Troops Repel Terrorists, Rescue Injured Civilian in Sokoto

By: Zagazola Makama

Troops of the Nigerian Army under 8 Division Garrison, in collaboration with operatives of the Department of State Services, have repelled suspected terrorists during a security operation in Isa Local Government Area of Sokoto State.

Security sources said the operation was carried out at about 2:50 a.m. on May 14 following intelligence reports on terrorist activities around Lugu Village in the area.

The troops reportedly made contact with the armed suspects and engaged them in a gun battle, forcing the attackers to flee toward the Bafarawa axis.

Following the encounter, troops conducted further exploitation operations around Danzanke in Modachi Village and along a riverbank near a damaged bridge within the general area.

During the operation, troops rescued a civilian who had sustained gunshot wounds.

The injured victim was evacuated for medical attention, while security operatives continued clearance and patrol operations across the affected communities to track the fleeing suspects and prevent further terrorist activities.

Troops Repel Terrorists, Rescue Injured Civilian in Sokoto

HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERING MUST NOT BE REDUCED TO EGO CONTESTS

By: Frank Tietie

The unfortunate events surrounding the aborted hearing of the bail application filed on behalf of Justice Crack are deeply troubling and represent a sad commentary on the administration of justice in matters affecting personal liberty and fundamental human rights.

While a lawyer who has authority to withdraw an application scheduled for hearing before a court may determine who leads a team of counsel, no lawyer possesses the unilateral authority to withdraw an application already filed on behalf of a client without the express consent and instruction of that client.

Accordingly, it was wrong for the court to have permitted the withdrawal of the bail application filed on behalf of Justice Crack by Marshall Abubakar, Esq., unless there was clear authorisation from Justice Crack himself consenting to such withdrawal. The implication of that development is grave because it further delayed the hearing of the application of a man who has already endured prolonged detention.

Equally disappointing was the conduct of every lawyer present who failed to oppose the withdrawal of the application. By allowing arguments over seniority, representation, and professional hierarchy to overshadow the urgent necessity of securing the liberty of an oppressed citizen, the entire defence team failed in its sacred duty to the cause of justice.

The position becomes even more disturbing when viewed against the provisions of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, which clearly empower the court to adopt written addresses already before it even where counsel elect not to orally move an application. In other words, there was absolutely no justification for allowing avoidable disputes among counsel to frustrate proceedings in a matter fundamentally concerning liberty and human dignity.

Human rights litigation is not a platform for personal glory, ego contests, or professional grandstanding. It is a solemn calling that demands self-effacement, sacrifice, austerity, discipline, and unwavering commitment to the protection of the human person above all else. Lawyers who undertake human rights causes must constantly remember that the suffering client and not the lawyer’s prestige remains the true centre of every struggle for justice.

The development at the court over such an insignificant procedural disagreement has understandably generated public concern and disappointment. I therefore call on the Comrade-President, Omoyele Sowore, in his capacity as the avowed defender of the oppressed as well as the family of Justice Crack, to urgently take definitive steps regarding his legal representation in order to avoid any further setbacks capable of undermining the pursuit of justice in this matter.

The liberty of a citizen must never become collateral damage in professional rivalries among lawyers.

Frank Tietie, Esq.
Human Rights Lawyer &
Executive Director,
Citizens Advocacy for Social and Economic Rights (CASER)

HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERING MUST NOT BE REDUCED TO EGO CONTESTS

Taiwan in the Crossfire of History, Law, and Power: A Feature Analysis of Competing Claims and the One-China Question

By: Michael Olukayode

The status of Taiwan remains one of the most enduring and strategically sensitive disputes in modern international relations — a question where history, law, identity, and geopolitics collide without easy resolution. It is not merely a territorial disagreement between Beijing and Taipei; it is a layered contest over legitimacy, sovereignty, and the meaning of statehood in a shifting global order.

Across recent scholarly salons and policy interventions in Africa and beyond — particularly the Abuja media salon hosted by the China General Chamber of Commerce in Nigeria — a striking convergence has emerged around the One-China Principle, even as interpretations of its implications remain sharply contested.

The Historical Fault Line: 1949 and the Birth of Two Political Realities

The modern Taiwan question originates in the Chinese Civil War, which ended in 1949 with the Communist Party of China establishing the People’s Republic of China on the mainland while the defeated Kuomintang (KMT) government retreated to Taiwan.

As Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim forcefully stated at the Abuja salon:

“Taiwan is not a sovereign entity, it has no independence and it is not a member of the United Nations.”

From Beijing’s perspective, this was not the creation of two states but the continuation of one China under different administrations.

This position aligns with the broader Chinese narrative repeatedly emphasized in diplomatic discourse, including the categorical assertion that:

“Taiwan has never been a country, was never one in the past, and will never be one in the future.”

Taiwan, however, evolved in a very different direction. Over decades, it developed into a functioning democratic polity with its own political institutions, elections, military structure, and constitutional governance.

This divergence produces what scholars describe as a central paradox: a de facto state operating with constrained de jure recognition, facing a sovereign claim from a rising global power.

The Legal Architecture: UN Resolution 2758 and Competing Interpretations

A cornerstone of Beijing’s argument is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, which restored China’s seat at the United Nations in 1971.

