Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and Nigeria’s Call for a More Representative United Nations

By: Dr James Bwala

At the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu delivered a powerful appeal for the transformation of the international system. Represented at the General Debate by Vice President Kashim Shettima, the Nigerian leader argued that the United Nations can no longer operate according to a structure designed for the world of 1945. At the centre of his address was a demand for the radical reform of the Security Council, including permanent African representation with full rights and veto powers.

Nigeria’s position is both justified and urgent. Africa is central to many of the security, humanitarian, economic and environmental challenges confronting the world, yet the continent remains excluded from permanent membership of the body responsible for making some of the most consequential decisions on international peace and security. The existing arrangement is not merely outdated; it weakens the legitimacy, fairness and effectiveness of the United Nations. Reform must therefore begin with the reconstitution of the Security Council, while also extending to global finance, climate governance, conflict prevention and technological development.

The Security Council’s present structure reflects the distribution of power after the Second World War, not the political and economic realities of the twenty-first century. The five permanent members—the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom—retain veto powers that enable them to block substantive decisions, even when those decisions command broad support among the wider membership. Meanwhile, an entire continent of more than 1.4 billion people remains without a permanent voice in the Council.

As Vice President Shettima stated on behalf of President Tinubu, “the world of 2026 cannot remain captive to the distribution of power in 1945.” This observation captures the central weakness of the current system. The international order has changed dramatically since the founding of the UN. Decolonisation created dozens of new states, Africa emerged as a significant diplomatic bloc, and global challenges became increasingly interconnected. However, the institutional arrangement for international security has largely remained unchanged.

Nigeria’s demand is specific. In accordance with the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, it seeks at least two permanent seats for Africa, with all the rights and responsibilities attached to permanent membership, including veto power for as long as the veto exists. It also calls for a total of five non-permanent seats for the continent. This proposal is not an attempt to privilege Africa. Rather, it seeks to correct a profound imbalance and ensure that those most affected by international decisions participate meaningfully in making them.

Africa cannot continue to supply peacekeepers, host displaced populations, suffer the consequences of foreign interventions and carry the burden of conflicts while remaining absent from the Council’s permanent membership. Many of the crises discussed at the Security Council occur on African soil or have direct consequences for African societies. Conflicts in Sudan, the Sahel, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other regions demonstrate the importance of African perspectives in conflict resolution. Permanent representation would improve the Council’s understanding of regional realities and make its decisions more credible.

Critics may argue that expanding the permanent membership would make the Council less efficient. However, efficiency without legitimacy is not a sustainable basis for international governance. Decisions that exclude large parts of the world are likely to face resistance, weak implementation and declining public trust. A more representative Council may require more negotiation, but it would also produce decisions with greater moral authority and broader international support. In global governance, legitimacy is not an obstacle to effectiveness; it is one of its foundations.

President Tinubu’s call for Security Council reform was part of a broader warning about the danger of war, unilateral aggression and rising nationalism. He urged world leaders to reject the assumption that conflicts in distant countries have no consequences elsewhere. In an interconnected world, warfare disrupts food supplies, energy markets, migration patterns, investment and global security. Domestic conflicts can become international crises, while regional instability can create conditions for terrorism, organised crime and humanitarian disaster.

The President therefore called for a return to the founding principles of the UN Charter: dialogue, mutual respect, collective responsibility and the peaceful settlement of disputes. These principles are not empty diplomatic slogans. They represent a practical framework for preventing escalation and preserving a rules-based international system. Diplomacy should prevail over coercion, cooperation over isolation and international law over the arbitrary exercise of power.

Nigeria’s own record strengthens this argument. The country has repeatedly accepted significant responsibilities in support of peace and stability across Africa. Through its contributions to operations in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Darfur, Mali and The Gambia, Nigeria has demonstrated a willingness to commit personnel, resources and political capital when regional peace is threatened. Its role through ECOWAS, the African Union and Gulf of Guinea partnerships has also included mediation, democratic governance, counter-terrorism and maritime security.

These efforts show that Nigeria is not demanding influence without responsibility. On the contrary, the country’s claim to stronger representation is supported by its history of service. Africa has made significant sacrifices for international peace, frequently facing challenging economic and logistical circumstances. It is therefore reasonable that African states should have a permanent role in determining how global peace and security are protected.

The same principle applies to international economic governance. President Tinubu highlighted inadequate financing as one of the greatest obstacles to sustainable development. Many developing countries devote a large share of their national resources to debt servicing, leaving insufficient funds for education, healthcare, infrastructure and social protection. This situation limits economic growth and makes it more difficult for governments to respond to crises.

A reformed international system must therefore address the unfairness of global financial structures. Developing countries need wider access to concessional financing, responsible debt restructuring and financial arrangements that recognise their developmental needs. It is unreasonable to demand ambitious progress from countries while denying them the resources required to achieve it. International financial institutions must become more responsive, transparent and inclusive, particularly in relation to the needs of African economies.

Nigeria’s economic reforms, according to President Tinubu, are based on disciplined macroeconomic management, strong institutions, private-sector growth and strategic public investment. These domestic efforts are important, but national reforms cannot succeed in isolation from global conditions. High interest rates, unstable commodity prices, debt burdens and limited access to capital can undermine even well-designed economic policies. Nigeria’s development, like that of other African countries, depends partly on a global system that does not systematically disadvantage developing economies.

Climate change provides another compelling reason for greater African representation. Africa contributes less than four per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions, yet it experiences some of the most severe consequences of a warming planet. Droughts, floods, desertification, food insecurity and climate-related displacement are already affecting communities across the continent. These consequences create economic and security pressures that extend beyond national borders.

President Tinubu rightly rejected the false choice between development and climate action. Developing countries must industrialise, eradicate poverty and expand energy access, but they should be enabled to do so through low-carbon pathways. This requires technology transfer, climate finance and a fair energy transition. It is unjust to expect African countries to remain poor in order to compensate for emissions largely produced by industrialised nations.

Nigeria’s commitment to the Paris Agreement and its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2060 demonstrate that climate responsibility and economic development can be pursued together. But international cooperation is needed to back up commitments. Climate finance should not be delivered primarily as loans that increase debt burdens. It must include accessible and predictable funding, technology sharing and support for renewable energy, resilient infrastructure and sustainable agriculture.

The President also addressed emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence. Nigeria, he said, will not allow fear to dictate its technological future. AI is a tool shaped by human choices, and its effects will depend on how governments and societies regulate and deploy it. Nigeria’s efforts to expand digital public infrastructure, broadband access and technology entrepreneurship are therefore important not only for economic growth but also for national resilience.

Africa should not be treated merely as a consumer of technology developed elsewhere. African countries must participate in innovation, data governance, digital regulation and the development of emerging industries. At the same time, technological advancement must be accompanied by attention to privacy, inequality, cybersecurity and employment. A human-centred approach can ensure that AI promotes education, healthcare, productivity and public services rather than deepening existing divisions.

Security remains a central concern in Nigeria’s foreign policy. Drawing on the country’s prolonged struggle against Boko Haram, ISWAP and other armed groups, President Tinubu observed that no nation can fully secure itself against threats sustained beyond its borders. Terrorist networks, cybercriminals, arms traffickers and organised criminal groups exploit gaps in international cooperation. Military force may be necessary, but it cannot provide a lasting solution on its own.

Sustainable security requires education, economic opportunity, accountable governance and respect for human rights. Young people who lack meaningful opportunities are more vulnerable to recruitment by extremist organisations. Communities that distrust government institutions may be less willing to cooperate with security agencies. Where justice is absent, grievances can become fuel for instability. International security strategies must therefore address the political and socioeconomic conditions that allow violence to persist.

The conflicts in Sudan and other war-torn countries further demonstrate the need for urgent diplomacy. The international community must not become desensitised to prolonged crises or permit propaganda to obscure the distinction between victims and aggressors. As President Tinubu warned, a world in which truth becomes a crime and perpetrators are protected from justice represents a betrayal of the UN’s founding promise.

Ultimately, Nigeria’s message at the UN General Assembly is a call to restore credibility to multilateralism. The world cannot effectively confront war, terrorism, climate change, debt, poverty and technological disruption through institutions that exclude major regions from meaningful decision-making. Africa’s permanent inclusion in the Security Council is therefore not a symbolic concession. It is a practical requirement for a more representative and capable international order.

