May 14, (THEWILL) – In 1960, shortly after gaining independence, Nigeria boldly declared that “Africa would be the centrepiece” of its foreign policy. This vision, championed by Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, shaped the country’s early engagement with the world and positioned Nigeria as a key player in the liberation, unity, and development of Africa. For decades, this Afrocentric stance was not only a diplomatic identity but also a moral responsibility that Nigeria embraced with pride and action.
In the years that followed, Nigeria took its place as a strong advocate for African solidarity. It played prominent roles in the liberation of Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and especially South Africa, providing diplomatic, financial, and military support to end colonialism and apartheid. The Murtala/Obasanjo regime of the 1970s gave bold and practical meaning to these ideals. Nigeria became a haven for freedom fighters, contributed generously to continental institutions, and led peacekeeping efforts in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Sudan under ECOWAS and the OAU.
However, in recent decades, Nigeria’s strong Afrocentric foreign policy has suffered a gradual decline. The enthusiasm and leadership once associated with Nigeria’s continental posture have dimmed. The military regimes of the 1990s, followed by prolonged economic hardship, insecurity, and political instability, redirected national energy inward. Nigeria’s foreign policy became more reactive than visionary, and its influence on the continent began to weaken.
While the return to democracy in 1999 sparked hopes of a diplomatic revival, subsequent administrations have struggled to maintain Nigeria’s continental relevance. Diplomatic missions have become underfunded, strategic engagement is inconsistent, and many foreign policy decisions are now shaped by domestic political calculations rather than a clear Pan-African vision. The country’s absence or passivity in key continental decisions, such as the early stages of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), further highlights this decline.
This diplomatic inertia is also evident beyond the continent. The recent crisis in Gaza and the continued suffering of Palestinians have drawn strong reactions from several African and non-African countries alike, some standing firmly on the side of justice, others calling for ceasefires and humanitarian corridors. Yet Nigeria, once a voice of moral clarity in international affairs, has remained largely silent or non-committal. Where Nigeria once led with conviction in global issues tied to oppression and freedom, today it often blends into the background. Its absence from significant global debates like the Gaza-Palestine crisis raises questions about whether its foreign policy is still driven by principle or is now crippled by hesitation Multiple factors contribute to this downturn. Internal insecurity, ranging from insurgency and banditry to separatist threats, has consumed national attention. The economy, heavily dependent on oil and burdened with debt, has limited Nigeria’s ability to fund regional interventions or diplomatic efforts. Moreover, international perceptions of Nigeria have been tarnished by issues such as corruption, cybercrime, and inconsistent governance, weakening the moral credibility that once underpinned its foreign policy.
Nonetheless, traces of Nigeria’s Afrocentric commitment remain visible. The country continues to engage in regional mediation, especially in the West African sub-region, taking strong positions against recent coups in Mali, Guinea, and Niger. It remains active in ECOWAS and contributes to continental conversations on democracy, security, and economic integration. Nigeria also continues to host African students and professionals, sustaining a form of cultural and educational diplomacy.
Still, these gestures are not enough to reclaim the influence Nigeria once held. For the country to truly sustain its Afrocentric foreign policy, it must first address its internal crises. A stable, economically vibrant and secure Nigeria is better positioned to lead Africa. It must reinvest in diplomacy, fund its missions abroad, and cultivate a strategic approach to international relations that prioritises African unity and advancement.
Nigeria’s position as the “Giant of Africa” was never just about size or population; it was about vision, conviction, and leadership. That legacy, though diminished, is not lost. The world is watching, and so is the continent. Will Nigeria rise again as Africa’s voice, or will it remain a sleeping giant clinging to the memory of a glorious past?
***Written by Maryam Aramide Agbaje-Atoyebi
