The recent “strengthening” of the Migration, Justice, and Home Affairs (MJHA) partnership between the United Kingdom and Nigeria marks a pivotal, yet contentious, moment in Afro-British relations. Billed as a “landmark” in security cooperation, the deal introduces the “UK Letter”, dressed up as a mechanism allowing the UK Home Office to bypass traditional passport bottlenecks for removals, alongside a “Fusion Cell” to combat visa fraud.
While the optics suggest a robust defense of sovereign borders, a deeper policy analysis reveals a framework that is increasingly out of sync with the global shift toward Economic Migration Management. For a partnership that claims to be “forward-looking,” it remains stubbornly anchored in the mechanics of removal rather than the dynamics of human capital.
The Asymmetry of the “Security-First” Model
On the surface, the MJHA is presented as a reciprocal arrangement. However, the benefits are fundamentally asymmetrical. The UK gains a fast-track solution to a domestic political pressure point; the visibility of “failed” migration; while Nigeria receives vague assurances regarding business visa streamlining.
As a migration advocate, one must ask: is Nigeria merely serving as an enforcement arm for the UK Home Office? By facilitating the removal of thousands without addressing the structural drivers of their movement, we are treating the symptoms of a global economic disparity while ignoring the disease.
Shifting the Paradigm: Lessons from the ‘Arraigo’ and ‘Chancenkarte’
To move toward a more statesmanlike discourse, we must look to European neighbours who are pioneering more sophisticated, “rooting-based” models.
· Spain’s Arraigo (Social Rooting): Spain has recognized that after two to three years of residency, an individual is no longer just a “migrant” but a community member. Their model allows for the regularisation of status through employment, turning a “legal liability” into a Social Security-contributing asset.
· Germany’s Chancenkarte (Opportunity Card): Germany is moving toward a points-based flexibility that allows migrants to “switch lanes” (Spurwechsel) from irregular status to work permits if they possess the skills the German economy lacks.
These are not “soft” policies. They are economically literate ones. They prioritise the fiscal contribution of the individual over the prohibitive cost of deportation flights and diplomatic friction.
A Blueprint for “Migration for Development”
Nigeria should not be a passive “returning partner.” A truly strategic partnership would advocate for a Global Skill Partnership (GSP).
In this model, the UK would invest in Nigerian vocational training, creating a “dual-track” system. One group of trainees remains to strengthen the Nigerian domestic market, while the other is granted a legal, streamlined pathway to the UK. This transforms the “brain drain” into a “brain gain,” ensuring that Nigeria’s human capital is developed, not just depleted. The initiative, SkillUp Nigeria can be a credible partner in this model.
Furthermore, we must discuss Regularisation for Remittance. With remittances to Nigeria exceeding $20 billion annually, the economic stability of millions of Nigerian households depends on the diaspora. Instead of mass removals, the UK should offer “probationary status” to non-criminal overstayers. This keeps the wheels of the Nigerian economy turning and saves the UK taxpayer the immense cost of enforcement.
In the final analysis, Nigeria and the UK must move from enforcement to engagement. The 2026 UK-Nigeria pact is a functional tool for border security, but it is not a vision for a shared future. If the UK and Nigeria are to be true strategic partners, they must move beyond the “UK Letter.”
We must demand a transition from Security-led Migration to Investment-led Migration. Security is a prerequisite for order, but human capital is the prerequisite for prosperity. A modern, statesmanlike approach would value the Nigerian migrant not by the speed of their departure, but by the potential of their contribution.
Collins Nweke is the author of Economic Diplomacy of the Diaspora (2026) and Senior International Trade Consultant. He writes from Brussels, Belgium.
Collins Nweke DFRA, PhD (hc) a senior international trade consultant, policy commentator, and author based in Belgium, has been appointed President of the International Association of Research Scholars & Administrators Corporation (IARSAC), Delaware, United States.
The appointment, which took effect on 23 February 2026, was confirmed by the Board of Directors of IARSA Consortium following a selection process conducted in December 2025.
IARSAC is the United States unit of a global research consortium, International Association of Research Scholars & Administrators (IARSA) committed to advancing research excellence, academic leadership, and cross-cultural collaboration among scholars and research administrators worldwide. Through its initiatives, the association promotes international research cooperation and strengthens networks connecting scholars, institutions, and policy communities.
In accepting the appointment, Dr. Nweke expressed appreciation for the confidence placed in him and reaffirmed his commitment to supporting the association’s mission.
“I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the leadership of IARSAC. At a time when knowledge and research collaboration are essential to addressing global challenges, institutions like ours must play a stronger role in connecting ideas, institutions, and societies across borders.”
Dr. Nweke brings to the role extensive experience spanning public policy, international economic diplomacy, research collaboration, and diaspora engagement. He is also the author of the book Economic Diplomacy of the Diaspora, which explores the role of global diaspora communities in shaping international economic relations.
Under his leadership, IARSAC is expected to deepen its work in promoting international research cooperation, knowledge exchange, and institutional partnerships across Africa, Europe, and other regions of the world.
Presidential Vision Statement – Why Global Research Collaboration Matters More Than Ever
At a time when the world faces increasingly complex challenges—from climate change and technological disruption to geopolitical fragmentation and widening development gaps—one truth stands out clearly: no nation or institution can solve global problems alone.
Knowledge has always been humanity’s most powerful tool for progress. Yet knowledge reaches its full potential only when it is shared, tested, and enriched through collaboration across borders, disciplines, and cultures.
It is in this spirit that I accept the responsibility to serve as President of the International Association of Research Scholars & Administrators Corporation (IARSAC).
IARSAC stands for something both simple and profound: the belief that research excellence thrives in networks. By connecting scholars, administrators, and institutions from different parts of the world, we create ecosystems where ideas can travel freely and innovation can flourish.
My vision for IARSAC during this period is guided by three priorities.
First, we must strengthen global research networks, ensuring that scholars from every region, including emerging knowledge hubs across Africa and the Global South, are fully integrated into international research conversations.