A reformed United Nations must reflect the world as it exists today, not as it existed eight decades ago. It must give Africa all the support to participate in the decision that also affects Africa is so many ways. 

• James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja
• Tinubu, Kashim Shettima and Nigeria’s Call for a More Representative United Nations

President Tinubu To UN: We Can’t Rule 2026 World With 1945 Distribution of Power

** *Warns Africa can’t continue to fill UN agenda without permanent membership at Security Council

** *Calls for immediate end to global warfare, respect for UN Charter

** *Demands radical shakeup of global financial system, equitable participation in economic decision-making

** *Says Africa deserves fairness in climate financing, reaffirms commitment to Paris Agreement, fair energy transition

By: Our Reporter

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has renewed calls for a radical shake-up of the United Nations (UN), insisting that reforms must start with reconstituting the Security Council to grant Africa permanent seats.

He warned that the continent can no longer afford to fill the Council’s agenda from the margins, pointing out that the world of 2026 cannot remain captive to the distribution of power in 1945.

The Nigerian leader made the position in his address delivered by his deputy, Vice President Kashim Shettima, during the General Debate at the ongoing 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, United States.

Specifically, he demanded at least two permanent seats for the continent—including full rights, responsibilities, and veto power—along with a total of five non-permanent seats.

“The reform of this institution must begin with the reconstitution of the Security Council, for the world of 2026 cannot remain captive to the distribution of power in 1945. Africa cannot continue to fill the Council’s agenda while remaining absent from its permanent membership.

“Nigeria demands, in accordance with the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, at least two permanent seats for Africa, with all the rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including the veto for as long as it exists, and five non-permanent seats in total. The authority to speak for humanity carries an obligation to represent it,” he stated.

President Tinubu also issued a wake-up call to world leaders, demanding an immediate end to global warfare and a total rejection of the rising tide of nationalism.

With urgent moral clarity, he warned that the global order hangs in the balance, while fiercely rallying the international community to dismantle unilateral aggression, resurrect the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter, and forge an unyielding, unified front through a recommitted era of global multilateralism.

The Nigerian leader categorically told the global leaders not to pretend that distant or domestic conflicts do not exact a price from other nations, underscoring the UN’s urgent duty to restore trust in institutions built to reconcile differences and advance global common interests.

“The persistence of conflict across the world recalls the purpose for which the United Nations was founded: to spare succeeding generations the devastation of war. We must therefore return to the founding principles of dialogue, mutual respect and collective responsibility.

“Nigeria stands by the Charter and its promise of a world in which diplomacy prevails over coercion, cooperation over isolation and international law over the arbitrary exercise of power,” he declared.

The President framed Nigeria’s peacekeeping efforts in Africa as a model, noting that the nation stands ready to take on greater responsibility and sacrifice to restore peace across the continent—just as it did in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Darfur, Mali, and The Gambia, where it committed personnel and resources when global solidarity demanded action.

“Through ECOWAS, the African Union and our Gulf of Guinea partnerships, we continue to advance mediation, democratic governance, counter-terrorism and maritime security,” he said, adding that Nigeria’s foreign policy depends on the same conviction that guides its economic reforms.

President Tinubu stated that Nigeria is actioning its sustainable development commitments through disciplined macroeconomic management, robust institutions, private-sector growth, and strategic public investment.

Emphasising that the mission directly links Nigeria’s national advancement to Africa’s progress and a global duty to foster peace, equity, and prosperity, he observed that internal achievements mean nothing if the nation ignores gathering external threats, declaring that geography offers no exemption from the consequences of a fractured world.

Government trust, according to him, is earned only when decisions improve lives, stressing, however, that since no nation is insulated from global conflicts, leaders must face security and climate realities head-on rather than pretending borders offer safety.

The President urged global action on climate change, rejecting the false choice between development and climate action, even as he emphasized that developing countries must industrialize, eradicate poverty, and expand energy access using low-carbon pathways backed by technology transfer and climate finance.

He reaffirmed Nigeria’s commitment to the Paris Agreement and a fair energy transition, stressing that Africa bears a heavy climate burden despite contributing under 4% of global emissions.

