Kashim Shettima At UNGA: A STRONG VOICE FOR NIGERIA AND AFRICA

By: Inuwa Bwala

Vice President Kashim Shettima’s appearance on September 24, 2026, delivering Nigeria’s National Statement for the third consecutive year on behalf of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, was a demonstration of consistency, confidence and statesmanship.

At the risk of sounding immodest, I dare say, that, President Bola Tinubu could not have done it better.
The Vice President’s central message was clear and powerful, to the effect that, “Nigeria believes in multilateralism, but the institutions that govern our world must become more representative, equitable, and responsive to the realities of today.”

This is a positive and mature foreign policy posture. It shows Nigeria is not isolationist, but reformist. Shettima affirmed Nigeria’s commitment to the UN system while boldly advocating for President Tinubu’s long-standing call for reform of global institutions, particularly the UN Security Council and international financial architecture, so as to give developing countries a stronger voice.

To me, it remains Nigeria’s strongest and clearest articulation of where our national interest targets.

His declaration that “Our engagements will be guided by Nigeria’s national interest” resonated well at home and abroad. It frames Nigeria not as a passive aid-recipient, but as a strategic partner negotiating firmly for trade, investment, technology transfer and climate finance. This is exactly the tone Nigerians want to hear on the world stage and the intermitent applause from the delegates was a testimony to this.

Beyond the General Assembly Hall, Shettima scored a major point at the Third High-Level Roundtable of the Africa Minerals Strategy Group. He called for an end to Africa’s dependence on raw mineral exports and advocated for processing and manufacturing industries within Africa.

His argument that Africa’s mineral wealth must translate into jobs, industrial growth and improved living standards is a forward-looking, pan-African economic vision. It positions Nigeria as a leader in the new scramble for critical minerals, demanding value-addition, not exploitation.

The Vice President’s sideline engagement with Nigerians in Diaspora in New York, calling on them to support the economic transformation agenda, shows a holistic approach — using UNGA not just for speeches, but for investment mobilization.
To me, and of vourse many Nigerians, including critics of the Bola Tinu u administration, the verall Verdict, is that, Shettima’s performance at UNGA 81 was presidential, articulate and strategically aligned with the Renewed Hope Agenda.

He projected Nigeria as stable, confident, reform-minded, and ready to lead Africa’s demand for a fairer world order, under the UNGA 81 theme of “Restoring trust, managing transformation.”
It was a positive outing that strengthened Nigeria’s image as the voice of Africa and the Global South.

Kashim Shettima At UNGA: A STRONG VOICE FOR NIGERIA AND AFRICA

Kashim Shettima: The Echoes on the Streets of New York

By: Dr James Bwala

Sharp partisan divisions often shape public opinion about Nigeria’s political leadership. At home, critics of the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Vice President Kashim Shettima frequently present the government as disconnected from the realities of ordinary Nigerians. They point to inflation, insecurity, unemployment and the rising cost of living as evidence that the administration’s policies have brought more hardship than relief. In this atmosphere, it is easy to assume that Nigerians living abroad share the same negative assessment.

However, the interaction between Vice President Kashim Shettima and Nigerians in the United States during the 2026 United Nations General Assembly presents a different narrative. The response of the Nigerian diaspora, particularly in New York, suggests that many Nigerians abroad are not merely critics observing from a distance. They are stakeholders who recognise the difficulty of reform, appreciate the direction of the government and remain willing to contribute their skills, resources and ideas to national development. The echoes from New York therefore carry an important message: despite legitimate concerns, the Tinubu-Shettima administration is beginning to inspire confidence among Nigerians who understand both Nigeria’s challenges and its enormous potential.

When Vice President Shettima called on Nigerians in the diaspora to support the administration’s efforts to transform the national economy, his appeal was met with a response that went beyond political slogans. It was an appeal for partnership. Nigerians living in the United States occupy important positions in medicine, technology, education, finance, engineering, business and public administration. Many have acquired knowledge and experience in countries with strong institutions and advanced economies. Shettima described the diaspora community as “the greatest resource of the future,” emphasising that their contribution to Nigeria extends beyond financial remittances. Their expertise, professional networks and understanding of global best practices are equally valuable.

Shettima described the diaspora community as “the greatest resource of the future”. This statement reflects a reality that Nigeria can no longer ignore. The country has millions of citizens living abroad, many of whom maintain strong emotional and economic ties with their homeland. They send money to their families, establish businesses, support hospitals and schools, invest in real estate and provide assistance during emergencies. More importantly, they possess intellectual capital that can support the transformation of Nigeria’s education, health, science, technology and agricultural sectors.

The Vice President’s message in New York was therefore persuasive because it recognised Nigerians abroad not as outsiders, but as partners in nation-building. Rather than treating the diaspora as a source of remittances alone, the government is seeking to engage them as participants in the country’s development. This approach is essential because national transformation requires more than government action. It requires cooperation among public institutions, private investors, professionals, civil society organisations and citizens at home and abroad.

One of the central arguments presented by Vice President Shettima was that the Tinubu administration inherited a difficult economic situation but chose to confront it through bold reforms. Since assuming office, President Tinubu has defended major decisions aimed at restructuring the Nigerian economy. These decisions, including the removal of fuel subsidies and changes in the foreign exchange system, have been controversial because of their immediate impact on households and businesses. Yet, supporters of the reforms argue that the previous system was financially unsustainable and incapable of delivering long-term prosperity.

A government should not be judged only by the discomfort created by reform but also by the problems the reform is designed to solve. Nigeria’s economy had suffered from weak public finances, distorted incentives, declining investor confidence and pressure on foreign exchange. Continuing with the old approach might have produced temporary political comfort, but it would not have addressed the underlying weaknesses. The courage to make difficult decisions is not enough by itself, but it is an essential first step towards economic recovery.

President Tinubu’s willingness to act without spending his early years blaming his predecessor is significant. In many developing democracies, governments often dedicate valuable time to explaining why previous administrations failed. While accountability is important, it must not become an excuse for inaction. The Tinubu and Shettima administration, choosing to take responsibility for the country’s situation, has placed the burden of performance on itself. The public is entitled to demand results, but it should also acknowledge the importance of leadership that accepts responsibility and attempts to correct structural problems.

According to the vice president, the reforms are already producing measurable improvements. He cited the increase in foreign reserves from approximately 3.9 billion dollars to more than 55 billion dollars, as well as economic growth of 4.45 per cent in the most recent quarter. These figures, if sustained and properly managed, can strengthen Nigeria’s capacity to meet its international obligations, stabilise the currency and attract investment. They may also improve the security of remittances sent by Nigerians abroad and protect the value of investments made by members of the diaspora.

Nevertheless, economic statistics must be interpreted responsibly. Growth in gross domestic product does not automatically mean that every household is better off. Foreign reserves can rise while citizens continue to struggle with high food prices. A stronger macroeconomic position must eventually translate into lower inflation, more employment, improved public services and greater purchasing power. The credibility of the administration will depend on whether the gains celebrated in official statements are felt in markets, homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces.

This is why the vice president’s engagement with the diaspora is important. Nigerians abroad can serve as an informed bridge between government claims and international standards. They understand the need for economic discipline, but they also know that reform must be accompanied by social protection, transparency and measurable improvements in living conditions. Their support should not be interpreted as unconditional approval. Rather, it should be considered a willingness to encourage what is working while demanding better performance where necessary.

The Dangote Refinery represents one of the developments frequently associated with Nigeria’s economic transformation. For many years, Nigeria exported crude oil while importing refined petroleum products. This contradiction placed pressure on foreign exchange and exposed citizens to supply disruptions and volatile prices. The successful operation of a large domestic refinery offers the possibility of reducing dependence on imports, strengthening local industry and creating jobs. It also demonstrates the importance of private-sector investment in areas that were previously dominated by government institutions.