Second, we must promote knowledge diplomacy: the use of academic collaboration as a bridge between societies, cultures, and policy communities.
Third, we must support the translation of research into practical impact, ensuring that scholarship contributes meaningfully to solving real-world challenges.
Research is not merely an academic exercise; it is a public good. When scholars collaborate across borders, they do more than produce knowledge—they build trust, foster understanding, and create pathways for shared progress.
As we look ahead, IARSAC will continue to champion the idea that global networks of knowledge are essential to a more cooperative and resilient world.
I look forward to working with colleagues across the world to advance this mission.
Collins Nweke DFRA, PhD (hc)
President
International Association of Research Scholars & Administrators Corporation (IARSAC)
More information about the organisation can be found at:
Why the mission to Belgium, Luxembourg and the European Union is one of Nigeria’s most strategically important diplomatic postings today
As I sit in a café overlooking Luxembourgplein, watching the rhythmic bustle of Eurocrats and diplomats, I am reminded how much of the world quietly passes through Brussels. Policies drafted here shape markets, migration, energy, technology, and security far beyond Europe’s borders.
Having called Belgium home for more than three decades, I have seen many Nigerian envoys pass through the gates of Tervurenlaan. Yet the arrival of Ambassador Dr Adebayo E Adeyemi feels different, largely because the moment itself is different.
The world of 2026 is no longer debating potential. It is responding to shifting tectonic plates of power. For Nigeria, the diplomatic mission to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the European Union is not merely another posting. It is the cockpit of Nigeria’s engagement with Europe.
Few diplomatic stations combine such strategic weight.
The Triple Gateway to Europe
The mission in Brussels demands what might be called triple-gateway diplomacy.
Belgium: Europe’s Logistics Nerve Centre
Belgium remains one of Nigeria’s most significant trade partners in Europe. The Port of Antwerp-Bruges, Europe’s second largest seaport, serves as a critical gateway through which Nigerian exports enter the European market.
From cocoa and agricultural commodities to petrochemicals and manufactured goods, this maritime corridor connects Nigeria directly to Europe’s industrial supply chains.
For Nigerian economic diplomacy, Antwerp is not just a port. It is an entry point into the European economy.
Luxembourg: The Financial Fortress
Luxembourg, though small in size, is a giant in global finance. As one of the world’s leading hubs for investment funds and sustainable finance, it holds particular relevance for a Nigeria seeking to diversify beyond oil.
Luxembourg’s sophisticated ecosystem in green bonds, climate finance, and fintech innovation could play a catalytic role in financing Nigeria’s energy transition, infrastructure expansion, and digital economy ambitions. This is where diplomacy meets capital.
The European Union: The Regulatory Superpower
Perhaps most significantly, Brussels is the political and regulatory heart of the European Union.
Today, EU regulations increasingly shape global standards, from data governance and artificial intelligence to carbon border adjustments and supply-chain sustainability rules.
For Nigeria, the EU is already its largest trading partner, accounting for roughly one-third of Nigeria’s external trade. The relationship is also evolving institutionally through initiatives such as the EU–Nigeria Peace, Security and Defence Dialogue and negotiations on a Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement.
The era of donor-recipient engagement is gradually giving way to a more complex relationship; one that must increasingly be framed as a strategic partnership of equals.
Beyond the Cocktail Circuit
For Nigeria’s envoy, success in Brussels will depend on moving beyond traditional diplomatic routines and embracing active economic diplomacy.
Diplomatic receptions and protocol will always matter. But the real work lies elsewhere: in boardrooms, innovation hubs, policy forums, and diaspora networks.
Three strategic opportunities stand out.
The Creative Economy
Nigeria’s creative industries have become global cultural forces. Nollywood, Afrobeats, fashion, gaming, and digital media now command international audiences and investment interest.
Platforms such as the Nigeria Belgium Luxembourg Business Forum must increasingly present these sectors not as cultural exports but as scalable investment ecosystems.
Nigeria’s challenge is to leverage Europe’s continued demand for natural gas while simultaneously mobilising financing for renewable energy expansion.
In the global economy, culture has become capital.
Energy Transition and Green Finance
Europe’s accelerating transition toward cleaner energy creates both pressure and opportunity for energy-producing countries.
Luxembourg’s financial ecosystem could become an important platform for structuring green bonds and blended finance instruments capable of supporting Nigeria’s energy transition while aligning with European ESG standards.
Handled strategically, diplomacy can become a bridge between energy security and energy transformation.
The Diaspora Advantage
Perhaps Nigeria’s most underutilised diplomatic resource in Europe remains its diaspora.
Across Belgium, Luxembourg, and the wider EU, Nigerian professionals occupy influential roles in business, academia, technology, healthcare, and the arts. Their networks reach deep into European institutions and markets.
A forward-looking embassy should treat the diaspora not merely as citizens abroad but as strategic partners in economic diplomacy, a fourth arm of the mission capable of opening doors that traditional diplomatic channels cannot easily access.
The Shadows in the Corridor
Yet Brussels is also a place where narratives matter.
Europe’s perception of Nigeria is too often framed through two lenses: migration and security. Instability across the Sahel and wider West Africa risks reinforcing these narratives, narrowing the scope of engagement.
For any ambassador, the temptation can be to spend valuable diplomatic energy constantly responding to concerns around irregular migration, terrorism, or governance challenges.
But reactive diplomacy rarely advances national interests.
The more strategic path is to reframe Nigeria’s value proposition: as Africa’s largest economy, a cultural powerhouse, a democratic laboratory, and a strategic partner in shaping the future of Africa-Europe relations.
There is also the structural challenge of the EU itself.
Brussels can be a labyrinth of institutions, procedures, and regulatory processes. Diplomacy here requires patience, coalition-building, and sustained engagement across the European Commission, Parliament, Council, and a vast ecosystem of think tanks and policy networks.
In Brussels, influence rarely arrives quickly. But it rewards persistence.