Under the Energy Transition Plan, he hinted that the nation is working towards net-zero emissions by 2060 while expanding access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy.

President Tinubu declared that Nigeria will not let fear dictate its technological future, affirming that AI is a tool driven by human intent, and to harness the tool for human advancement, the nation is aggressively expanding its digital public infrastructure, accelerating broadband deployment, and driving tech entrepreneurship.

He reiterated Nigeria’s call for reform of the international financial architecture, wider access to concessional financing and debt sustainability structure that recognise developmental needs, pointing out that “one of the greatest obstacles to sustainable development is inadequate financing,” as most developing nations spends a good part of their resources on debt servicing at the expense of education, healthcare and infrastructure.

Drawing lessons from Nigeria’s prolonged struggle against Boko Haram, ISWAP and other armed groups, the President said “no nation, however formidable its defences, can secure itself completely against dangers sustained beyond its borders.”

He noted that while modern threats like terrorism and cyberattacks exploit gaps in global action, lasting military victory requires a foundation of education, economic opportunity, accountable governance, and human rights.

As a founding member of ECOWAS, President Tinubu said Nigeria remains ready to uphold regional solidarity and African leadership in resolving security challenges, “reinforced by principled international partnerships.”

The Nigerian leader maintained that Nigeria is committed to the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations Charter, as “the conflicts in Sudan and other war-torn countries demand urgent diplomacy to address their humanitarian, economic and geopolitical consequences.”

“We should all be afraid of a world in which we can no longer tell the victim from the aggressor. When our investment in propaganda shields perpetrators from justice to the point that telling the truth becomes a crime, the promise of this institution stands betrayed,” he stated.

On the expectations from the UN general debate the Nigerian leader noted that “a reformed, inclusive and effective United Nations is indispensable to the peaceful, just and sustainable world that future generations deserve.

“Whatever our differences, we must remember that humanity is our oldest citizenship, and peace is the inheritance we owe every child,” he further stated.

President Tinubu To UN: We Can’t Rule 2026 World With 1945 Distribution of Power

A call for an independent review of Operation Rainbow as allegations of attacks on Fulani communities deepen

By: Zagazola Makama

The Plateau State Government can no longer afford to treat growing allegations of bias, arson and attacks involving personnel of Operation Rainbow as ordinary complaints in a state already trapped in a cycle of communal violence.

The allegations are serious enough to demand an independent investigation because repeated allegations that a security outfit is attacking the very communities it is mandated to protect can rapidly destroy public confidence and deepen an already dangerous conflict into another layer.

Operation Rainbow was created as a state security initiative to support the protection of lives and property and has since undergone substantial expansion. In December 2025, Governor Caleb Mutfwang said the outfit was intended to protect residents regardless of faith or ethnicity and instructed its personnel to respect the law, human rights and civilian engagement. The state has also subjected its personnel to training on standard operating procedures and rules of engagement.

That makes the allegations now being raised particularly disturbing.

There have been previous accusations by some fulani residents of Mangu that Operation Rainbow personnel were involved in extrajudicial killings . The European Union Agency for Asylum documented those allegations in its review of the Plateau security situation. Operation Rainbow denied similar allegations in 2024, describing them as false and misleading.

The fact that the allegations have been denied does not make them irrelevant. Nor does the fact that they have been made make them proven.

That is precisely why there must be an independent investigation.

According to accounts from Fulani residents in some affected communities, there is now a growing perception that Operation Rainbow is not being seen as a neutral security presence.

One Fulani community leader alleged that residents came under heavy fire from personnel they initially believed had arrived to protect them. According to his account, the residents were caught off guard when the security personnel allegedly opened fire, resulting in several deaths and forcing others to flee for safety.

The allegations of arson are even more troubling

There are also allegations from Fulani residents that Operation Rainbow personnel have, in some instances, been involved in the burning of homes or property belonging to members of their communities. If established, such conduct would represent an extraordinary breach of the basic purpose of a security organisation.

A security officer who participated in burning the home of a civilian is not protecting that civilian. A security officer who attacks an unarmed community is not restoring peace.
And a security formation that is perceived to punish an entire community because of the alleged actions of individuals risks becoming another source of insecurity.

