in Starrels & Mallinckrodt, 1978, p. 80), states that 

“the need for linkage theory is multidimensional … [there] is the need to trace linkages in which 

national and international systems function in such a way as to continuously reinforce each 

other.” 

The linkage theory can be used to explain the intricacies in international relations as it 

relates to, but is not limited to, foreign and domestic policies, international crises, and 

international economic relations, to mention but a few areas. The tenets of the theory as 

presented below reinforce the relevance of this theory to the subject under study. The thrust of 

Rosenau’s linkage theory as highlighted by James & Rioux (1998) includes:

 Independent governments and the international system reinforce one another.

 The processes and structure of domestic politics are not independent of international 

occurrences.

 Ruling elites tend to redirect the concern of the public towards real or imagined external 

threats in a bid to reduce focus on internal challenges.

 Active participation in international relations is dependent on the state’s ability to 

establish an effective cadre of officials capable of successfully managing their nation’s 

foreign relations.

Rosenau’s (1969) postulations inform the thoughts of Adeola and Ogunnoiki (2015) in 

affirming that when domestic and foreign policy are analyzed accordingly, findings would show 

that they are interconnected and interdependent in nature. The level of interdependence is so 

intense to the extent that the reality of the external environment is a major aspect of public 

policy, thus making foreign policy an offshoot of public policy. Pada (2006) argues, however,

that focus should not be placed only on the interconnectedness of both environments, but should 

also evaluate if the state is able to cope with pressures from the domestic and international sphere 

that would lead to the formulation of a strategic foreign policy. The satisfaction of both 

environmental spheres thus requires a strong state and leadership.

Building on the linkage theory, this paper seeks to establish the nexus between the 

domestic and external environments in Nigeria’s foreign policy. The domestic environment is

a

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 46

crucial to foreign policy as it sets the base on which it should run. However, if neglected, it 

results in challenges like loss of respect and relevance in the international system. This argument 

ties strongly to the first and second tenet above that emphasizes the reinforced relationship that 

exists between domestic and international politics. A case in point is the poor treatment of 

Nigerians within the country by security officials and law enforcement agents (Dickson, 2010). 

Due to Nigeria’s inability to tackle this budding challenge, it questions Nigeria’s ability to be 

assertive on the regional front in protecting the welfare of Nigerians abroad. This may partly 

account for the weak responses by the Nigerian government to the xenophobic attacks on 

Nigerians in South Africa (Egwemi & Ochim, 2016). As a result, Nigeria cannot fully entrench 

the use of the reciprocity principle on the regional or global front because of its failings at home.

States can be forced to adopt a particular foreign policy stance based on the external 

environment beyond their control. This underscores the tenet which affirms that ruling elites 

occassionally choose to divert the attention of the public to focus on external threats and politics 

instead of domestic ones. When actors in the international system generate stimuli at any point in 

time, it would require certain reactions from states. These reactions can then be utilized for the 

benefit of or to the detriment of the state. This is reflected in Nigeria’s approach to tackling 

terrorism under President Buhari, which is based on regional cooperation as the Boko Haram 

terrorist group’s activities have transcended the borders of Nigeria (Odubajo, 2017). It is possible 

to infer based on the linkage theory that a state that trivialises issues of internal instability, 

economic undervelopment and civil unrests will be unable to make meaningful impact in the 

international system; South Sudan typifies this situation.

As highlighted in this study, Nigeria is beset with myriad challenges arising from internal 

and external factors that may account for negative outputs from foreign policy engagements. As 

emphasised by the fourth tenet (stated above) of the linkage theory, the proper selection of the 

right set of individuals in the representation of the country internationally is crucial to its 

international success. This draws from the expectation that those individuals, having experienced 

the internal dynamics of their domestic environment, would be able to effectively represent their 

country on the international front. This is an area in which Nigeria’s inability to make proper 

choices to determine its crop of diplomatic officials has forestalled its diplomatic achievements 

and added to the long list of challenges that the country grapples with.

From the foregoing, it can be noted that if a state puts into consideration domestic and 

external factors, it will enable the formulation of a holistic foreign policy that is capable of 

withstanding the international and domestic pressures. The next section presents Nigeria’s 

journey in the fourth republic as a juxtaposition of national interest with internal and external 

demands on foreign policy perfomance.

Major Foreign Policy Thrusts in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy in the Fourth Republic

Shuttle Diplomacy

Shuttle diplomacy is traceable to Henry Kissinger’s years as secretary of state in the 

United States of America, and this was based on his attempt at maintaining peace between Israel 

and the Arab states (Egypt and Syria) during the Yom Kippur war in the 1970s. Shuttle 

diplomacy according to Dauda & Bako (2012) refers to the discussions that occur between two 

or more states whereby an individual, usually a government official, travels to and from the 

countries involved either for the purposes of mediation, negotiation or partnership as the case 

may be. Abdul & Ibrahim (2013) note that President Obasanjo was renowned for his shuttles in a

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 47

bid to forge bilateral and multilateral partnerships that sought to advance development within 

Nigeria and ensure the peaceful coexistence among states in West Africa. Also inherent in the 

goals of President Obasanjo’s shuttle diplomacy were the restoration of Nigeria’s image from its 

position as a pariah state, and the securing of debt relief from the country’s creditors. To this end, 

former President Obasanjo made a total of 113 foreign trips between May 1999 and August 2002 

(Adeola & Ogunnoiki, 2015, p. 437).