A Citizen’s Charge
Ambassador Ayeni arrives at a time when Nigeria is increasingly articulating a vision of strategic autonomy in global affairs.
Nigeria does not seek charity. It seeks partnership.
The mission in Brussels therefore carries a clear responsibility: to ensure that when Europe debates the future of Africa; whether on energy, migration, technology, or development; Nigeria is not merely present in the room but actively shaping the conversation.
After more than thirty years living in this remarkable and complex country, my hope is to see an embassy that is as dynamic, confident, and forward-looking as the people it represents.
Brussels is often described as the heart of Europe. For Nigeria, it should also become a bridge to opportunity.
The stage is set.
Your Excellency, the floor is yours. Welcome to Brussels.
Belgium’s logistics power, Luxembourg’s financial strength, and the regulatory influence of the European Union make Brussels one of Nigeria’s most strategically important diplomatic postings. The challenge for Nigeria’s new envoy is to convert presence into economic and geopolitical influence. Because diplomacy today is no longer conducted only across negotiating tables, but across networks of trade, finance, technology, and people.
Diplomacy in the twenty-first century is no longer only about representation. It is increasingly about economic positioning. Nowhere illustrates this reality more clearly than Nigeria’s diplomatic mission to Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the European Union.
For many Nigerians, Brussels may appear as just another European capital where Nigeria maintains an embassy. In reality, it is one of the most strategically consequential diplomatic platforms Nigeria possesses anywhere in the world.
From trade logistics to financial capital and regulatory influence, the Brussels mission sits at the intersection of three powerful European systems that directly shape Nigeria’s economic future.
Brussels as Nigeria’s Triple Strategic Gateway
Nigeria’s envoy in Brussels operates within what may best be described as a triple gateway to Europe.
Belgium: Europe’s Logistics Platform
Belgium hosts one of the most important maritime trade hubs in the world. The Port of Antwerp-Bruges serves as a key entry point for goods moving into the European market.
For Nigeria, this port represents more than maritime infrastructure. It is a strategic corridor through which Nigerian exports, from agricultural products to petrochemicals, enter the broader European economy.
A proactive diplomatic strategy in Belgium can therefore directly influence Nigeria’s trade competitiveness in Europe.
Luxembourg: Global Capital Markets
Luxembourg, despite its small size, is one of the world’s most influential financial centres. It hosts one of the largest global investment fund industries and plays a leading role in sustainable finance.
As Nigeria seeks to diversify its economy and finance infrastructure development, Luxembourg offers access to sophisticated financial instruments including green bonds, blended finance structures, and climate investment platforms.
For Nigeria, the Luxembourg dimension of the Brussels mission represents an opportunity to connect diplomacy with global capital markets.
The European Union: Regulatory Powerhouse
The third pillar of the mission is the European Union itself.
EU policy decisions increasingly shape the rules governing global trade, digital markets, climate compliance, and supply-chain sustainability. Measures such as the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, for example, will have direct implications for African exporters.
Nigeria’s presence in Brussels must therefore go beyond ceremonial diplomacy. It must become an active platform for regulatory engagement and strategic dialogue with European institutions.
From Protocol Diplomacy to Economic Statecraft
If Nigeria is to maximise the strategic value of this mission, the embassy in Brussels must function less as a traditional diplomatic outpost and more as a hub of economic diplomacy.
Three areas deserve particular attention.
The Creative Economy Opportunity
Nigeria’s cultural industries, which include film, music, fashion, and digital media, have become global brands with strong commercial potential.
These sectors should be positioned within European markets not simply as cultural expressions but as high-growth investment ecosystems capable of attracting venture capital, distribution partnerships, and technology collaboration…
Economic diplomacy must learn to speak the language of culture as commerce.
Energy Transition and Climate Finance
Europe’s green transition is reshaping global energy markets. For Nigeria, the strategic challenge is to balance its role as a major natural gas supplier while also accelerating domestic renewable energy capacity.
Luxembourg’s financial ecosystem could provide a platform for structuring green financing instruments capable of supporting Nigeria’s long-term energy transition.
Handled strategically, diplomacy can help Nigeria convert climate pressure into investment opportunity.
Harnessing Diaspora Networks
Nigeria’s diaspora across Europe remains one of the country’s most underutilised strategic assets.
Highly skilled Nigerian professionals operate across European institutions, research centres, financial markets, and technology companies. Their networks represent a form of diplomatic capital that traditional embassies often fail to mobilise.
A forward-looking mission should treat the diaspora not merely as citizens abroad but as partners in economic diplomacy.
Five Strategic Priorities for Nigeria’s Brussels Mission
1. Trade Corridors
Deepen commercial engagement through the Port of Antwerp-Bruges as a gateway for Nigerian exports into European markets.
2. Financial Diplomacy
Leverage Luxembourg’s leadership in investment funds and green finance to support Nigeria’s infrastructure and renewable energy ambitions.
3. Regulatory Engagement
Strengthen Nigeria’s presence within EU policy conversations on trade, digital regulation, climate policy, and supply chains.
4. Creative Economy Promotion
Position Nigeria’s cultural industries—film, music, fashion, and digital media—as investment opportunities rather than cultural showcases.
5. Diaspora Economic Power
Treat the Nigerian diaspora in Europe as strategic partners capable of opening doors in business, academia, and policy networks.
The Narrative Challenge
Despite Nigeria’s economic scale and cultural influence, perceptions within Europe are often shaped by narratives centred on migration, governance challenges, and regional insecurity.
If Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement remains reactive, these narratives risk defining the entire relationship.
The more strategic approach is to reposition Nigeria as what it increasingly is: Africa’s largest economy, a major cultural exporter, and a critical geopolitical actor in West Africa.
This shift requires deliberate storytelling, sustained engagement with European policymakers, and strong partnerships with think tanks, business communities, and civil society networks.
A theme I explore in my recent book, Economic Diplomacy of the Diaspora, is that diplomacy in the twenty-first century must expand beyond state institutions to include networks of entrepreneurs, professionals, and communities operating across borders. Brussels provides precisely such an environment, where formal diplomacy intersects with business, finance, and diaspora influence. For Nigeria, leveraging these networks may prove just as important as the traditional tools of statecraft.
A Strategic Opportunity
Nigeria’s mission in Brussels stands at the crossroads of trade, finance, regulation, and diplomacy.
In many ways, it is less a conventional embassy and more a strategic command centre for Nigeria’s engagement with Europe.
The challenge now is to ensure that Nigeria’s presence in Brussels reflects the scale of its ambitions. When Europe debates Africa’s economic future, Nigeria should not merely be represented in the room. Nigeria should help shape the conversation.
Because in the diplomacy of the twenty-first century, influence is not measured only by embassies and protocol, but by the ability to turn networks into opportunity.
And few places offer Nigeria more opportunity to do so than Brussels.
Diplomacy, Perception, and the Berlin Question by Collins Nweke
I have read with great interest the thoughtful intervention by my longtime friend and associate, Frank Ofili, concerning the reported appointment of Femi Fani-Kayode as Nigeria’s Ambassador to Germany. His analysis rightly situates the issue within the broader intersection of diplomacy, history, and perception.
Many watchers will largely align with the thrust of Frank Ofili’s argument captioned FFK As Nigeria’s Ambassador to Germany: Diplomacy or Contradiction?
This is not a question of personalities or partisan loyalties. It is a question of diplomatic calibration the essence of which is the careful alignment between a nation’s envoy and the political sensitivities of the host country. In modern diplomacy, perception can sometimes matter as much as policy.
Germany’s Historical Sensitivity
Germany’s foreign policy posture cannot be understood outside the shadow of the Holocaust. Since the end of the Second World War, successive German governments have framed their relationship with Israel as a moral responsibility. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel captured this sentiment when she told the Knesset that Israel’s security formed part of Germany’s raison d’état. Her successor, Olaf Scholz, has reiterated this doctrine repeatedly.
For Berlin, support for Israel is not merely an element of foreign policy; it is embedded within the country’s historical conscience. It follows that diplomats posted to Berlin must operate within that unique political atmosphere. Any envoy whose past public commentary appears sharply critical of Israel may therefore face unusually intense scrutiny from German political circles, the media, and civil society.
How Berlin Might React
If the appointment proceeds, three arenas in Germany are likely to react quickly:
1. The German Media
Germany’s press culture is robust and investigative. Major newspapers such as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, and Süddeutsche Zeitung routinely examine the public records of incoming ambassadors.
Past statements by the envoy would likely be revisited, contextualised, and debated. This will particularly be so with those touching on Israel or Middle Eastern conflicts. This could frame the diplomatic narrative before the ambassador even presents credentials to the German President.
2. Political Establishment
Within the Bundestag, parties across the ideological spectrum, from the Christian Democrats to the Greens, maintain strong pro-Israel positions. Parliamentary committees dealing with foreign affairs could interpret prior anti-Israel rhetoric as diplomatically awkward.
While Germany would not ordinarily block an ambassadorial appointment, the tone of official engagement might initially become cautious or guarded.
3. Public and Academic Discourse
Germany’s policy ecosystem includes influential think tanks, foundations, and universities deeply engaged in Middle East policy debates. These institutions often shape elite opinion. Questions about the suitability of an envoy could easily enter these circles and amplify reputational concerns.
Possible Negative Fallout
Several practical consequences could emerge if the diplomatic optics become contentious:
1. Distraction from Strategic Priorities
Nigeria’s relationship with Germany spans trade, renewable energy, migration cooperation, technical training, and industrial investment. Diplomatic energy could be diverted from these priorities toward managing reputational controversies.
2. Reduced Informal Access
Diplomacy often advances through informal networks: private dinners, policy forums, quiet consultations. If an envoy begins his tenure under a cloud of controversy, elite access may initially narrow.
3. Media Framing of Nigeria
Unfortunately, international audiences often conflate the persona of an ambassador with the posture of the sending country. The debate may shift from the individual to Nigeria’s diplomatic judgment.
A Four-Point Mitigation Strategy
Even where concerns arise, diplomacy always offers pathways to recalibration.
1. Early Diplomatic Reset
The envoy could proactively signal respect for Germany’s historical sensitivities. A carefully framed public statement acknowledging Germany’s post-war moral commitments could help reset perceptions.
2. Focus on Economic Diplomacy
If the ambassador quickly pivots toward economic cooperation, including investment, green energy partnerships, vocational training, attention may gradually shift from controversy to practical collaboration.
3. Strategic Engagement with Think Tanks
Active participation in policy forums hosted by German foundations such as Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, and others could demonstrate intellectual seriousness and rebuild credibility.
4. Abuja’s Supporting Diplomacy
Nigeria’s foreign ministry could reinforce the relationship through high-level visits, trade missions, and bilateral initiatives that underline the strategic importance of the partnership.
The Abuja–Berlin Institutional Memory
It is also worth noting that the current Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, served previously as Nigeria’s Ambassador to Germany for nearly eight years across two diplomatic postings. This is an unusually long tenure in ambassadorial practice. That experience means he is intimately familiar with the political culture of Berlin, its policy ecosystem, and the sensitivities that shape German foreign policy debates. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the reported appointment of Femi Fani-Kayode could not have emerged entirely outside the awareness of the Foreign Ministry. One may legitimately ask: if reservations existed within the ministry, were they overridden, or were they perhaps judged manageable? It is equally conceivable that Abuja believes any potential diplomatic friction can be mitigated through careful calibration, leveraging the institutional relationships and goodwill built during Ambassador Tuggar’s long tenure in Berlin. For all we know, the groundwork for managing the optics may already be quietly underway.
The Larger Lesson
Nigeria has long been regarded as one of Africa’s diplomatic heavyweights. From the anti-apartheid struggle to peacekeeping across West Africa, Nigerian diplomacy has historically carried considerable moral and strategic weight.
