Editorial

Averting Third World War

Published

4 years ago

October 11, 2022

President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of parts of Russian-occupied Ukraine, after sham referendums there,
is at least as dangerous a moment in the war as the marathon televised spectacle that prefaced Russia’s invasion in February this year. Russia annexed four regions of Ukraine, namely; Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. Together with Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, Russia now claims 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory.
With the invasion in February, Russia planned to quickly behead Kyiv’s political leaders, seize large swathes of territory, and exert influence over Ukraine, perhaps, leaving some troops there. Ukraine’s dogged resistance culminating in the lightning recapture of territories in the Kharkiv region has put the Kremlin on the back foot, compelling it to surge forward willy-nilly with what has ensued as its plan B.
Days earlier, Putin had warned Ukraine and the international community: “When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened … we will certainly use all the means at our disposal,” adding, “it’s not a bluff.” The World should not squeeze at the implied nuclear weapons blackmail, but continue to push back at Putin’s megalomania. His strategy is no surprise, given his history of occupying and claiming for Russia territories that do not belong to it.
Many world leaders and security experts see the annexation and the threats to use nuclear weapons as acts of desperation. The myth of the unstoppable Russian army vanished on the battlefield. Putin and his generals, and even Western security experts, had expected Russian forces to defeat Ukraine within a month, but the conflict has stretched into eight months and the invaders have suffered humiliating reversals.
Putin is disadvantaged. His carefully cultivated image of masculinity as a winner and strategist has been tarnished both domestically and internationally. Desperate, armed with the world’s second-largest military, and the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and without effective institutional rail guards in the country, Putin is a dangerous cannon.
His latest tactic is to create a pretext for a full-scale mobilisation of the Russian people, rallying them to defend an imaginary invasion of Russia when Ukraine attacks invaders and pro-Russian rebels in the “annexed” areas. Using the same “defend the motherland” logic, he says the use of nuclear weapons is legal.
The vacuousness of annexation is evident on the ground. With Moscow formalising incorporation, Zaporizhzhia’s provincial capital and more than 40 per cent of Donetsk are under the control of Ukraine’s intrepid army, which has been reclaiming occupied territories. Unable to subdue Ukraine by conventional force, he is wielding the nuclear option.
But the United States National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has warned of “catastrophic consequences for Russia” if it crosses that red line, emphasising that the United States “will respond decisively.” “World peace is in jeopardy,” stated the European Union’s Head of Foreign Policy, Josep Borrel. “Threatening with nuclear weapons is unacceptable and a real danger to all.” This unassailable fact is underlined by the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Use of Nuclear Weapons, a legally binding instrument of the world body.
Ironically, Russia chairs the Security Council, the United Nations-mandated body for peace, just as many see it as the biggest threat to peace. Ukrainian Ambassador, Sergiy Kyslytsya even suggested removing Russia from the Security Council. But will this happen? That would require a vote of the United Nations General Assembly based on the recommendation of the Security Council. This has never been done. And given that Russia has a veto on the Security Council, the Council cannot recommend Russia’s removal without its approval.
The dictator clarified that his military was in Ukraine, but his war was against the post-Soviet global order as a whole, and he could not accept a world dominated by the United States and European allies, describing his crusades as one of “anti-colonialism”. It is ludicrous to imagine a figure like Putin building a better world. This language, as well as the madman’s recent dark warning that threats of nuclear retaliation were “not a bluff,” should worry us all.
Putin knows the power of spectacle, but he also knows it is not enough. Not a week after his annexation choreography, Ukrainian forces further routed his troops in the very areas Russian forces were supposed to now fully control. The attempt to draft men to replenish his dwindling forces is going terribly, with hundreds of thousands having fled already. Putin is running out of options, except for the most drastic one – the lever he can pull when all else fails.
Unfortunately, the unprecedented combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions, and exclusion from major international sporting events, has yet to produce the expected deterrent effect but has exacerbated economic problems for Russians and the rest of the world. Under the current circumstances, the international community has few options besides the potentially lethal path signalled by the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and European Union (EU) allies.
China can help intervene in Putin’s war against Ukraine. As the only country that still has leverage over Russia, it can do so by engaging constructively with belligerents and by avoiding overt support for Moscow’s military adventurism. President Xi Jinping and the ruling Communist Party need to look beyond their ongoing rivalry with the United States and NATO and their preoccupation with China’s geostrategic calculations, especially unification with Taiwan and control of the South China Sea.
No one will be free from nuclear war; once hostilities escalate beyond Ukraine, its course and outcome will be unpredictable. It is therefore crucial now to cut off Putin’s power. That means supporting Russians’ rejection of his corrupt leadership. He can always fight the outside powers he feels besieged by, but he cannot survive a collapse in his domestic authority. The Russian dictator should be persuaded not to use Russia’s nuclear stockpile of nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads.
This war must end. The West should intensify sanctions. China, recognising its role in the global economy, its slowing growth and long-term interests, should get rid of Putin to complete his isolation and impel him to withdraw. The United States, NATO, and the European Union should continue to support Ukraine, resist and work with the United Nations to seek a quick solution through enhanced tact.