One of the biggest achievements of that shuttle diplomacy was the successful reduction 

of Nigeria’s external debt from 36 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004 to less 

than 4 percent of its GDP by 2007. The administration also got America and some other Paris 

Club creditors to sign agreements on debt reduction for $18 billion with the caveat that $12 

billion of Nigeria’s debt would be returned by March 2006 (Dauda & Bako, 2012, p. 10). The 

FDI inflows into Nigeria increased following the years of the shuttle diplomacy. Prior to 

President Obasanjo’s assumption of office in 1999, the highest amount recorded on FDI inflows 

between 1990 and 1998 was in 1994 with a record of $2,287.4 million. By 2006, Nigeria had 

recorded a whopping $13,956.5 million (UNCTAD, 2008, p. 8) after President Obasanjo’s 

engagement in shuttle diplomacy sustained by the bilateral and multilateral investment relations.

While on acting capacity, President Jonathan embarked on shuttle diplomacy in an 

attempt to assure the world that Nigeria was secure and available for investment in spite of the 

domestic challenges it was experiencing. One of his shuttles to America to meet President 

Barack Obama was predicated on this. He sought to delist Nigeria from the discriminatory rule 

that enabled the Department of Homeland Security to screen Nigerians on international flights to 

the United States, especially after the attempted bombing of a U.S. airline by a Nigerian (Boma 

Lysa, Terfa, & Tsegyu 2015, p. 4). President Jonathan also paid visits to China to discuss the 

subject of trade and he was successful in securing a low interest loan of $1.1 billion for the 

improvement of Nigeria’s hydropower, road, and airport transportation systems (Adeola & 

Ogunnoiki, 2015, p. 441). 

President Buhari has also engaged in shuttle diplomacy to West African nations in the 

pursuit of regional cooperation targeted at tackling the Boko Haram terrorism; he also engaged a 

semblance of shuttle diplomacy while acting as chief mediator in solving the constitutional 

impasse in Gambia (Bello, Dutse, & Othman, 2017, p. 49). The Buhari administration also 

forged diplomatic and economic relations with China which resulted in the provision of 

necessary funds to augment Nigeria’s infrastructural deficit (Kia, Nwigbo, & Ojie, 2017). The 

adoption of shuttle diplomacy has been a recurring theme in the Fourth Republic and has yielded 

benefits to Nigeria across the different administrations from 1999 to date. It is crucial to state 

that shuttle and economic diplomacy could be seen to intertwine occasionally in terms of outputs 

and dividends.

Economic Diplomacy

Lawal & Aluko (2015) described economic diplomacy as the brand of diplomacy that 

involves advocating the state’s business interests and the application of technical expertise in the 

analysis of the effects of the receiving state’s economic situation on its political climate and on 

the sending state’s economic interests. In other words, economic diplomacy refers to the 

adoption of foreign policy instruments to achieve specific economic interests via decision-

making, policymaking or advocating. This is noticeable during the General Babangida regimthrust

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 48

with General Ike Nwachukwu as foreign affairs minister. A key feature of economic diplomacy 

in this era was trade, not foreign aid.

President Obasanjo actively utilized economic diplomacy in the formation and 

strengthening of trade relations with Britain, America, France and Germany, core financiers of 

the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (Ota & Ecoma, 2016, p. 12). At the 

multinational level, President Obasanjo attended sessions of the United Nations (UN), G77, G15, 

G8, OPEC, World Bank, IMF, UNESCO, Non-Aligned Movement, Commonwealth 

Organization, African Union (AU), ECOWAS and many other organizations to further entrench 

Nigeria’s interests on a global and regional scale (Imoukhede, 2016, p. 8). His bilateral 

engagements on economic diplomacy resulted in the following partnerships as documented by 

Kia et al. (2017, p. 20): Nigeria–Cameroon Joint Commission, Nigeria–Morocco Joint 

Commission, Nigeria–South Africa Bi-National Commission; Nigeria–Egypt Cooperation,

Nigeria–Niger Joint Commission (Consolidate), Nigeria–Ethiopia on Technical Aid Corp, and 

Nigeria–Sao Tome Joint Development Relations

The administration also utilized economic diplomacy to deepen its commitments to 

regional cooperation and integration through a plan to undertake a gas pipeline project linking 

the Republic of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, Niger and Nigeria on the one 

hand; and a West African pipeline project linking Benin, Ghana, Niger and Togo on the other 

(Ota & Ecoma, 2016, p. 12). Nigeria showed strong determination towards the success of the 

New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) (Nwanolue & Iwuoha, 2012, p. 80). 