That tradition places a premium on careful ambassadorial selection.
Diplomacy is ultimately the art of building bridges. The strength of those bridges often depends not only on national policy but also on the temperament, reputation, and symbolic alignment of those entrusted to represent the nation abroad.
When the host country is Germany, such alignment becomes even more consequential. Watcher always remind themselves that when it is about Germany, you are dealing with an EU superpower whose foreign policy remains deeply shaped by historical memory. Frank Ofili’s intervention therefore raises a legitimate question: not about loyalty or patriotism, but about strategic fit.
And in diplomacy, strategic fit is rarely a trivial matter.
Collins Nweke is the author of Economic Diplomacy of the Diaspora (2026) and a columnist with Proshare Nigeria and The Brussels Times. He writes from Brussels.
Alliances do not suspend sovereignty. When foreign envoys pressure courts or politicise domestic debate, Belgium must respond with calm firmness — defending institutions without escalating conflict.
Belgium’s relationship with the United States is deep, strategic, and historically rooted. Allies, however, do not suspend the rules of diplomacy. They rely on them even more. That is why recent interventions by Bill White, the United States Ambassador to Belgium, have triggered justified concern, not because of the issues he raises, but because of how he raises them.
When an ambassador publicly urges Belgian authorities to drop an ongoing judicial case, labels domestic legal processes as discriminatory, and repeatedly inserts himself into live political debates, the issue ceases to be one of advocacy. It becomes one of interference. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever was therefore measured but correct in stating that it is “not the ambassador’s job to constantly disrupt national politics.”
This is not a semantic disagreement. It is a constitutional one.
Diplomacy Has Rules Especially Among Allies
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is explicit: diplomats must respect the laws of the receiving state and must not interfere in its internal affairs. That principle is not weakened by friendship; it is strengthened by it. An ambassador is accredited to the Belgian state, not to its prosecutors, courts, or party political debates.
Belgium’s judiciary is independent by design. Ministers cannot order cases dropped. Prosecutors do not take instructions from foreign envoys. To suggest otherwise, publicly and repeatedly, undermines confidence not only in Belgian institutions, but in the very rules-based international order that the United States has long claimed to champion.
This concern is not abstract. It resonates because similar episodes have unfolded elsewhere, including in Nigeria, where U.S. diplomatic commentary strayed into the terrain of domestic political contestation. A pattern begins to emerge: not an isolated misjudgment by one envoy, but a tolerance; if not encouragement; of megaphone diplomacy, where public pressure replaces discreet engagement.
From Diplomacy to Disruption
What distinguishes the current episode is its performative quality. Rather than pursuing concerns through Belgium’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ambassador chose escalation by social media, press interviews, and public moral framing. Judicial procedures were recast as political signals. Disagreement was reframed as malice.
This approach imports culture-war logic into foreign policy: our framing is normative; your institutions must adjust. That may play well in domestic political theatres elsewhere, but it is ill-suited to a constitutional democracy like Belgium.
The danger is not only diplomatic irritation. If normalised, such behaviour invites reciprocity. If one ally publicly pressures courts abroad, others will follow. The result is erosion; slow but cumulative; of sovereign equality.
Belgium is right to resist this drift. The question is how to do so firmly, calmly, and strategically, without turning a boundary-setting exercise into an unnecessary rupture.
A Three-Lane Path to De-Escalation
Belgium has better options than silence on the one hand or escalation on the other. A structured, principled response can lower the temperature while restoring the rules.
Quiet firmness
First, boundaries must be restated. Privately, formally, and on the record. A diplomatic note reminding the embassy of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention is not confrontational. It is corrective. Belgium should insist that all concerns be channelled through institutional mechanisms, not public pressure campaigns.
Equally important is internal discipline: one coordinated government voice, no social-media diplomacy, no personalised sparring. Calm authority deprives disruption of oxygen.
Legal and technical pathways
Second, Belgium can separate policy discussion from judicial interference. Courts must be left alone. But broader questions can be addressed responsibly.
If there are concerns about public health, religious practice, or community reassurance, these belong in expert forums: medical authorities, religious leaders, child-welfare specialists, and legal scholars. Comparative reviews of how other European democracies regulate similar issues can be commissioned without reference to any specific case.
This creates a legitimate off-ramp: Belgium demonstrates seriousness, while making clear that prosecutions are not negotiable.
Alliance guardrails
Third, Belgium should situate the issue where it belongs. And that is within alliance norms. Quiet coordination with EU partners reduces the risk of bilateral pressure tactics. A formal request for clarification from Washington as to whether the ambassador’s statements reflect U.S. policy introduces accountability.
And finally, consequences must remain visible, even if unused. The Vienna Convention allows a receiving state to declare a diplomat persona non grata. That option should remain a last resort. But it must remain real. Boundaries only hold if they are enforceable.
Lessons From History
Diplomatic history is instructive here. States that rush to expulsions often trigger tit-for-tat retaliation and freeze dialogue, while states that tolerate repeated interference risk normalising it. The most effective responses tend to sit between these extremes: early firmness, procedural clarity, and graduated consequences.
There are instructive precedents. In several European capitals during the Cold War, allied diplomats who crossed into domestic political advocacy were quietly reminded of their remit through formal demarches and, where necessary, discreet requests for recall. These were steps that restored diplomatic balance without public rupture. More recently, when governments have moved too quickly to declare diplomats persona non grata, the result has often been reciprocal expulsions, hardened positions, and prolonged diplomatic chill, with little gain beyond symbolic satisfaction.
By contrast, where states have insisted, early and calmly, that concerns be channelled through foreign ministries rather than media platforms, and where judicial independence was non-negotiable but policy dialogue remained open, tensions have de-escalated. In such cases, recall or reassignment occurred quietly, relations stabilised, and institutional boundaries were reaffirmed.
The lesson is consistent across eras: de-escalation works best when it is structured, predictable, and rooted in established diplomatic procedure, not improvised under public pressure.
