$9m lobbying contract: Image management or misplaced priority? Inside Nigeria’s fierce battle for global perception
SKAiF NewsNG SNN
By Henry Ojelu & Olasunkanmi Akoni
The Federal Government’s reported approval of a $9 million lobbying contract in the United States has triggered one of the sharpest political debates in recent months, pitching the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, against opposition parties over how Nigeria should manage its global image at a time of deep domestic challenges.
Read Also: 5 European countries that allow international students to study with their families
While the government and the Lagos State chapter of the APC insist the move is a standard, lawful and strategic tool of modern governance, opposition parties have condemned it as wasteful, insensitive and disconnected from the harsh realities Nigerians face daily.
At issue is not just the contract itself, but a broader question: should Nigeria be spending millions of dollars to shape perceptions abroad when insecurity, economic hardship and social distress dominate life at home?
Opposition’s outrage
Leading the criticism is the African Democratic Congress, ADC, which described the lobbying deal as a glaring example of misplaced priorities. In a statement signed by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, the party argued that no amount of paid advocacy could repair Nigeria’s battered image if the underlying problems remain unresolved.
“No amount of paid lobbying can cover up bloodshed or the government’s failure to safeguard lives and property,” Abdullahi said, insisting that the administration should focus on ending insecurity and restoring public confidence internally rather than polishing its image abroad.
The Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, took a similar stance, accusing the President Bola Tinubu administration of being more concerned with appearances than governance. Speaking in an interview, PDP National Publicity Secretary, Ini Ememobong, said Nigeria’s global standing could not be fixed through contracts with foreign firms.
“The Tinubu administration appears more focused on appearances than governance. Improving the welfare of citizens remains the only sustainable way to enhance Nigeria’s global image,” Ememobong said, adding that lobbying efforts would amount to little if Nigerians continued to struggle with inflation, unemployment and insecurity.
The New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP, also faulted the contract, describing it as wasteful and unnecessary. According to its National Publicity Secretary, Oladipo Johnson, Nigeria already has established diplomatic channels that should be strengthened instead of outsourcing image management.
“Rather than spending huge sums on foreign lobbyists, the government should focus on appointing and properly deploying ambassadors to key countries, including the United States. That is a more effective and transparent way of communicating Nigeria’s position,” Johnson argued.
The Labour Party, LP, while less vocal in formal statements, aligned with the broader opposition position, questioning the morality of spending millions of dollars abroad while ordinary Nigerians battle rising food prices, transport costs and shrinking incomes.
Collectively, the opposition framed the lobbying contract as an attempt to “polish” Nigeria’s image without addressing the substance of governance failures at home.
APC’s counter-narrative
The Lagos State chapter of the APC has, however, dismissed the criticism as orchestrated outrage and selective indignation. In a statement by its spokesman, Seye Oladejo, the party accused opposition figures of either ignorance of modern governance or deliberate attempts to mislead the public.
“Lagos APC has observed the orchestrated outrage and selective indignation of the opposition over Nigeria’s engagement of a U.S.-based lobbying firm. This agitation, though loud, betrays either a grave ignorance of modern governance or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public,” Oladejo said.
He stressed that lobbying is a universal and lawful instrument of statecraft, widely used by governments across the world to advance national interests, attract investment, correct misinformation and strengthen diplomatic and security cooperation.
“From advanced democracies to emerging economies, governments routinely engage lobbying and public affairs firms—particularly in strategic capitals like Washington—to promote national interests. Nigeria’s action is neither novel nor improper; it is standard global practice,” he added.
According to the APC, countries across North America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa openly deploy such firms to influence policy, boost trade, secure development assistance and protect strategic assets.
‘End of demarketing’
Beyond defending the legality and normalcy of lobbying, the Lagos APC introduced a more political argument: that the contract marks the end of what it described as the opposition’s “unrestrained demarketing” of Nigeria before the international community.
“What this engagement clearly signifies is the end of the opposition’s unrestrained demarketing of Nigeria before the comity of nations,” Oladejo said.
He alleged that opposition elements have historically invested heavily in portraying Nigeria negatively abroad, while paradoxically expressing disappointment when their predictions of collapse failed to materialise.
“The Federal Government is not unaware of the enormous resources the opposition has historically deployed to talk the country down internationally, while remaining disappointed that their repeated predictions of doom and Armageddon have failed to materialise,” he stated.
According to him, by proactively projecting Nigeria’s reforms, priorities and progress through legitimate global channels, the government is ensuring that “the true Nigerian story” is told accurately.
“Nigeria’s story will now be told in truth and in deed—from a positive, factual and forward-looking perspective, not by those driven by cynicism, misinformation and a destructive political agenda,” Oladejo declared.
Lobbying as global practice
Beyond Nigeria’s partisan exchanges, lobbying remains an entrenched feature of global diplomacy. Under the United States’ Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA, governments, corporations and political groups openly retain lobbying firms to advocate their interests before lawmakers, regulators and policy influencers.
African countries such as South Africa, Egypt, Morocco and Ethiopia have all, at various times, engaged US-based lobbyists to shape narratives around trade, security cooperation, sanctions, elections and development assistance. For many governments, especially those battling negative stereotypes, lobbying is seen as a way to correct misinformation and gain access to decision-makers.
Supporters of Nigeria’s lobbying deal argue that in a fiercely competitive global environment, silence is costly. Investor confidence, security partnerships and even visa policies are influenced by perception, often shaped by well-funded advocacy networks.
Critics insist: fix home first
Still, critics and opposition viocra remain unconvinced. They argue that Nigeria’s image problem is fundamentally domestic and cannot be outsourced. For them, improved security, economic stability and social justice are the most powerful ambassadors any country can deploy.
As ADC’s Abdullahi put it, “You cannot launder a nation’s image abroad while citizens are being killed at home.”
Similarly, PDP’s Ememobong insists that “good governance speaks louder than any lobbyist, no matter how expensive.”
Bigger picture
The controversy highlights a deeper challenge in Nigeria’s democracy: the lack of consensus on how national interests should be projected beyond partisan lines. In many countries, foreign image management is treated as a bipartisan concern. In Nigeria, it has become another arena for political warfare.
For the Lagos APC, the choice is clear. “Strategic international advocacy is not a crime; it is a necessity in a competitive global order,” Oladejo said, urging Nigerians to “see through the manufactured hysteria” and focus on a Nigeria “reclaiming its voice and asserting its rightful place on the global stage.”
Whether the $9m lobbying contract delivers tangible benefits—improved investor confidence, stronger partnerships or a more balanced global narrative—remains to be seen. What is certain is that it has reopened an old debate: should Nigeria fix its image first, or fix itself and let the image follow?
For now, the answer depends largely on where one stands—on the government bench or in opposition.
The post $9m lobbying contract: Image management or misplaced priority? Inside Nigeria’s fierce battle for global perception appeared first on Vanguard News.