The refinery alone will not solve all of Nigeria’s economic difficulties. Its benefits will depend on sound regulation, fair competition, reliable infrastructure and responsible pricing. However, it is an encouraging example of what can happen when Nigerian capital and entrepreneurial ambition are directed towards national production. Such projects can change the way the international community views Nigeria—from a country associated primarily with problems to one capable of undertaking complex industrial ventures.

The Vice President also highlighted the Nigeria Education Loan Fund, through which more than 1.29 million students in tertiary institutions have reportedly accessed approximately 125 billion naira since the programme began. Education is among the most important investments any government can make. A young and rapidly growing population needs access to quality education and practical skills if it is to become an asset rather than a burden. Without affordable higher education, many talented Nigerians will be excluded from opportunities simply because of their family income.

An effective student-loan system can expand access to tertiary education, but it must be managed with transparency and compassion. Students should not be trapped by unrealistic repayment conditions, while institutions must be held accountable for the quality of education they provide. The programme should also be accompanied by investments in vocational training, digital skills, research and innovation. Nigeria requires graduates who can create jobs, solve problems and compete in the global economy, not merely individuals holding certificates.

Security was another major issue addressed by the vice president. Nigeria continues to face terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal conflict and other forms of criminality. These challenges have damaged communities, discouraged investment and weakened public confidence. Shettima acknowledged that insecurity is not peculiar to Nigeria, but the fact that other countries face similar difficulties does not reduce the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens.

The administration must therefore combine military action with intelligence gathering, community engagement, judicial reform, border management and economic opportunities for vulnerable populations. He said security cannot be sustained by force alone. Citizens must trust security agencies, local communities must cooperate with authorities, and perpetrators must face justice. Young people who have no legitimate economic prospects are more vulnerable to recruitment by criminal groups. Consequently, security policy must be connected to education, employment and social development.

Perhaps the most important message from New York was the vice president’s call for national unity. Nigeria’s diversity is often portrayed as a permanent obstacle to progress, but diversity can also be a source of strength. The country’s many ethnic, religious and cultural communities possess different experiences and talents that can contribute to national development. The challenge is not diversity itself; the challenge is the use of identity for political manipulation and social division.

Shettima’s assertion that “whatever binds us together supersedes whatever divides us as a people” should be treated as a national principle. Nigerians may disagree about policies, parties and leaders, but they share a common interest in peace, prosperity and national stability. Constructive criticism is necessary in a democracy, but criticism should not become an excuse for undermining every national achievement. At the same time, appeals for unity should not be used to silence legitimate concerns. True unity is built through fairness, accountability and equal opportunity.

The applause and goodwill reported in New York should therefore be understood as a vote of encouragement, not a final verdict on the administration. Nigerians in the diaspora are capable of recognising progress while remaining aware of the hardships confronting families at home. Their response demonstrates that the government’s message can resonate beyond Nigeria when it is supported by credible reforms and sincere engagement.

The administration must now convert the goodwill of the diaspora into practical partnerships. It should create transparent channels for diaspora investment, simplify business registration, protect property rights, improve consular services and develop programmes that connect professionals abroad with institutions at home. Nigerians in the diaspora, for their part, should move beyond commentary and participate actively through investment, mentorship, research collaboration and advocacy.

The echoes on the streets of New York are significant because they challenge the assumption back home and on the minarets of the opposition-led positions. 

*James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja.

Kashim Shettima: The Echoes on the Streets of New York

2027 and UNGA: Leadership, Merit, and the Tinubu–Shettima Partnership

By: Dr. James Bwala

Brilliance is not a commodity that can be purchased, inherited, or monopolized by the wealthy. If it were, the children of the rich would have bought every seat of influence, while the children of the poor would have been permanently confined to the lowest levels of society. Leadership, too, cannot be completely controlled by the powerful. If it could, the high and mighty would have kept it within their exclusive circle forever.

The rise and growing international visibility of Vice President Kashim Shettima provide a useful reminder of these truths. His repeated representation of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the United Nations General Assembly has generated criticism from political opponents, particularly former Vice President and African Democratic Congress presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar. Critics have questioned why President Tinubu has delegated his vice president to represent Nigeria at the world leaders’ meeting on three consecutive occasions. Some have interpreted the decision as evidence of political weakness, fear by the president to present himself on American soil. 