Sovereignty Is Not Hostility
Belgium’s position need not be anti-American to be pro-Belgian. On the contrary, insisting on respect for institutions is the most alliance-friendly posture available. Allies owe each other restraint.
Belgium can and should say this plainly: we will combat antisemitism with resolve; we will protect religious life within the law; and we will not politicise active judicial processes. Our courts are independent. Our ministers are not prosecutors. Our sovereignty is not a bargaining chip in anyone’s domestic political theatre.
That stance is not provocative. It is constitutional. And it is precisely because Belgium values its alliances that it must insist they be conducted within the rules.
Nearly two million people in Belgium are already at risk of poverty or social exclusion. As welfare reforms move from debate to implementation, the real test is whether activation policies protect people on the way to work. Or simply push hardship elsewhere.
Nearly two million people in Belgium, which is 16.5% of the population, are now at risk of poverty or social exclusion. That is not a marginal statistic. It is a national condition. And it is the backdrop against which Belgium has chosen to implement some of the most far-reaching welfare reforms in decades.
In August 2025, I warned on this space that our welfare debate was drifting from fighting poverty to fighting the poor. It was not a provocation; it was pattern recognition. When social policy shifts from protection to punishment, poverty rarely retreats. It reorganises.
The latest Statbel figures, reported by The Brussels Times, under the headline: Nearly two million Belgians at risk of poverty or social exclusion make that warning harder to dismiss. They confirm how large the vulnerable population already is, before the most disruptive phases of welfare reform have fully taken effect.
A dangerous sequencing problem
In January 2026, I argued that cutting income support without simultaneously removing barriers to work does not “activate” people. It destabilises them. The reform of unemployment benefits now moving through its implementation phase illustrates this with uncomfortable clarity.
Time-limiting benefits may satisfy fiscal logic and political narratives about responsibility. But in the short term, its most predictable effect is an income cliff: households falling abruptly from modest stability into arrears, debt, housing insecurity, and stress. Poverty, unlike ideology, does not respond politely to deadlines.
Crucially, this does not make hardship disappear. It relocates it, onto OCMW/CPAS charities, food banks, local authorities, and informal family networks already under strain. The federal balance sheet may improve on paper, but the social bill does not vanish. It is merely invoiced elsewhere.
The warning signs were never subtle
To suggest that Belgium “did not know” would be inaccurate. Civil society organisations raised alarms early. Trade unions mobilised nationally. Social workers, municipalities, and housing advocates warned that large-scale exclusions would overwhelm local services unless matched by serious investment and safeguards.
Even within mainstream debate, language hardened. Critics did not argue against reform per se; they warned against reform without sequencing; discipline without protection, pressure without pathways. These warnings were not emotional appeals. They were operational ones.
Yet implementation proceeded largely unchanged.
This is what it means to ignore warning signs in modern governance: not that they were unheard, but that they were deemed politically affordable.
I have seen this logic play out at close range. During my first legislative term in municipal governance, I sat on the board of an OCMW/CPAS where success was measured almost exclusively by how fast welfare rolls could be reduced. Special employment schemes were instead used as statistical exits when they ought to serve the purpose of experimental pathways into the labour market. People disappeared from welfare figures, only to reappear later in unemployment data, having gained little real foothold in work. What looked like activation was, in truth, displacement. That experience taught me an enduring lesson: policy that chases clean statistics without caring about transitions does not solve poverty. It reschedules it.
Why the new poverty figures matter now
The latest Statbel-based figures do not yet capture the full impact of reforms still rolling out. That is precisely why they should alarm us. They show that Belgium entered this reform cycle with a very large population already living close to the edge; low-work-intensity households, people facing material and social deprivation, families with little shock-absorption capacity.
When policy tightens income security in such a context, the short-term risk is not theoretical. It is statistical.
And this is where the narrative must change. If poverty indicators worsen in the coming months, it will be tempting to frame that as an unfortunate but necessary “transition cost.” That would be a mistake. A transition that predictably produces avoidable harm is not reform. Call it poor design.
A pro-poor alternative is not anti-work
Arguing for pro-poor policy is not an argument against work, responsibility, or reform. It is an argument for sequencing, dignity, and evidence-based implementation.
Belgium still has choices. A genuinely pro-poor approach would include:
Automatic transitions, so no one falls off an administrative cliff when one benefit ends
Real co-financing for municipalities, where the social load actually lands
Case-based activation, recognising health, age, disability, care responsibilities, and language barriers
Training as a ladder, not a loophole or a sanction
Public impact dashboards, tracking arrears, housing insecurity, and job quality, not just exits from benefit rolls
These are not radical ideas. They are guardrails. They are the difference between reform that strengthens social cohesion and reform that quietly erodes it.
Reform is where policy becomes ethics
Belgium prides itself on a social model built not merely on efficiency, but on solidarity. That model does not forbid reform. But it does demand that reform be judged not only by fiscal metrics, but by lived outcomes.
When nearly two million people are already at risk, the margin for error is slim. Fighting poverty requires investment, patience, and design discipline. Fighting the poor may feel decisive. But it is a strategy that always ends the same way: with higher social costs, deeper distrust, and a society poorer than before. Belgium was warned. It can still choose to listen. This time in implementation, not hindsight.
Following my discussion on TRT World on the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), one thing is clear: this decision restores trade flows, but it does not restore certainty.
The Trump administration’s late-night move reopens duty-free access for over 1,800 African products, ending months of uncertainty for exporters and manufacturers. Yet the renewal is best understood as a pragmatic holding action rather than a return to stable, long-term partnership.
A key point raised during the interview was whether Washington set aside political tensions, particularly with South Africa, which accounts for nearly half of AGOA trade volumes, in order to protect supply chains. The answer is largely yes, but not out of generosity. After more than two decades, AGOA supply chains are deeply embedded in US industries. Letting them collapse would have imposed real costs on American consumers and businesses. Trade pragmatism, in this case, prevailed over political signalling.