President Obasanjo’s administration’s interest on economic integration and international 

institutions attracted some domestic criticisms (Oni & Taiwo, 2016), in the sense that he was 

accused of expending excessive resources on the pursuit of economic diplomacy (Ota & Ecoma, 

2016) and neglecting the problem of corruption that was festering and becoming more 

institutionalized by the day in Nigeria.

Economic diplomacy featured prominently on President Jonathan’s Transformation 

Agenda leading to the renegotiation and review of several bilateral agreements and the brokering 

of new ones. Examples include: Bilateral Joint Commission with Indonesia, India, Singapore and 

Malaysia; and leadership of the D8, the group of Eight Developing Countries (Kia et al., 2017, p. 

22). Lawal & Aluko (2016) identify that in a bid to engage the use of foreign missions in the 

realization of economic diplomacy, President Jonathan appointed career diplomats as 

ambassadors to Nigeria’s foreign missions.

President Buhari also visited China to solidify trade and economic and diplomatic 

relations with that country. Specifically, it led to the signing of an agreement to enhance 

development of infrastructure and industrial activities in Nigeria between China and Nigeria on 

Technological and Scientific Cooperation. Following the visit, China granted Nigeria a loan to 

finance the 2016 budget deficit (Bello et al., 2017, p. 50) and other infrastructural development 

plans of Nigeria.

Citizen Diplomacy

During President Obasanjo’s administration, foreign policy was targeted at economic and 

shuttle diplomacy as a strategy to rehabilitate Nigeria’s image and facilitate national 

development. President Yar’Adua, however, sought to reap the gains of the reintegration 

advanced by President Obasanjo’s administration through the protection of citizens’ interest 

(Ukwuije, 2015).Thus, as Dickson (2010) highlights, citizen diplomacy is a foreign policy thrust

many

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 49

under which the Federal Government of Nigeria seeks the involvement of Nigerians at home and 

in diaspora in its effort to develop the country economically and politically. The articulation of 

citizen diplomacy by President Yar’Adua was hinged on a more citizen-centric foreign policy 

(Ujara & Ibietan, 2014), a seeming departure from the Afrocentric policy that Nigeria’s foreign 

policy had advanced for several decades. The policy as espoused by Ojo Maduekwe, minister of 

foreign affairs in 2007, centered on reciprocity, implying that the manner in which Nigerians are 

treated by a particular country would determine the manner in which Nigeria would treat the 

citizens of that country (Agbu, 2009). 

Citizen diplomacy was targeted at enhancing citizen welfare and national image-building, 

and the policy espouses that Nigerians should be the number one stakeholders and first 

beneficiaries of any external engagement that Nigeria embarks upon (Aleyomi & Abu Bakar 

2017). This was not the case as Nigerians continued to be intimidated and oppressed within the 

country and abroad, with little or no recourse to compensation or reciprocity as the case may be. 

One of the few times when the Nigerian government functioned well while engaging citizen 

diplomacy was on the diplomatic row between Nigeria and South Africa where 125 Nigerians 

were deported for allegedly presenting fake yellow fever cards by South Africa. Nigeria 

responded by returning about 100 South Africans trying to enter Nigeria following the event 

(Egwemi & Ochim, 2016, p. 127). In spite of the laudable nature of the policy, challenges 

encountered in conceptualization and implementation led to its poor appraisal (Akinterinwa, 

2013). 

Discussion of Some Unresolved Issues in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy

Domestic Challenges

Given the fact that foreign policy is an offshoot of domestic public policy, a stable 

economic and political economy is crucial to the actualization of foreign policy in the 

international arena (Ukwuije, 2015). Since 1999, Nigeria has contended with multiple crises 

resulting from communal and religious-based violence, resource activism which has taken the 

form of militancy, and fluctuations in global oil prices, thus leading to political and economic 

instability (Abdul &Ibrahim, 2013, p. 40).

While Nigeria may have a large economy, it is riddled with serious economic crises 

stemming from huge dependence on exportation of primary goods, especially crude oil and 

importation of finished materials (Enuka & Ojukwu, 2016). Worthy of note is the role that 

corruption plays in the underdevelopment of the Nigerian state, ultimately countering foreign 

policy actions of the state. Awojobi (2014, p. 155), argues that funds allocated for the 

development of the country have been mismanaged by political office holders since 1999. 

Dividends of corruption are visible in the poor health and power sectors, constantly deteriorating 

road networks, and poor infrastructural development and non-functional refineries, to mention a 

few. Awojobi (2014, p. 155), argues further that “poverty is a by-product of insecurity. The 

security challenges that are facing Nigeria have been blamed on the high level of corruption and 

poverty in the country.”

One of the most devastating challenges Nigeria currently faces is that of terrorism. The 

Boko Haram terrorists wreak havoc in the northeast region of Nigeria and attack defenseless 

Nigerians, religious bodies and even the nation’s security forces (Warner, 2016). The Fulani 

herdsmen in the Middle Belt region have attacked farming communities repeatedly, leading to 

wanton killings. Benue state alone has suffered about 20 different attacks in 2017 and mthrough

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 50

others in 2018 leading to scores of deaths and colossal destruction of properties (Ayitogo, 2018).