These criticisms, however, reveal more about the anxieties of the opposition than about the actual state of the Tinubu–Shettima administration. The president’s decision to entrust the vice president with such important international responsibilities should be understood as a demonstration of confidence, strategic delegation, and recognition of competence. Rather than weakening the presidency, Shettima’s international engagements may be strengthening Nigeria’s diplomatic profile and presenting the country with a capable, articulate, and intellectually prepared representative.

The United Nations General Assembly is one of the most important diplomatic platforms in the world. It brings together presidents, prime ministers, vice presidents, foreign ministers, and high-ranking government representatives from across the globe. Not every national leader personally attends every session or engagement. Many countries are represented by delegations, depending on national priorities, scheduling, diplomatic strategy, and the division of responsibilities within government. Therefore, Nigeria’s decision to send its vice president should not automatically be treated as a constitutional crisis or political scandal.

The suggestion that President Tinubu must personally attend every international gathering in order to prove his authority is simplistic. Modern governance requires delegation. A president cannot be physically present at every meeting, conference, or diplomatic engagement. The quality of leadership is not measured by personal attendance at every event but by the ability to select competent representatives who can communicate national interests effectively. By repeatedly choosing Vice President Shettima, President Tinubu appears to be affirming his belief that Shettima possesses the intellect, confidence, and diplomatic skill required to represent Nigeria on the global stage.

The vice president’s performance has also challenged the old assumption that political influence belongs exclusively to people from privileged backgrounds. Shettima’s public engagements have demonstrated that competence can emerge from determination, education, experience, and character. His voice has been heard in international forums, and his interventions have attracted attention from world leaders and observers. His name has become increasingly associated with Nigeria’s participation in major diplomatic conversations.

For those who believe that the children of the poor should remain trapped beneath the limitations of their origins, this development may be uncomfortable. But society progresses when ability is allowed to rise above social class. A person’s background should not determine the maximum height of his or her achievement. Leadership should be a reward for capacity, service, and trust—not a private inheritance reserved for the children of the wealthy or politically connected.

Vice President Shettima’s emergence also carries symbolic significance. It tells young Nigerians that the nation’s highest institutions are not entirely closed to those who come from modest beginnings. It demonstrates that intellectual ability, courage, and public service can create opportunities that wealth alone cannot guarantee. This does not mean that Nigeria has eliminated inequality or that merit always triumphs over privilege. Clearly, the country still faces serious challenges involving poverty, unequal access to education, and political exclusion. Nevertheless, every credible example of a person rising through competence contributes to a broader culture of hope.

Shettima’s role in representing Nigeria at international events has further demonstrated the importance of preparation and effective communication. At a global meeting, a representative must understand the country’s political position, economic interests, security concerns, and development objectives. He or she must also possess the ability to speak with confidence while balancing national pride with diplomatic responsibility. A representative who lacks knowledge or composure can damage the image of the country. Conversely, a prepared and confident representative can improve international understanding and attract cooperation.

The vice president’s recent engagement in India was similarly presented as evidence of his capacity, integrity, and diligence. Whether addressing economic issues, technology, development, security, or international cooperation, such engagements require more than ceremonial attendance. They require an understanding of complex global realities and the ability to connect Nigeria’s interests to wider international opportunities. A vice president who can perform these duties effectively should be regarded as an asset to the country, not as a threat to anyone’s political ambition.

Much of the criticism surrounding Shettima’s representation of Nigeria appears to arise from political calculations. Opposition leaders may fear that repeated international exposure is increasing his popularity and strengthening his reputation among foreign leaders. They may also worry that the Tinubu–Shettima partnership is building an image of cohesion and competence that could influence future electoral contests. Such concerns are understandable within the competitive world of politics, but they should not be disguised as purely patriotic objections.