However, the extension only runs to year-end. While this prevents immediate disruption, it is insufficient to rebuild full business confidence. Companies invest on multi-year horizons. Short extensions stabilise existing operations but rarely unlock new capital or expansion. For African economies, this narrow window must be used strategically to strengthen compliance, diversify exports, and move further up value chains.
The most consequential signal accompanying the renewal is the insistence on “America First” reciprocity. As discussed in the interview, African markets are not opposed to reciprocity, but they are structurally constrained. Agriculture remains a major source of employment and social stability, and sudden exposure to heavily subsidised US farm products could be destabilising.
What is realistic is calibrated reciprocity: selective and phased market opening, paired with support for African agricultural productivity and value addition. This approach aligns development needs with US commercial interests.
AGOA’s renewal is therefore neither a breakthrough nor a setback. It is a pause in a rapidly evolving global trade order, one that underscores how trade policy is increasingly transactional, conditional, and shaped by geopolitics. The real test is whether this temporary reprieve leads to a modernised, balanced partnership or simply postpones a deeper reckoning.
Europe’s debates over free speech, regulation, and democratic trust often unfold with an air of exceptionalism. Yet Nigeria’s experience offers a timely and uncomfortable mirror. Witnessing the visit of Honourable Jesse Okey-Joe Onuakalusi to the European Parliament, I was reminded how deeply the crises of democracy now transcend geography.
Having stepped back from Belgian active party politics a little over a year ago, I’ve found myself inhabiting an unexpected role: a quiet translator between African and European democratic experiences. It’s a vantage point shaped not by theory but by lived proximity, moving between systems where institutions feel predictable and others where democracy is negotiated daily amid mistrust, misinformation, and civic fatigue.
That perspective framed my role in Brussels as Honourable Onuakalusi prepared to address Parliament on truth in public debate and the collapse of dialogue. What lingered most was not the applause but the irony of the moment: a Nigerian lawmaker, representing a country often portrayed as needing democratic guidance, was speaking to Europe at a time when Europe itself is wrestling with polarisation, mistrust, and regulatory anxiety.
The quiet scene before the speech captured this reversal even more vividly. As officials settled into their seats, a Nigerian parliamentarian stood ready to speak on democratic trust in an institution long considered a symbol of democratic certainty. Attending the VII Transatlantic Summit themed “Free Speech vs. Regulated Speech: Strengthening the Pillars of Democracy,” he had not been summoned for instruction but invited for insight. The roles had not changed by design, but by reality.
Europe often treats Nigeria’s democratic challenges as distant or exceptional. But listening closely that day made something undeniable: Nigeria is not an outlier. It is a mirror. The pressures shaping Nigerian democracy echo, in sharper form, the same dynamics now emerging across Europe.
Consider voter turnout. Fewer than one in three registered Nigerians participated in the most recent general elections. This is frequently read as apathy, but that misses the mark. It is alienation, citizens withdrawing not because they are indifferent, but because they doubt that public debate rests on truth or that participation yields accountability. Europe should recognize these early signals: rising youth disengagement, the normalisation of protest voting, and increasing dependence on regulation to compensate for eroding legitimacy.
Nigeria also illustrates what happens when misinformation becomes ambient rather than episodic. Toxic rhetoric, identity-driven narratives, and persistent falsehoods have not simply distorted debate, they have hollowed it out. Europe remains focused on regulating digital platforms. Nigeria shows what emerges when the shared reality that gives regulation meaning begins to fracture.
A central insight offered in Brussels rejected a false binary dominating Europe’s discourse: free speech versus regulation. Regulation is not the enemy of democracy. Regulation without legitimacy is. Nigeria’s laws to curb misinformation and protect public order often falter not because the laws are absent, but because citizens suspect they serve power rather than people and truth. Europe, expanding its regulatory reach, should take note.
Beneath all of this lies the deeper warning: the collapse of dialogue. When dialogue falters, democracy becomes procedural rather than participatory. Institutions may function, elections may be held, but legitimacy drains quietly. Nigeria’s recent crises show how quickly silence, opacity, and competing narratives can exhaust public trust.
Africa–Europe relations are often framed through the familiar lenses of aid, trade, or the export of values. But moments like the Brussels exchange suggest a different, more equal footing, one rooted in shared democratic vulnerability. Nigeria does not bring ready-made solutions. It brings hard-earned lessons. And if Nigeria is Europe’s mirror, the real question is not whether the reflection applies, but whether Europe is willing to recognise it in time.
Full text of aPresentation by Hon. Jesse Okey-Joe Onuakalusi, Member House of Representatives, Federal Republic of Nigeria at the European Parliament
Protocols President of the Political Network for Values, Honourable Chair: Margarita de la Pisa Distinguished Members of the European Parliament, PfE Group, Spain Lucy Akelo Member of Parliament, Uganda Distinguished parliamentarians, Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,
1. Introduction
I am deeply honoured to address this VII Transatlantic Summit convened by the Political Network for Values – a global platform courageously defending human dignity and fundamental freedoms at a time when these ideals face unprecedented pressure.
Let me begin by thanking the organizers for the opportunity to participate and for inviting me to speak on this topic. Defending Truth in Public Debate: Building Spaces for Dialogue is not merely professional; it is deeply personal. It touches the very bedrock of democracy and our shared humanity.
The recent tragic murders of Charlie Kirk and Miguel Uribe painfully remind us of the dangers confronting those who defend fundamental values in the public arena. Across continents, promoting life, family, freedom, and truth is increasingly treated as a position to be silenced – often through censorship disguised as regulation, rather than through dialogue aimed at consensus.
Yet truth in public debate remains sine qua non for democratic growth. It is the glue of the social contract between leaders and citizens.
2. On the Complexity of Truth
Firstly, we must acknowledge that speaking about truth is extremely challenging. It is challenging because every one of us seated here has a “safe haven” we call or perceive as truth.
For us to have a meaningful conversation, it is imperative that we open our minds to the reality that truth is often place- and time-determinant.