The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) (2017, p. 24) records that the Fulani herdsmen launched more 

attacks and were responsible for more deaths than the Boko Haram in 2016. According to the 

GTI report, the total number of people the herdsmen have killed exceed 2,500 people between 

2012 and 2016.

Another cause for concern is the tension arising from the secessionist claims by Biafran 

organizations in the southeast. The same secessionist claims were made during the Nigerian civil 

war of 1967-1970, but following the end of the war, the thought of a unified Nigeria was 

embraced once again (Campbell, 2017). Akinterinwa (2017a) states that the military instituted 

the doctrine known as “Operation Python Dance” to check the threats to national security from 

the southeast in Nigeria. However, southeastern observers have called to question the motive of 

the federal government for not directing the same amount of resources and action to tackle the 

kidnapping, armed robberies and killings by Fulani herdsmen that has been going on in other 

parts of the country.

As Ukwuije (2015) posits, there is a need for synergy between the domestic and external 

environments for the successful pursuit of any country’s foreign policy. Import from the linkage 

theory would suggest that, for as long as the domestic environment of Nigeria’s foreign policy is 

characterized by the challenges expressed above, the country’s foreign policy objectives cannot 

be achieved since none of the self-respecting nations would take the country seriously in the 

conduct of international affairs. Corroborating this, Anyaoku (2017) alludes to fixing Nigeria’s 

domestic situation, which comprises security deficits, challenge of political stability, economy,

and the socioeconomic welfare of citizens. He counsels on the need to achieve a reasonable 

balance between domestic and foreign policies in order to maintain credible leadership regionally 

and continentally, among others.

Nigerians in Diaspora

The cardinal plank of citizen diplomacy is that the protection of the welfare of Nigerians 

at home and abroad should be the major interest guiding Nigeria’s foreign policy. After all, a 

state is not a state if it cannot protect its citizens. Akinterinwa (2017b) asserts that diaspora is a 

component of foreign policy and it is a Nigerian affair. He further argues that in the context of 

international relations, diaspora affairs fall under private international law, making it a matter of 

paramount importance to the government on the subject of foreign policy.

Nigerians in South Africa have experienced xenophobic attacks for several years (Ade-

Ibijola, 2013). Apart from South Africa, Nigerians have been killed in Saudi Arabia, Singapore 

and China over drug-related offences without any inquiry or verification on the alleged offences 

by the Nigerian government. Chinese police in particular have reportedly beaten Nigerian 

immigrants to death, while over 500 Nigerians are said to be in Chinese prisons with offences 

ranging from robbery to drug issues (Kupoluyi, 2017). Ezugwu (2015, p. 1) records that there are 

over 16,300 Nigerians across the world serving jail terms for drug related offences alone, serving 

as a pointer to the fact that a lot more have been imprisoned for other reasons.

Besides the above data, the dehumanizing treatment given to Nigerians while being 

deported from some foreign countries is also a credible example. There are acceptable minimum 

standards which deportees should be subjected to while in transit, and yet cases of Nigerian 

deportees in handcuffs and leg chains abound (The Guardian Editorial, 2017). In the quest to 

migrate from Nigeria at all costs, some Nigerians engage in illegal movements through

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 51

dangerous routes in search of greener pastures. Some of these Nigerians end up stranded in 

deserts and strange lands across the world. Recently the government started the process of 

evacuating stranded citizens in Libya (who were being sold as slaves) in batches of 250 people 

per week (Warami, 2017). The care given to Nigerians abroad by the Nigerian government is 

predicated on the care given to Nigerians living in Nigeria (Ujara & Ibietan, 2014). As such, 

pursuing a foreign policy that pays attention to Nigerians abroad and neglecting those at home 

belongs to the realm of sophistry. To redress this state of affairs, Nigeria’s national or citizens’

interest must be pursued on agreed principles, philosophy, goals and objectives that are clearly 

articulated. The non-justiciability of issues contained in Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution of the 

Federal Republic of Nigeria on Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, 

especially Section 19 dealing with Foreign Policy, vitiates these lofty ideals. Extant literature 

(Okeke & Okeke, 2013; Olaiya, 2015; Enuka & Ojukwu, 2016; Nwauzi, 2017a; and Nwauzi, 

2017b) support the above assertion. 

To be sure, Okeke & Okeke (2013, p. 14) submit that the objectives and directive 

principles contained in that part of the constitution were meant to be non-justiciable, and the 

same document created an ambivalence that mandates the legislature (National Assembly) to 

enact laws that makes certain items/parts of that chapter to be justiciable. To navigate these 

hurdles and contraption, the policy instruments and domestic environment must be conducive 

and pivoted on good governance to deliver democratic dividends maximally to citizens.