At the Abuja salon, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim insisted:

“This resolution has explicitly established… that there is only one seat for China in the United Nations, leaving no room for ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’.”

From this perspective, Taiwan is not a separate subject of international law but part of China whose representation is subsumed under Beijing.

Taiwan and its supporters contest this interpretation, arguing that Resolution 2758 addresses representation — not sovereignty — leaving Taiwan’s political status deliberately unresolved.

This legal ambiguity has become what many scholars now describe as structured uncertainty, sustaining diplomatic flexibility while preventing formal resolution.

Beijing’s Position: Sovereignty, Reunification, and Historical Mission

China’s position is rooted in sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national rejuvenation.

As reiterated by President Xi Jinping:

“The great tide of compatriots on both sides of the strait becoming closer, more connected and coming together will not change. This is the verdict of history.”

In Chinese official discourse, reunification is not framed as a negotiable issue but as a historical inevitability tied to national revival.

This perspective was reinforced in Abuja by African analysts who align with Beijing’s framing of sovereignty as non-negotiable, with Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim emphasizing that Africa’s diplomatic alignment reflects a global consensus increasingly anchored in the One-China Principle.

Taiwan’s Position: Democracy, Identity, and De Facto Sovereignty

Taiwan’s position rests on lived political reality and democratic self-governance.

While officially still called the Republic of China, Taiwan functions as an independent political system with its own elections, judiciary, military, and constitution.

Its leadership under President Lai Ching-te emphasizes Taiwan’s distinct political identity and rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims.

From Beijing’s perspective, this is framed as separatism. From Taiwan’s perspective, it is democratic self-determination.

The result is a deeply entrenched ideological divide: territorial integrity versus political identity.

Strategic Ambiguity and Global Power Politics

A critical dimension of the Taiwan issue is the role of external powers, particularly the United States.

Washington’s policy of strategic ambiguity — recognizing the One-China framework while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan — is widely seen as both stabilizing and contradictory.

At the Abuja salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim and other speakers framed external engagement with Taiwan as part of what they described as “separatist encouragement,” while emphasizing African alignment with Beijing’s position.

Africa’s Diplomatic Alignment and the One-China Consensus

A recurring theme in Abuja was overwhelming African diplomatic alignment with Beijing.

As multiple presenters emphasized:

“As of May 2026, 53 out of 54 African nations adhere to the One-China policy.”

The only exception remains Eswatini.

At the salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim argued that this position reflects historical continuity in African diplomacy:

“African nations have consistently stood with China on issues concerning its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Dr. Segun Showunmi, who is an Ace Public affairs analyst and social impact expert, with experience in governance, policy and civic engagement added that this alignment is not merely political but developmental:

“That consistency created trust and in international politics, trust often translates into investment, infrastructure, and strategic cooperation.”

The Abuja Diplomatic Intervention: China’s Official Position

A defining moment of the salon came from the representative of the Chinese state — the Counsellor of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Nigeria, Ms.Dong Hairong— who reiterated Beijing’s formal position in unambiguous terms:

“There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”

This intervention anchored the entire discussion within the framework of Chinese sovereignty doctrine and reinforced that diplomatic relations with China are premised on acceptance of the One-China Principle.

⸻

Prof. Sam Amadi: Strategic Ambiguity as Diplomatic Reality

Professor Sam Amadi, a policy strategist and law and governance expert, Director, Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts,
introduced a more analytical framing, arguing that global practice is defined not by clarity but by managed contradiction.

He stated:

“The One-China principle and One-China policy are clear, but difficult to operationalise.”

He further explained:

“What we have today is strategic ambiguity… meaning they acknowledge, but at the same time, they engage.”

For Amadi, the central question for Africa is not ideological but practical:

“Should we foreclose ambiguity and advance a straight One-China principle, which will exclude all kinds of trade and engagement with Taiwan?”

His conclusion favored diplomatic exclusivity with calibrated economic engagement.

Strategic Realism: Why the Status Quo Persists

Despite rhetorical intensity, the Taiwan issue persists in its unresolved form due to structural constraints:

• China cannot accept formal separation without undermining sovereignty doctrine
• Taiwan cannot accept reunification without losing political autonomy
• The United States benefits strategically from ambiguity
• African states largely align diplomatically with Beijing while prioritizing development ties

As Professor Amadi summarized:

“We acknowledge these principles, but we go back there and also deal with Taiwan in trade… using strategic ambiguity.”

Conclusion: History as Contest, Diplomacy as Equilibrium

The Abuja salon underscored a broader truth about the Taiwan question: it is not merely a territorial dispute but a global governance dilemma.

On one side stands China’s categorical assertion, echoed in Abuja:

“There is only one China.”

On the other stands Taiwan’s democratic identity and de facto autonomy.

Between them lies a global system that simultaneously enforces principle and tolerates ambiguity.

As reflected across the Abuja interventions, including those of Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, Dr. Segun Showunmi, Prof. Sam Amadi, and the Chinese diplomatic Counsellor, the Taiwan question endures not because it lacks answers — but because every available answer carries strategic consequences the world is unwilling to fully accept.

And so Taiwan remains what it has become in the 21st century: not only a territorial dispute, but a permanent stress test of international order itself.

Taiwan in the Crossfire of History, Law, and Power: A Feature Analysis of Competing Claims and the One-China Question