Truth can only be absolute where people share similar culture, orientation, and background. The primary essence of truth is to actualize peace. But seeking truth in isolation – without dialogue – often produces rancour and disunity.
That is why I was particularly pleased that dialogue appears in today’s theme. Dialogue is the major instrument for achieving the peace that truth seeks to bring.
Allow me a simple illustration. Imagine you were raised in the United States and travelled to Nigeria. You asked Tony to buy you a “pair of pants.” Tony returned with underwear. Truthfully, Tony was right – but practically, he was wrong. That was not what you meant.
Even a witness who heard your request would testify that you asked for pants. Yet misunderstanding arose. This is where dialogue becomes indispensable.
As minor and humorous as this example sounds, it reflects why we have so much disagreement in today’s world.
Growing up, my grandmother often said in Igbo: onye si ka mmadu nile mebe kaya, mara nani ya ga ebi – meaning, if you insist everyone must see things exactly your way, be prepared to live alone.
3. Democracy in an Age of Noise
We live in an era of social media with unfettered loud voices but shrinking understanding.
It is an age where opinions travel faster than facts, outrage often replaces reason, and disagreement is too easily mistaken for hostility.
International IDEA confirms what many of us feel: the world is in democratic recession. More countries are declining than improving in democratic performance.
The Washington Post reminds us: “Democracy dies in darkness.”
Former U.S. President John Adams warned that democracy can exhaust itself unless defended. Sir Winston Churchill observed that democracy is the worst form of government – except for all others.
These words compel us to act.
Truth is not a luxury. It is the foundation of legitimacy, the basis of social justice, and the compass of democratic leadership.
4. Nigeria and Africa: A Case Study in Fragile Trust
Let me situate this discussion in Africa, using Nigeria as a case study.
In Nigeria’s 2023 general elections, over 93 million citizens were registered to vote, yet only about 26.7% participated in the presidential election. Similar patterns have persisted since 2003. This is not voter apathy alone – it is voter distrust.
Blatant misinformation, toxic rhetoric, identity politics, and broken promises have driven many citizens away from democratic participation. Where truth disappears from public debate, extremism finds fertile ground.
5. Legal Frameworks for Truth and Dialogue in Nigeria
Nigeria’s Constitution (as amended) guarantees freedom of expression under Section 39, while recognizing reasonable limits in the interest of public order and morality.
Other relevant frameworks include:
1. The Electoral Act 2022 – criminalizing misinformation and hate speech capable of undermining elections.
2. The Cybercrimes Act 2015 – addressing online falsehoods and harmful digital conduct.
3. The Freedom of Information Act 2011 – empowering citizens to demand transparency.
4. Broadcasting and media regulations – balancing free speech with responsibility.
These laws show that regulation itself is not the enemy of democracy – misuse of regulation is. The goal must always be to protect truth, not power.
6. Rivers State: When Dialogue Collapses
A recent example from Rivers State illustrates this danger.
Political tensions between branches of government escalated into legislative paralysis, contested legitimacy, public protests, and media warfare. Rather than structured dialogue, citizens were subjected to competing narratives and institutional silence.
This breakdown occurs when:
1. Political actors weaponise information
2. Institutions fail to communicate transparently
3. Dialogue is replaced by confrontation
The result is erosion of trust and democratic fatigue among ordinary people.
7. Public Debate and Its Democratic Purpose
Public debate enables:
1. Diverse perspectives
2. Democratic engagement
3. Accessible information
4. Respectful structure and tone
5. Persuasion through reason, not intimidation
Its purpose is not to win arguments, but to build understanding and shape policy through consensus.
Dialogue is the ingredient of consensus – and consensus is democracy’s enduring armour.
8. Practical Strategies in:
Defending Truth
i. Verify facts before speaking
ii. Use credible sources
iii. Correct misinformation respectfully
iv. Promote critical thinking and media literacy
Building Spaces for Dialogue
i. Create safe civic spaces
ii. Listen actively to opposing views
iii. Focus on issues, not personalities
iv. Seek common ground
Standing on truth does not show weakness – it cultivates statesmanship.
9. Recommendations to Parliamentarians
I respectfully propose five guiding principles:
1. Lead by Example – Commit to fact-based discourse.
3. Institutionalize Dialogue – Build bipartisan and community platforms.
4. Invest in Civic Education – Equip young people with democratic values.
5. Protect Journalists and whistleblowers – Democracy needs light to survive.
10. Condemning Killings and Reaffirming State Responsibility
At this point, I must also speak to the painful reality unfolding in parts of Nigeria. The persistent killings of innocent citizens across several states are barbaric and wholly unacceptable in any civilised society. Every life matters, and the continued loss of lives through violence, banditry, and communal conflict represents a grave assault on our shared humanity and democratic values. Government exists first and foremost to protect lives and property, and I therefore call on all tiers of government in Nigeria to rise urgently to this responsibility. Beyond military responses, there must be justice for victims, accountability for perpetrators, and sustained dialogue with affected communities. Peace cannot be imposed by force alone; it must be built through trust, inclusion, and responsive governance.
11. Choosing Dialogue Over Darkness
Distinguished colleagues,
Disagreement is not strange in politics. But dialogue is the only credible path to lasting consensus.
Truth in public debate is not optional. It is the heartbeat of democracy.
If we fail to defend it, we risk louder politicians but fewer statesmen; more regulations but less legitimacy; more platforms but fewer conversations.
Moving forward, I suggest that the world, under the United Nations, should champion dialogue as a primary instrument for world peace, not merely fronting truth in isolation.
12. Conclusion
In conclusion, from Africa to Europe, from national assemblies to this very Parliament, may we have the courage to focus on dialogue rather than truth.
Permit me to add that Nigeria, after 26 years of constitutional democracy, continues to make steady progress despite challenges. We invite global partners to invest in Nigeria. With a vibrant youth population, resilient economy, and improving regulatory frameworks, Nigeria is positioned as Africa’s next major economic destination.
Our tax laws are being clarified, opportunities span every sector, and innovation is rising.
