On revocation of diplomatic passports

THE order by the government of President Muhammadu Buhari, revoking the diplomatic passports of former legislators, ministers, governors, amongst other unauthorised persons, is a gratifying gesture. It is commendable, hope-raising, and a demonstration, as in other cases of corruption purging, that a visionary leadership could set the system on the path of progress. That a practice of status and privilege bestowal, so taken for granted in public service, could become an issue of corruption, tells of the abysmal moral deficit in the system.

The Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS), which carries out the Federal Government’s directive, extended the revocation of diplomatic passports to ex-special advisers, retired heads of government agencies, former state legislators and retired public servants. Others to be affected include privileged Nigerians and the retinue of cronies such as pastors and imams around the corridors of power.

At the root of this order is the decision to put an end to the shameless and wanton abuse of privileges that certain influential Nigerians are known for. Perquisites of offices and privileges that ordinarily should be working instruments for a public office holder are brandished as symbols of exploitative class distinctions. This trend has been the lot of the diplomatic passport. In an era when the fortunes of the country have been plundered by successive governments to a point of infrastructural decay and emasculation of the masses, the quest to have occasional recess or seek the good life in more developed countries becomes quite attractive. And so for the Nigerian in power, position or prestige, the diplomatic passport becomes one opportune national property to demonstrate accessibility to safe havens anywhere in the world.

But should that be the case? If Nigerians understood the status of the diplomatic or official passports, they would appreciate this withdrawal from unauthorised persons. The Diplomatic Passport or its official equivalent, like the standard international passport, is an image of the country, besides being a property of the Federal Government. It is issued primarily to persons who must travel internationally for official state business such as diplomats and consuls posted overseas as well as people within government whose duties fit such circumstance. As such it cannot be used by an authorised person for tourist visits or any visits abroad outside official state business. Being an official document belonging to the government, it is not supposed to be an ornament that beautifies the status of its bearer.

As a matter of fact, a person who carries a Diplomatic or Official passport suspends his private and personal identity, and showcases his public status as a functionary of the government, and for which reason the passport in question is an aid to enable execution of official public assignment effectively. To this end, the Diplomatic Passport is only an official instrument of office, whose functionality subsists in so far as the position lasts. Besides privileges such as easy access to a country, bypassing of customs and other tedious airport protocols, a diplomatic passport does not provide its bearer with diplomatic immunity. In certain situations, it could draw undue attention to its bearer, especially if his country has some diplomatic tension with the host country.

If this is what the diplomatic passport is, why then should government functionaries who ought to know better misconstrue such a document that enables effectiveness at ones duty-post as a status symbol? Why should persons who are not government functionaries be privileged with official or diplomatic passports? Why should former governors or commissioners retain their official passports?

Because a Diplomatic Passport is supposed to be tendered to the issuing government after one completes the assignment or ceases to occupy the office for which such passport was initially issued, it becomes an offence under the Immigration Act 2015 for a person to even keep the passport, since it amounts to unauthorised possession. Morally, it amounts to lack of decency; a disregard for constituted authorities and a deliberate flaunting of a bad habit taken too far. It is also an expression of lack of integrity, inferiority complex, or at best an ego-tripping posture.

Owing to indiscriminate abuse, unauthorised possession and the nefarious activities of Nigerians abroad, for many years the standard Nigerian passport has been an object of ridicule, and with it the sovereignty of the country. To escape this, many influential Nigerians, some of them unscrupulous and with questionable characters, have resorted to securing diplomatic or official passports, thus re-inventing the cycle of abuse.

To address this issue, a few years ago, the National Assembly had had a row with the former Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr. Abba Moro, over an amendment of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of Cap. 1 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) to expand the categories of persons entitled to the diplomatic passport and to reduce the powers of the president on the matter.

This subsisting directive seems to put an end to the matter. If only for the purpose of regaining Nigeria’s national respect and bringing sanity to the procedure for administering privileges to authorised public officials, the Muhammadu Buhari government should be encouraged on this exercise. All unauthorised persons with diplomatic passports, whether expired or not, must return them, failing which they should be made to face the wrath of the law.