Published by Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
Vice President Kashim Shettima stood before the 81st United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, September 24, 2026, and delivered a speech that was equal parts ambition and indictment. He demanded at least two permanent seats for Africa on the UN Security Council, complete with veto power, and five non-permanent seats for the continent. He said the world of 2026 could not remain captive to the distribution of power in 1945. He said Africa could no longer fill the Council's agenda while remaining absent from its permanent membership. The applause in the hall was polite and predictable. The questions back home will not be.
Shettima's speech was a masterclass in the art of diplomatic aspiration. He invoked the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, the African Union's long-standing common position on Security Council reform. He cited Nigeria's peacekeeping contributions in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Darfur, Mali, and The Gambia. He spoke of Nigeria's commitment to mediation, democratic governance, counter-terrorism, and maritime security through ECOWAS and the African Union. He framed the demand as a matter of justice, of representation, of the authority to speak for humanity carrying with it the obligation to represent it. "The reform of this institution must begin with the reconstitution of the Security Council," he declared, "for the world of 2026 cannot remain captive to the distribution of power in 1945".
UN Secretary-General António Guterres agreed. He called Africa's absence from the Council's permanent membership "unjust and indefensible". Kenyan President William Ruto echoed the sentiment, saying Africa could not be shut out. The demand is not new. The African Union has pushed for reform for years. The Ezulwini Consensus, adopted in 2005, calls for "not less than two permanent seats" for Africa, with all the rights and privileges of permanent membership, including the veto, for as long as it exists. Africa currently has no permanent representation on the 15-member Council, which consists of five veto-wielding permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and ten elected non-permanent members serving two-year terms.
The argument for Africa's inclusion is compelling. Africa accounts for roughly 25 per cent of the world's population and about 30 per cent of UN membership, yet it remains shut out of the body that makes the most consequential decisions about global peace and security. The continent is the subject of more than half of the Security Council's agenda, yet it has no permanent voice in shaping that agenda. The veto power, wielded by the five permanent members, has repeatedly been used to block resolutions critical to African interests, from Gaza to Sudan to the Sahel. The case for reform is not just about fairness; it is about effectiveness. A Council that does not represent the world it governs cannot credibly govern it.
But the case for Nigeria is weaker than the case for Africa. And that is the controversy that will define the reception of Shettima's speech in the coming days. Nigeria is not just asking the world to give Africa a seat. It is positioning itself as the country that should occupy it. And that is where the contradictions begin.
The most vocal criticism has come from the African Democratic Congress, which has repeatedly described the pursuit of a permanent UN Security Council seat as absurd while bandits run riot across Nigeria. "The African Democratic Congress finds it absurd that the Tinubu administration could be requesting a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council even as bandits slaughter Nigerians at home and take control of some of the nation's territories," the party said in a statement. The ADC questioned how a government that cannot ensure peace or security at home could demand a seat at the table where global security is negotiated and expect to be taken seriously. "We, however, wonder how a government that cannot ensure peace or security at home could demand a seat at the table where global security is negotiated and expect to be taken seriously".
The criticism is not merely partisan. It reflects a genuine contradiction at the heart of Nigeria's foreign policy ambitions. The Security Council is, at its core, a security body. Its permanent members are expected to be capable of maintaining internal stability, projecting power, and contributing meaningfully to international peace and security. Nigeria today is a country where the military is fighting a multi-front war against Boko Haram, ISWAP, bandits, and kidnappers. It is a country where more than 500 worshippers were abducted from mosques in Niger State in a single attack. It is a country where the federal government has effectively lost control of significant portions of its territory to non-state actors. The ADC noted that armed gangs in Zamfara State had extorted over N56 million from farmers as a precondition to access their farmlands, asking whether Zamfara was still part of Nigeria. "When non-state actors collect taxes, control access to farms, and kill with impunity, they are no longer mere criminals, they are a parallel government".
A permanent seat on the Security Council is not a reward for past service. It is a position of immense responsibility. It comes with the expectation that the holder will be a net contributor to global security, not a net recipient of international assistance. Nigeria has been a leading contributor to UN and regional peacekeeping operations for decades, and that record should be recognised. But it is not sufficient. A country that cannot secure its own territory, protect its own citizens, or guarantee the safety of its own children cannot credibly demand a permanent seat on the body responsible for international peace and security.
The timing of the demand is also worth noting. It comes just weeks after the mass abduction in Niger State. It comes amid a nationwide crisis of confidence in the government's ability to protect its citizens. It comes as the Nigerian military continues to fight a war against insurgency that has lasted more than a decade and claimed tens of thousands of lives. In this context, the demand for a permanent seat on the world's most powerful security body risks sounding hollow. It is not just about whether Nigeria deserves a seat. It is about whether Nigeria can carry the weight of the responsibility that comes with it.
Shettima's speech also touched on other global issues, including climate finance, artificial intelligence, and the need for a renewed commitment to the UN Charter. He warned against a world where propaganda shields aggressors from justice and complicated accountability. He called for an end to global conflicts and urged countries to return to the principles of dialogue, mutual respect, and collective responsibility. "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," he said. These are noble sentiments, and they deserve to be taken seriously. But they will be judged not by the eloquence of the speech but by the actions of the government that delivered it.
The demand for a permanent UN Security Council seat is not just a diplomatic manoeuvre. It is a statement of ambition. It reflects Nigeria's desire to be recognised as a major player on the global stage, a country whose voice matters in the decisions that shape the world. That ambition is legitimate. But it must be matched by domestic reality. A country that cannot secure its own territory, protect its own citizens, or guarantee the safety of its own children cannot credibly demand a permanent seat on the body responsible for international peace and security. The Nigerian government must understand that the path to a permanent UNSC seat runs through Abuja, Maiduguri, and the hundreds of communities where the state's authority is still contested. Until Nigeria can secure itself, its demand for a seat at the global table will remain just that: a demand, not an achievement.
Shettima's speech was a strong voice for Nigeria and Africa on the world stage. But the world is watching, and the world is asking a simple question: if Nigeria cannot secure its own backyard, how can it be trusted to help secure the world's?
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments