.png)
By Raymond Enoch
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 has reignited debate over Nigeria’s criteria for appointing representatives to multilateral institutions.
The dispute has raised questions about the importance of professional competence, administrative accountability and diplomatic conduct in the selection of officials entrusted with representing Nigeria in strategic regional organisations.
The development follows a press briefing by Darma on October 24, during which he celebrated a ruling of the ECOWAS Court of Justice in his legal challenge against his removal from office.
However, an account attributed to sources within Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the ECOWAS Commission has presented allegations of administrative disagreements, recruitment delays and strained relations between the former commissioner and the Commission’s leadership.
The allegations, which have not been independently verified, offer a different perspective on the circumstances surrounding Darma’s departure and have further fuelled discussions about the standards expected of Nigerian representatives in international institutions.
According to the account, Darma was appointed during the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari from a list of three candidates, although sources alleged that he was considered the least qualified.
No details were provided about the criteria used to assess the candidates or the basis for the alleged assessment.
As Commissioner for Internal Services, Darma was responsible for administrative functions covering human resources, finance, information technology and other internal operations of the ECOWAS Commission.
The position required effective coordination of personnel, financial management, administrative oversight and collaboration with officials representing the organisation’s member states.
However, sources alleged that his tenure was characterised by disagreements over procurement, recruitment and the exercise of delegated powers.
The account claimed that concerns about procurement decisions prompted the President of the ECOWAS Commission to reduce Darma’s delegated authority in that area.
It also alleged that administrative bottlenecks affected recruitment, leaving hundreds of advertised vacancies unfilled.
The sources further accused the former commissioner of using official engagements to cultivate relationships connected to possible political ambitions in Kano State.
Other allegations concerned the use of official vehicles for personal activities and strained relationships with colleagues and subordinates.
The claims remain unverified, and the available account does not establish whether they were formally investigated or independently substantiated.
The controversy reportedly deepened in April 2025 following disagreements over the allocation of responsibilities previously handled by a departing commissioner.
According to the account, disputes over departmental oversight and financial authorisations affected the implementation of some regional programmes.
Sources alleged that delays involving funds and travel approvals disrupted activities for an entire quarter, frustrating member states awaiting progress on projects under the Commission’s supervision.
The recruitment process also reportedly became a major source of disagreement, leading to an extraordinary meeting of the ECOWAS Council of Ministers to examine issues within Darma’s portfolio.
The account claimed that ministers expressed dissatisfaction with a memorandum presented on recruitment matters and reconvened after the initial document reportedly failed to address their concerns adequately.
These developments allegedly contributed to a breakdown in confidence between Darma and the Commission’s leadership.
Sources further claimed that the President of the ECOWAS Commission subsequently submitted a formal complaint to Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requesting Darma’s replacement.
According to the account, the ECOWAS Council of Ministers considered the matter at its ordinary session in December 2025 and requested Nigeria to nominate a replacement.
However, the full circumstances surrounding the decision, including the allegations presented to the Council and Darma’s response, remain necessary to a complete understanding of the dispute.
Following his removal, Darma challenged the decision before the ECOWAS Court of Justice, contesting the circumstances of his departure and seeking remedies for alleged violations of his rights.
According to the judgment account 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 held that Darma should have been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against him before the decision 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 judgment highlights the importance of due process in decisions involving the removal of officials from international organisations.
The award of damages over the alleged failure to provide an adequate opportunity to respond should not be interpreted as judicial confirmation of all the allegations against Darma.
Likewise, the rejection of several claims he brought before the court does not establish the truth of the allegations attributed to sources within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the ECOWAS Commission.
The distinction is important because the legal issues surrounding the removal and the separate allegations about administrative performance require different forms of evidence and assessment.
Beyond the legal dispute, the episode has renewed calls for Nigeria to strengthen the procedures through which it selects candidates for positions in regional and international organisations.
Nigeria occupies a significant position within ECOWAS, given its population, economic influence and longstanding involvement in regional integration, peace and security initiatives.
Maintaining that influence requires representatives who can combine professional expertise with diplomatic maturity, administrative discipline and respect for institutional procedures.
Appointments to specialised positions should therefore be guided by relevant qualifications, professional experience, managerial capacity and an understanding of the responsibilities associated with multilateral service.
A transparent selection framework, supported by clear evaluation criteria and appropriate background checks, could help ensure that candidates are assessed against the requirements of the positions they seek to occupy.
Regular performance assessments after appointment would also help the government determine whether its nominees are meeting institutional expectations and fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.
Although political considerations can influence diplomatic appointments, positions involving complex administrative and technical functions require candidates with demonstrable expertise.
The consequences of inadequate appointments may extend beyond the individuals concerned, affecting institutional operations, Nigeria’s reputation and its relationships with other member states.
For this reason, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could strengthen its monitoring and coordination mechanisms for Nigerian officials serving in ECOWAS and other multilateral institutions.
Such measures would provide opportunities to address emerging administrative concerns before they develop into prolonged disputes.
The controversy also underscores the need to balance institutional accountability with fairness to officials facing allegations.
International organisations must retain the authority to address administrative problems, enforce professional standards and make necessary leadership changes.
However, decisions affecting officials must comply with applicable contractual provisions and established procedures, including the opportunity to respond to allegations.
The reported court ruling reinforces the principle that administrative decisions should follow due process, even when an institution believes that a change in leadership is necessary.
Fair procedures can strengthen the legitimacy of institutional decisions while reducing the risk of prolonged legal disputes.
For Nigeria, the challenge is to ensure that its representatives are selected through credible processes and remain accountable to the standards governing their respective offices.
The government must also distinguish between substantiated misconduct and allegations that have yet to be independently established.
The Darma episode comes amid continuing demands on ECOWAS to address political tensions, security threats and economic challenges across West Africa.
The organisation’s ability to deliver on its mandate depends partly on effective administration, professional staffing and constructive cooperation among its leadership and member states.
Nigeria’s influence within the bloc therefore depends not only on its diplomatic standing but also on the performance and conduct of the officials it nominates.
Representatives must be capable of managing institutional responsibilities, resolving disagreements through established procedures and advancing regional objectives without undermining the confidence of colleagues and member states.
The controversy provides an opportunity for Nigeria to review how candidates are selected, prepared, supervised and evaluated after appointment.
Such a review should focus on strengthening institutional standards rather than prejudging Darma or treating unverified allegations as established facts.
Ultimately, effective representation in multilateral institutions requires a combination of professional competence, integrity, accountability and respect for due process.
For Nigeria, ensuring that these standards guide international appointments is essential to sustaining its regional influence and strengthening confidence in its contribution to ECOWAS.