Image Crisis

A state with an image crisis is difficult to advertise in the “diplomatic market” (Egwemi, 

2010, p. 134). Therefore, a country’s image needs to be framed adequately in order to gain 

respect and relevance in the international system. Nigeria’s image in the comity of nations has 

reduced drastically due to the activities of Niger-Delta militants in the South South, the Boko 

Haram insurgents in the northeast and other parts of the country, the Fulani herdsmen in the 

Middle Belt and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) (Campbell, 2017). Nigeria is ranked the 

third most terrorized country on the globe after Iraq and Afghanistan by the Global Terrorism 

Index (GTI, 2017, p. 14). Bad governance at the domestic level is partly responsible for the mass 

exodus of Nigerians to other countries in search of greener pastures who are sometimes caught 

committing crimes, thus giving the country a bad image (Uhomoihbi, 2011). Some Nigerians 

responsible for the projection of a bad image are corrupt government officials, drug and human 

traffickers, and fraudsters who operate online and offline, duping foreigners and citizens of their 

financial resources. Some examples include: the sentencing of five Nigerians to various jail 

terms in the UK for the theft of £610,000 from business bank accounts which they successfully 

carried out by using stolen data, impersonation and false representation (Odunsi, 2017, p. 1); 

three Nigerians who were sentenced in the United States for a cumulative 235 years for 

defrauding victims through dating sites, mail fraud, identity theft, credit card theft and theft of 

government property; another Nigerian who has been charged with 269 counts of wire fraud and 

money laundering which he executed by claiming to be a wealthy Nigerian prince willing to 

share his inheritance (Adekunle, 2017); and five Nigerians arrested in India for drug and human 

trafficking which they confessed to after being found in possession of cocaine, ganja and 

amphetamine tablets (Editorial, Daily Post, 2017), to mention but a few.

four

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 52

Reciprocity

The principle of reciprocity entails that each country expects to be treated in the manner 

in which it treats others and vice versa. It also entails the use of retaliation as a deliberate 

strategy to end, maintain or nourish diplomatic ties (Egwemi & Ochim, 2016). Enuka and

Ojukwu (2016) underscore the principle of reciprocity as favors, benefits or penalties that are 

granted by one state to the citizens or legal entities of another that should be returned.

The concept of reciprocity is embedded in the citizen diplomacy framework as diplomacy 

of consequence. However, in the light of meagre resources devoted to sustaining citizen 

diplomacy (Aleyomi & Abu Bakar, 2017, p. 1235), the reciprocity principle has not been 

properly implemented in Nigeria’s foreign policy. Reciprocity as foreign policy instrument is not 

restricted to citizen diplomacy, and it should also be viewed as one of the driving forces of the 

Afrocentric policy. Akinyemi (1987) argues that if Nigeria is to undertake responsibilities 

towards Africa’s benefit, Africa ought to do the same for Nigeria. Egwemi and Ochim (2016) 

state that to expect countries to continuously relate with Nigeria on the basis of past benevolence 

is misleading. Every state will pursue its national interests irrespective of Nigeria’s expectations.

Ota and Ecoma (2015) support the notion that Nigeria needs to review her relations with 

her neighbors and African counterparts in general to incorporate the principle of reciprocity. Oni 

and Taiwo (2016) corroborate that Nigerian foreign policy actors should ignore the big-brother 

approach for more beneficial approaches in the quest for relevance in the international system. 

Emphasis should be placed on the reciprocity principle as the beacon of citizen-centrism and 

Afrocentrism as foreign policy thrust.

Nigeria as a country possesses vast resources at her disposal ranging from human, 

geographical, and material and mineral resources that can be useful in the implementation of the 

reciprocity principle. To this end, it is expected that Nigeria engage vigorously this principle in 

the pursuit of national interest and in foreign policy implementation. The inability of the country 

to maximize the use of these resources has accounted for its recent ineptitude in diplomatic 

engagement, causing it to be comically referred to as a “toothless bulldog” in view of recent 

occurrences nationally and internationally. Anyaoku (2017) corroborates that Nigeria has lost its 

leadership role due to the aforementioned issues and proceeds to identify security challenges and 

military incursions into the country’s governance and public administration as parts of the 

drawback to be addressed through restructuring.

Conclusion 

It is observable from the discussion in this paper that Nigeria’s foreign policy in the 

Fourth Republic experienced its zenith under President Obasanjo. Subsequent administrations 

could not equal the achievements of his administration. Thus, since his exit from power, 

Nigeria’s foreign policy has not been as assertive as it should be. The major foreign policy 

thrusts highlighted in the Fourth Republic could be seen as trial and error attempts. This is 

coupled with the fact that Nigeria’s foreign policy in the Fourth Republic bears convergence with 

that of the Second Republic, replete with inherent domestic issues bedeviling the successful 

implementation of foreign policy. 

Some of the major unresolved issues in Nigeria’s foreign policy in the Fourth Republic 

that have been identified include: domestic challenges, Nigerians in diaspora, image crisis, and 

reciprocity. While these are not the only issues identifiable, this study chose to analyze these four

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 53

in order to unravel the prospects for Nigeria’s foreign policy (once they can be tackled). Prior to 

the Fourth Republic, Nigeria remained a force in regional affairs because of its bold foreign 

policy stance and its ability to assert hegemonic influence over states within the region. 