There are thousands of security personnel and community-based operatives across Plateau. Many may be performing difficult and dangerous duties in communities where attacks occur with little warning. Indeed, Operation Rainbow personnel themselves have also been attacked: a senior officer of the outfit was killed in an ambush along the Bokkos–Barkin Ladi axis on Sept. 22, according to reports.

That reality makes accountability even more important.

Security personnel deserve protection. Civilians deserve protection. Both cannot be protected by allowing allegations of abuse to remain unresolved. Plateau cannot fight an insurgency of mistrust The greatest danger is not simply what happened during any single alleged operation. It is what happens afterward.

When a Fulani community believes that the security forces have come to attack rather than protect it, residents may stop providing intelligence.

When indigenous communities believe that security forces are failing to protect them, they may turn increasingly hostile towards the security agencies. When both sides begin to see security personnel through an ethnic lens, every movement of a patrol vehicle can become a source of suspicion. That is how a security crisis becomes self-perpetuating.

The state has already witnessed how quickly violence can move from an attack to reprisal, from reprisal to counter-reprisal, and eventually to a cycle in which civilians who had nothing to do with the original incident become targets.

Recent security incidents across Mangu, Barkin Ladi and Bokkos demonstrate how fragile the situation remains. Security personnel themselves have become targets, while civilians continue to face killings, attacks and destruction of property.

Against that background, the security architecture must be above ethnic suspicion.
Government must investigate not defend

The Plateau State Government should resist the temptation to automatically defend Operation Rainbow whenever allegations emerge. The appropriate response is investigation. Where an allegation is false, establish that clearly and publicly. Where an operative acted lawfully, explain the circumstances. Where misconduct occurred, identify the personnel involved and prosecute them. Where command failure occurred, hold the responsible commanders accountable. And where evidence shows that civilians were deliberately targeted, there should be no institutional protection for the perpetrators.

This is particularly important because the state has repeatedly emphasised that Operation Rainbow is supposed to be an inclusive security structure. In December 2025, Governor Mutfwang said the outfit was designed to protect people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds and that legitimate complaints against operatives would attract disciplinary action where wrongdoing was established.

Those commitments must now be tested through transparent action.

Bring in the federal security agencies

There is also a strong case for reviewing the operational role of Operation Rainbow in the most volatile areas of Plateau.

The Nigerian Army, Nigeria Police Force, Department of State Services and other constitutionally mandated agencies should have a decisive role in operations involving the use of lethal force, arrests and intelligence-led raids.

Operation Rainbow can continue to contribute community intelligence, early warning and local knowledge, but its operations should be subject to clear command arrangements, documented rules of engagement, civilian oversight and effective mechanisms for investigating complaints.

The recent training of Operation Rainbow personnel on standard operating procedures and rules of engagement is a positive step, but training has meaning only when compliance is monitored and violations have consequences.

Protect every community

Plateau does not need a security structure that is perceived as protecting one ethnic group against another. It needs a security structure that protects citizens against criminals.
If a Fulani herder is attacked, the perpetrator must be pursued. If a Berom, Mwaghavul, Afizere or any other citizen is attacked, the perpetrator must equally be pursued. If a farmer’s crops are destroyed, the law must address it. If cattle are stolen, the law must address it. If a community is attacked, security forces must protect it. If a member of a security formation commits a crime, the law must protect the victim by holding that operative accountable.

The uniform cannot become a shield against accountability. And ethnicity cannot become evidence of guilt. The growing allegations surrounding Operation Rainbow therefore deserve something more serious than political denials or counter-accusations. They deserve an independent, transparent and credible investigation capable of establishing what happened, who was responsible and whether operational procedures were followed.
Because in a conflict as deeply polarised as Plateau’s, perceived injustice can become fuel for the next attack.

And if the people who are supposed to protect communities are themselves increasingly perceived as a threat by some of those communities, then the government has a security problem that cannot be solved by deploying more personnel alone.

Plateau needs security that citizens can trust and that trust must be earned through impartiality, evidence, accountability and equal protection under the law.

A call for an independent review of Operation Rainbow as allegations of attacks on Fulani communities deepen