Nigeria’s selection of representatives for multilateral institutions has come under scrutiny following the controversy surrounding the removal of Professor Nazifi Abdullahi Darma as Commissioner for Internal Services at the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Commission.
The dispute, which has resulted in legal proceedings before the ECOWAS Court of Justice, has renewed calls for greater transparency, professional competence and accountability in the appointment of Nigerians to strategic international positions.
The latest development followed a press briefing by Darma on October 24, during which he welcomed a ruling by the ECOWAS Court in his challenge against his removal from office.
However, an account attributed to sources close to Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the ECOWAS Commission presented a different perspective, alleging that administrative disagreements and concerns about managerial performance contributed to his departure.
The allegations have not been independently verified, and the available account does not establish whether all the claims were formally investigated or substantiated.
Darma was appointed during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari to oversee internal administrative functions of the ECOWAS Commission, including human resources, finance, information technology and other operational responsibilities.
According to the account, questions were raised about the selection process that led to his appointment. Sources alleged that he was chosen from three candidates despite concerns about his qualifications, although no assessment criteria were provided to support the claim.
The account further alleged that his tenure was marked by disagreements over procurement procedures, recruitment and the exercise of delegated authority.
Sources claimed that the President of the ECOWAS Commission subsequently reduced Darma’s delegated powers relating to procurement.
They also alleged that administrative bottlenecks affected recruitment, leaving hundreds of advertised vacancies unfilled.
Other allegations concerned strained working relationships with colleagues and subordinates, the use of official resources for personal activities and claims that Darma used official engagements to cultivate relationships linked to possible political ambitions in Kano State.
The claims remain unverified, and Darma’s response to the specific allegations was not included in the account.
The controversy reportedly extended to the management of regional programmes, with disagreements emerging in April 2025 over the allocation of responsibilities previously handled by a departing commissioner.
According to the sources, disputes over departmental oversight and financial authorisations contributed to delays in the implementation of some regional projects.
The account also alleged that delays involving funds and travel approvals disrupted activities for an entire quarter.
The recruitment process reportedly became another source of disagreement, leading to an extraordinary meeting of the ECOWAS Council of Ministers to examine issues within Darma’s portfolio.
Sources claimed that ministers expressed dissatisfaction with a memorandum presented on recruitment matters, prompting further deliberations.
The developments allegedly weakened confidence between Darma and the Commission’s leadership, leading the Commission’s president to approach Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs with a formal complaint and a request for his replacement.
According to the account, the ECOWAS Council of Ministers considered the matter at its ordinary session in December 2025 and requested that Nigeria replace Darma.
The details of the deliberations, the specific grounds for the request and Darma’s response remain important to establishing a complete account of the dispute.
Darma subsequently challenged his removal before the ECOWAS Court of Justice, contesting the circumstances of his departure and seeking several forms of relief.
According to the account of the judgment supplied for this report, the court rejected his claims for $40 million in damages and $30,000 in costs, alongside several other claims relating to reinstatement, privacy and personal-data violations, interference with judicial proceedings, and anticipated benefits from conferences and training programmes.
However, the court reportedly found that Darma should have been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations before the decision against him was implemented.
It consequently awarded him $50,000 in general damages while upholding his entitlement to contractual payments previously granted by the Council.
The reported outcome highlights the distinction between an institution’s administrative decisions and its obligation to observe due process when dealing with an official.
The award does not, by itself, establish the truth of the allegations against Darma or amount to judicial endorsement of every action taken by the Commission.
Similarly, the rejection of his larger damages claim does not prove the allegations attributed to sources within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Commission.
The dispute has nevertheless renewed debate over the standards guiding Nigeria’s appointments to multilateral institutions, particularly those with significant administrative and diplomatic responsibilities.
For a country with Nigeria’s population, economic influence and longstanding involvement in West African affairs, appointments to ECOWAS carry responsibilities beyond the interests of individual officeholders.
Nigerian representatives are expected to demonstrate professional competence, diplomatic maturity, respect for institutional procedures and a commitment to the collective interests of member states.
Their performance can influence Nigeria’s credibility, its ability to build regional consensus and its relationships with neighbouring countries.
ECOWAS plays a central role in regional integration, peace and security, economic cooperation, democratic governance and the free movement of people and goods.
Efficient administration and cooperation among its officials are therefore important to the implementation of programmes intended to benefit member states.
The controversy has prompted calls for Nigeria to strengthen the procedures through which candidates for international positions are identified, assessed and nominated.
A transparent selection process should consider relevant qualifications, professional experience, managerial competence, diplomatic skills and the ability to work effectively in a multinational environment.
It should also include thorough background checks, clearly defined assessment criteria and mechanisms for evaluating performance after appointment.
Although political considerations may form part of diplomatic appointments, critics of patronage-based selection argue that technically demanding positions should be filled primarily on the basis of merit and relevant experience.
Poor appointments can affect institutional performance, undermine confidence in Nigeria’s diplomatic commitments and complicate its relationships with other member states.
Nigeria could also strengthen support for its representatives through professional training, regular performance reviews and improved coordination between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and officials serving in international organisations.
Such measures could help identify administrative challenges early and provide opportunities to address disagreements before they escalate into institutional disputes.
At the same time, accountability should be accompanied by fairness. Officials facing allegations must be given a meaningful opportunity to respond, while disciplinary and removal procedures should comply with applicable contractual obligations and institutional rules.
The reported ECOWAS Court ruling underscores the importance of due process, even where an institution considers changes in leadership necessary for administrative reasons.
The broader issue, therefore, extends beyond Darma’s individual case to the standards Nigeria applies when entrusting its representatives with responsibilities in regional and international institutions.
Nigeria’s influence in ECOWAS depends not only on its political and economic weight but also on the professional conduct of its representatives and their ability to translate national interests into constructive regional engagement.
The controversy surrounding Darma’s removal has consequently renewed calls for a review of Nigeria’s approach to international appointments, with emphasis on merit, transparency, institutional accountability and respect for due process.
Ultimately, ensuring effective Nigerian representation in multilateral institutions requires both careful selection and clear standards of professional conduct. The objective, observers argue, should be to protect Nigeria’s diplomatic standing while ensuring that disputes involving public officials are resolved fairly and in accordance with established rules.