Arising from the lethargy witnessed after the President Obasanjo administration’s years 

to effectively manage the domestic situation, Nigeria plunged into issues like political instability, 

economic crises, civil unrests/terrorist activities, and sundry governance deficits. The adoption of 

the linkage approach to foreign policy analysis shed light on the fact that there are remedial 

measures that can be taken by the Nigerian government to review and restructure the foreign 

policy in such a manner that caters for contemporary issues. To this end, this study proffers the 

following recommendations.

Recommendations

1. An urgent review of Nigeria’s foreign policy to capture the protection of the rights and 

the welfare of Nigerians at home and abroad. Once Nigerians are satisfied, they can begin to 

serve as citizen diplomats and ambassadors of the country, projecting good values and a positive 

national image. There is a need to revisit and tinker with Section 19, Chapter 2 of the 1999 

Nigerian Constitution as part of the issues requiring legislative (National Assembly) intervention 

to make it enforceable and justiciable.

2. A more proactive and community-based approach to tackling national security should 

be adopted. This would require a reinvigoration of security apparatus and architecture for 

national security, provision of adequate training of personnel, and effective motivation.

3. Nigeria needs to make huge investments in cybersecurity and electronic surveillance to 

enable the monitoring of activities of fraudulent individuals offline or online that have 

contributed in rupturing the image of Nigeria externally.

4. Nigeria’s foreign policy should reflect the reciprocity principle in the sustenance of the 

Afrocentric policy. If the policy is to be maintained, it needs to be carried out with recourse to 

achieving national interest on bilateral and multilateral platforms.

5. There is a need for the current administration to be more pragmatic about tackling 

corruption in Nigerian public institutions. A high level of corruption stunts development within 

the country and consequently affects the country’s stature in international affairs.

6. Nigeria’s foreign missions require adequate funding to cater to the needs of Nigerians 

in diaspora. They contribute significantly to the economic development of the country and their 

welfare should be a priority to the Nigerian government.

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 54

References

Abdul, S. & Ibrahim, M. (2013). Interrogating Nigeria’s Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: 

Reflections on the Gains and Challenges of Obasanjo’s Administration 1999-2007. 

Bassey Andah Journal, 6, 31-51.

Adebajo, A. (2008). Hegemony on A Shoestring: Nigeria’s Post-Cold War Foreign Policy. In A. 

Adebajo, & A. Mustapha (ed.), Gulliver’s Troubles: Nigeria’s Foreign Policy After the 

Cold War. South Africa: University of Kwazulu-Natal Press, 1-40.

Ade-Ibijola, O. A. (2013). Overview of National Interest, Continuities and Flaws in Nigeria 

Foreign Policy. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social 

Sciences, 3 (1), 565-572.

Adekunle, M. (2017, May 26). America Jails 3 Nigerian Scammers 235 Years. Vanguard.

Retrieved from: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/05/america-jails-3-nigerian-

scammers-235-years/amp/

Adeola, G. L.& Ogunnoiki, A. O. (2015). The Pursuance of Nigeria’s Domestic and Foreign 

Policy in the Fourth Republic: Complementarity or Contradiction. Journal of Social 

Sciences and Humanities, 1 (4), 434-444.

Afinotan, L. (2015). Continuity and Change in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy (1960-2016). Ife Social 

Sciences Review, 24 (2), 161-183.

Agbu, O. (2009). Nigerian Foreign Policy Under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua: Challenges 

and Prospects. In O. Eze (ed.), Citizen Diplomacy. Victoria Island: The Nigerian Institute 

of International Affairs, 41-62.

Akinterinwa, B. (2013, April 21). Citizen Diplomacy as Basis of Democratic Institutions. This 

Day, pp. 12, 24.

Akinterinwa, B. (2017b, March 12). Protection of Nigerians in International Relations and 

Nigeria’s Recidivist Foreign Policy Faux Pas. This Day. Retrieved from: 

https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2017/03/12/protection-of-nigerians-in-

international-relations-and-nigerias-recidivist-foreign-policy-faux-pas/

Akinterinwa, B. (2017a, September 17). Operation Python Dance and IPOB: The Foreign Policy 

Dimensions. This Day. Retrieved from: 

https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2017/09/17/operation-python-dance-and-ipob-

the-foreign-policy-dimensions/

Akinyemi, B.A. (1987). Reciprocity in Nigerian Foreign Policy (The Akinyemi Doctrine). 

Nigerian Forum, (6), 1-3.

Aleyomi, M. & Abu Bakar, M. (2017). The Challenges of Citizen Diplomacy in Nigeria Project, 

2007-2010. International Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (2), 1227-1250.

Alli, W. (2010). The Changing Environment of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. In O. C. Eze (ed.), 

Beyond 50 Years of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues, Challenges and Prospects. Victoria 

Island: The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, 221-240.

Anyaoku, E (2017, August 11). We Need Presidential Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs. The 

Sun, p.1

Aremu, J. O. (2015). Afro-Centricism in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Agenda, 1960-1999: Some 

Documentary Evidence. Azerbaijanian Journal of Economics and Social Studies (5), 48-

61.

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 55

Ashiru, O. (2013, April 16). Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. This Day. Retrieved from: 

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/nigeria-s-foreign-policy-new-realities-in-a-changing-

world/144998/

Awojobi, O. (2014). Political Corruption and Underdevelopment in Nigerian Fourth Republic. 

International Journal of Innovation and Scientific Research, 11 (1), 151-157.

Ayitogo, N. (2018, January 3). Buhari Speaks on Benue Killings. Premium Times. Retrieved 

from: https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/254356-buhari-speaks-benue-

killings.html

Babawale, T. (1988). Continuity and Change in Awolowo’s View of Foreign Policy. In O. 

Oyelaran, T. Falola, M. Okoye & A. Thompson (eds.), Obafemi Awolowo: The End of an 

Era? Selected Papers from the National Conference on "Obafemi Awolowo: The End of 

an Era?" Ile-Ife: University Press Limited, 682-693.

Barika, N. L. (2014). Nigerian Foreign Policy from 1960-2003: Implications for Present and 

Future Leaders. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19 (8), 52-58.

Bello, I., Dutse, A. I. & Othman, M. F. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Nigeria Foreign Policy 

Under Muhammadu Buhari Administration 1983-1985 and 2015-2017. Asia Pacific 

Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 4 (4), 43-52.

Boma Lysa, D., Terfa, T. & Tsegyu, S. (2015). Nigerian Foreign Policy and Global Image: A 

Critical Assessment of Goodluck Jonathan’s Administration. Journal of Mass 

Communication Journalism, 5 (10), 279-289.

Campbell, J. (2017, September 20). Biafria is Back. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 

from: https://www.cfr.org/blog/biafra-back

Chidozie, F., Ibietan, J. & Ujara, E. (2014). Foreign Policy, International Image and National 

Transformation: A Historical Perspective. International Journal of Innovative Sciences & 

Humanities Research, 2 (4), 49-58.

Dauda, S. & Bako, Y. (2012). Impact of Shuttle Diplomacy on Foreign Direct Investment in 

Nigeria, 1999-2007. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and 

Social Sciences, 1 (6), 1-17.

Dickson, M. (2010). Citizen Diplomacy in President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s Nigeria, 2007-

2009: An Assessment. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 1 (1.3), 

1-12.

Editorial, Daily Post. (2017, July 25). 5 Nigerians Arrested for Drugs, Human Trafficking in 

India. Retrieved from Daily Post: https://dailypost.ng/2017/07/25/5-nigerians-arrested-

drugs-human-trafficking-india/amp/

Editorial, The Guardian. (2017, April 12). The Humiliation of Nigerians Abroad. Retrieved from 

The Guardian: Opinion: https://guardian.ng/opinion/the-humiliation-of-nigerians-abroad/

Egwemi, V. (2010). Managing Nigeria’s Image Crisis: Akunyili’s Rebranding Programme to the 

Rescue. Current Research Journal of Economic Theory, 2 (3), 131-135.

Egwemi, V. & Ochim, F. I. (2016). Reciprocity in International Affairs: An Analysis of 

Nigeria/South Africa “Yellow Fever” Diplomatic Face-Off, March, 2012. African 

Research Review, 10 (1), 116-133.

Eneanya, A. (2012). Research Methods in Political Science and Public Administration. Yaba: 

University of Lagos Press

Enikanolaiye, S. (2013, September 22). Nigeria’s African Policy: An Overview (1). This Day, p. 

19.

Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic 56

Enuka, C. & Ojukwu, E. C. (2016). Challenges of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. International 

Journal of Arts and Humanities, 5 (2), 52-66.

Eze, O. C. (2010). Interrogating Nigeria’s Interest. In O. C. Eze (ed.), Beyond 50 years of 

Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues, Challenges and Prospects. Victoria Island: The 

Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, 79-92.

Ezugwu, O. (2015, June 25). The Silent Wails of Nigerians in Foreign Prisons. Retrieved from 

Business Hallmark: http://hallmarknews.com/the-silent-wails-of-nigerians-in-foreign-

prisons/

Fayomi, O., Chidozie, F. & Ajayi, L. (2015). Nigeria’s National Image and Her Foreign Policy: 

An Exploratory Approach. Open Journal of Political Science, 5, 180-196.

Folarin, S. (2010). National Role Conceptions and Nigeria’s African Policy, 1985-2007. 

Unpublished PhD Thesis Ota: Covenant University.

Frankel, J. (1972). Contemporary International Theory and Behaviour of State. New York: Free 

Press.

Gitelson, S. A. (1980). The Linkage Between External and Domestic Policies: Israel’s 

Experience with Ghana and Nigeria. Jewish Social Studies, 42 (2), 95-118.

Global Terrorism Index (GTI). (2017). Global Terrorism Index 2017: Measuring and 

Understanding the Impact of Terrorism. Institute for Economics and Peace.

Gourevitch, P. (1978). The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic 

Politics. International Organization, 32, 881-911.

Imoukhede, B. K. (2016). Repositioning Nigeria Foreign Policy for National Development: 

Issues, Challenges and Policy Options. Afro Asian Journal of Social Sciences, VII (II), 1-

14.

James, P. & Rioux, J. S. (1998). International Crises and Linkage Politics: The Experiences of 

the United States, 1953-1994. Political Research Quarterly, 51 (3), 781-812.