Atiku Abubakar and other critics have questioned President Tinubu’s absence from the United Nations General Assembly and offered several explanations, including the claim that he may be avoiding arrest by American authorities. This allegation is serious, but it requires evidence rather than speculation. Political opponents have a right to scrutinize the government, yet responsible criticism must be based on facts. Suggesting that a sitting Nigerian president avoided an international event because he feared arrest, without presenting credible proof, risks reducing public debate to rumor and political theater.

The United States has mechanisms for pursuing individuals it considers subject to legal action, but no responsible analysis should assume that every absence from an international event is evidence of fear. Heads of government frequently alter their schedules for medical, administrative, security, political, or diplomatic reasons. They also routinely delegate representatives. If a government chooses to send a vice president, that decision does not automatically indicate weakness or guilt. The burden of proof rests with those making the allegation.

Moreover, the focus on President Tinubu’s physical presence has distracted attention from the substance of Nigeria’s representation. The central question should be: Did Nigeria communicate its interests effectively? Did its delegation participate meaningfully in conversations about global development, investment, peace, security, and economic cooperation? Did the representative present a credible vision for Nigeria and Africa? If the answer to these questions is affirmative, then the country has not been poorly served merely because the president was not personally in attendance.

The Tinubu–Shettima partnership should therefore be assessed by its outcomes, not by the discomfort it creates among political opponents. President Tinubu is responsible for setting the broad direction of government, while the vice president is expected to support implementation, represent the country, and perform duties delegated by the president. A functioning administration requires trust between both offices. If the president is comfortable assigning major international responsibilities to his deputy, critics should explain why that is inherently wrong.

Indeed, a strong vice president can enhance presidential leadership. The office of the vice president should not be reduced to ceremonial participation or political decoration. It should be occupied by someone who can contribute ideas, speak authoritatively, and represent the nation when necessary. A president who allows his vice president to exercise responsibility may be demonstrating confidence rather than insecurity. Similarly, a vice president who performs effectively is not necessarily attempting to outshine or undermine the president. Both can succeed within the same administration.

The opposition’s difficulty in understanding the Tinubu–Shettima approach may stem from an outdated view of political power. In that view, the president must personally dominate every platform, while the vice president remains in the background. But contemporary governance can benefit from shared visibility and coordinated leadership. When responsibilities are distributed intelligently, government can communicate more effectively and respond more quickly to national and international demands.

This does not mean that the administration should be exempt from criticism. The government must still be held accountable for economic hardship, insecurity, unemployment, inflation, and other challenges affecting Nigerians. International visibility alone does not feed families, create jobs, or improve public services. Diplomatic speeches must be matched with measurable domestic progress. The value of the Tinubu–Shettima partnership will ultimately depend not only on how well it is perceived abroad but also on whether it improves the lives of ordinary citizens at home.

Nevertheless, legitimate criticism must be distinguished from envy, conspiracy theories, and fear of another politician’s success. It is possible to question government policy without denying a public official’s ability. It is possible to demand accountability without claiming that every delegation is evidence of cowardice. It is possible to compete politically without treating the success of a Nigerian representative on the international stage as a national embarrassment.

Nigeria needs leaders who can rise above narrow interests and represent the country with competence. If Vice President Shettima is performing that role effectively, Nigerians should recognize it. His growing visibility does not diminish the president; it can complement the president’s leadership. His success does not belong only to him or to his political party; it also reflects the possibility that Nigeria can produce capable representatives who command attention in the international community.

The broader lesson is that talent cannot be permanently contained by wealth, class, or political tradition. Brilliance is not for sale. If it were, the children of the rich would have purchased every opportunity, and the children of the poor would have remained at the bottom of every choice. But history repeatedly shows that ability can emerge from unexpected places. Leadership, likewise, cannot be kept forever within the control of the powerful. The people may rise, and when they do, their success often unsettles those who believed power belonged exclusively to them.

While opposition politicians continue to interpret the president’s decisions through the lens of suspicion, the Tinubu–Shettima administration is moving towards changing the narratives again, and by the time this opposition would awake from their slumber, a new dawn would have been announced. 

• James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja
• 2027 and UNGA: Leadership, Merit, and the Tinubu–Shettima Partnership