Kia, B., Nwigbo, T. S. & Ojie, P. A. (2017). Foreign Policy Strategy of the Federal Republic of 

Nigeria 1960-2012: The Missing Link. International Journal of International Relations, 

Media and Mass Communications Studies, 3 (2), 10-27.

Kupoluyi, A. (2017, September 14). Who Will Save Nigerians Abroad? Retrieved from The 

Hope Newspapers: http://thehopenewspapers.com/2017/09/who-will-save-nigerians-

abroad/

Lawal, E. E. & Aluko, O. I. (2016). Nigerian Foreign Policy: A Fourth Republic Diplomatic 

Escapade. Humanities and Social Sciences, 9, 708-721.

Meierding, E. (2010). IR Theory as Politics, International Politics as Theory: A Nigerian Case 

Study. African Nebula, September, 1-17.

Nwanolue, B. & Iwuoha, V. (2012). A Reflection on Nigeria’s Past: Africa as the Centerpiece of 

Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Revisited. Developing Country Studies, 2 (4), 76-84.

Nwauzi, L. (2017a). Justiciability of Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State 

Policy: Under the 1999 Nigerian Constitution. International Journal of Law, 3 (5), 29-37.

Nwauzi, L.O. (2017b). How Fundamental are the Fundamental Objectives and Directive 

Principles under Chapter II of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999? Donnish Journal of Law 

and Conflict Resolution, 3 (3), 029-034.

Odubajo, T. (2017). Domestic Environmental Variables and Foreign Policy Articulation of the 

Buhari Administration in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. Brazilian Journal of Strategy and 

International Relations, 6 (11), 73-96.

Journal of International and Global Studies Volume 10, Number 1 57

Odunsi, W. (2017, November 11). Nigerians Jailed in UK for £610,000 Fraud. Retrieved from 

Daily Post: https://dailypost.ng/2017/11/10/nigerians-jailed-uk-610000-fraud-

photo/amp/#top/

Okeke, G. N. & Okeke, C. (2013). The Justiciability of the Non-Justiciable Constitutional Policy 

of Governance in Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 7 (6), 09-14.

Olaiya, T. A. (2015). Interrogating the Non-Justiciability of Constitutional Directive Principles 

and Public Policy Failure in Nigeria. Journal of Politics and Law, 8 (3), 23-35.

Olatunji, K. (2018, February 27) Anyaoku, Sanusi, Moghalu Seek Effective Foreign, Domestic 

Policy. The Guardian, p.1

Oni, E. O. & Taiwo, A. M. (2016). Re-Thinking Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Beyond “Big 

Brotherism” Towards Economic Diplomacy. Canadian Social Science, 12 (10), 62-71.

Ota, E. N. & Ecoma, C. S. (2015). Nigerian Foreign Policy in a Globalising World: The 

Imperative of a Paradigm Shift. Journal of Asian Development, 1 (1), 55-65.

Ota, E. N. & Ecoma, C. S. (2016). Nigerian Foreign Policy and the Democratic Experiment: The 

Lessons of History and Options for the 21st Century. International Journal of Applied 

and Advanced Scientific Research (IJAASR), 1 (1), 9-18.

Pada, P. (2006, April 5). The Intermestic Affairs: A Theoretical Approach. Retrieved from The 

Academia Chronicle: http://perrypada.blogspot.com.ng/2006/04/intermestic-affairs-

theoretical.html

Sani, S. (2012). Nigeria’s Foreign Policy, Globalisation and National Stability. In E. Anyaoku, 

Review of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Issues and Perspectives. Victoria Island: The 

Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, 63-101.

Starrels, J. & Mallinckrodt, A. (1978). East German Foreign Policy. In J. Kuhlman, The Foreign 

Policies of Eastern Europe: Domestic and International Determinants, Volume 1. 

Netherlands: Brill, 79-101.

Uhomoibhi, M. (2011). Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: Current Features, Enduring Challenges and 

Prospective Solutions. In C. Ikoro, Nigeria: Half a Century of Progress & Challenges. 

Benin: True Expression Press, 38-49.

Ujara, E. & Ibietan, J. (2014). Citizen Diplomacy and Nigeria’s International Image: The Social 

Constructivist Explanation. Covenant Journal of Business and Social Sciences (CJBSS), 6

(2), 14-30.

Ukwuije, C. (2015). Reflections on Nigerian Foreign Policy Posture Under Musa Yar’Adua and 

Goodluck Jonathan on National Progress and International Relations. International 

Policy Brief Series, 5 (1), 109-118.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2008). World Investment 

Report. New York & Geneva: UNCTAD.

Warami, U. (2017, November 30). Nigeria Flies Migrants Home From Libya After Slavery 

Scare. Retrieved from Vanguard: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/11/nigeria-flies-

migrants-home-libya-slavery-scare/

Warner, J. (2016). Nigeria and "Illusory Hegemony" in Foreign and Security Policymaking: Pax-

Nigeriana and The Challenges of Boko Haram. Foreign Policy Analysis, 0, 1-24.