Editorial

INEC’s Threat Alert Deserves Urgent Attention

Published

2 days ago

October 30, 2026

The Tide

The Independent National Electoral Commission’s (INEC) disclosure of an alleged plot to target its ad hoc personnel ahead of the 2027 general elections demand urgent national attention. The reported arrest of suspects, with intelligence support from the Department of State Services (DSS), is encouraging, but must not breed complacency. Any attack on electoral workers threatens not only human lives but also Nigerians’ constitutional right to choose their leaders through credible elections. The alleged conspiracy must be thoroughly investigated, its sponsors identified and all those found culpable prosecuted.
Particularly troubling is the reported targeting of National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) members, who play a vital role in Nigeria’s electoral process. Many serve far from home and undertake sensitive assignments at polling units and other electoral locations. As civilians, they should not be exposed to intimidation, abduction or violence without adequate protection. If election workers are vulnerable, the safety of other officials, observers and voters cannot be guaranteed.
Nigeria’s electoral history offers painful lessons. Human Rights Watch reported in Nigeria’s Post-Election Violence, published in May 2011, that more than 800 people died in the violence following the 2011 general elections. NYSC members serving as electoral officials were among the victims. This tragedy underscores the deadly consequences of political tension, incitement and disputed outcomes. Nigeria must act on the latest warning before another preventable disaster occurs.
INEC deserves recognition for uncovering the alleged plot, while the DSS and other security agencies merit commendation for their reported assistance. However, arrests are only the beginning. Investigators must establish the suspects’ identities, motives, networks and intended targets, ensuring that evidence is admissible in court. The process must remain impartial and free from political interference. Credible public updates are also necessary, provided they do not compromise investigations or operational security.
The authorities must adopt a comprehensive, intelligence-led security strategy for 2027. INEC’s proposed security conference should produce practical measures developed in collaboration with the Inter-Agency Consultative Committee on Election Security (ICCES), the police, the DSS and other relevant agencies. Threat assessments should guide personnel deployment, secure transportation, emergency communications, evacuation procedures and rapid response. Protection must extend beyond polling day to the distribution of sensitive materials, collation centres and the safe return of ad hoc personnel.
Those who provide intelligence must also be protected from retaliation. Confidential reporting channels and appropriate safeguards should be established for informants and others assisting investigations. Equally, security deployments must not intimidate voters or facilitate political repression. Personnel should act professionally, impartially and proportionately, within the law. Clear mechanisms for reporting misconduct and investigating abuses are essential to maintaining public confidence.
The threat also highlights broader concerns about trust in the electoral system. The European Union Election Observation Mission’s June 2023 final report identified shortcomings in transparency and operational implementation during Nigeria’s 2023 general elections, alongside concerns about the legal framework and electoral dispute resolution. Credible elections require more than security; they depend on transparent procedures, accountable officials and consistent enforcement of electoral laws. INEC must demonstrate measurable progress in addressing previously identified weaknesses.
Voter apathy presents another challenge. INEC’s published figures indicate that approximately 25 million people voted in the 2023 presidential election, out of about 93.5 million registered voters, a turnout of roughly 26.7 per cent. Although insecurity is not the sole cause of low participation, threats against electoral personnel can heighten public anxiety and discourage voters from exercising their franchise. INEC should strengthen civic education, improve polling accessibility and communicate procedures clearly. Political parties, civil society and the media must promote peaceful participation and reject electoral intimidation.
Misinformation and manipulated digital content pose additional risks. False reports, fabricated announcements and deepfake videos can inflame tensions, impersonate officials and mislead voters. INEC should establish a well-resourced, rapid-response communication system supported by verified digital channels and timely public statements. Collaboration with credible media organisations and fact-checkers would help counter falsehoods without suppressing legitimate criticism. Clear, consistent communication is indispensable, as administrative confusion and delayed explanations often allow rumours to spread.
Electoral integrity must also begin within INEC itself. The chairman’s warning against partisanship, negligence, extortion and ethical misconduct deserves serious attention. Security measures cannot compensate for officials who abuse their positions or disregard established procedures. INEC should strengthen staff training, ensure transparent recruitment and deployment, provide secure channels for reporting misconduct and enforce disciplinary rules consistently. Allegations of bribery and political interference must be investigated regardless of rank, while ad hoc personnel should receive adequate briefing, support and prompt payment.
The legal framework also requires clarity and consistent enforcement. INEC should explain the precise provisions and applicability of Section 26 of the Electoral Act 2026, including the obligations of electoral officials and security personnel, and publish authoritative guidance on neutrality and professional conduct. Complaints by opposition parties that they have been prevented from campaigning in certain states must likewise be investigated impartially. Any established violations should attract appropriate corrective action. Electoral fairness requires not only impartial polling officials but also lawful campaigning, access to competing viewpoints and freedom from intimidation.
The alleged plot against INEC’s ad hoc personnel is a warning against complacency ahead of the 2027 general election. Governments, security agencies, INEC, political parties and civil society must work together to prevent violence, punish misconduct and protect citizens’ participation. The commission should communicate its security priorities, maintain accessible threat-reporting channels and provide periodic updates on preparedness. Nigeria’s democracy cannot be safeguarded by assurances alone; it requires demonstrable preparation, impartial law enforcement and an unwavering commitment to free, fair and credible elections.

Editorial

That Call to End Girl-Child Marriage

Published

6 days ago

October 26, 2026

The Tide

Nigeria joined the world in commemorating the International Day of the Girl-Child on 11 March 2026, an observance dedicated to advancing girls’ rights and amplifying their voices. This year’s theme, “End Child Marriage and Invest in Girls’ Rights,” confronts a deep-rooted injustice and demands an end to sacrificing girls’ futures to prejudice and expediency.

The focus is child marriage, not as an unavoidable misfortune but as a preventable injustice. Though prevalent in many societies, the practice remains particularly troubling in parts of northern Nigeria, where it has become normalised. Reports of girls aged 10 to 13 being married off are disturbing. The controversy surrounding a Nigerian senator and former governor who married a 13-year-old girl further exposed the practice to global scrutiny, yet accountability at home appeared limited. When lawmakers disregard the law, society’s moral compass is compromised.

UNICEF’s statistics reveal the scale of the crisis. Globally, an estimated 650 million women and girls alive today were married before turning 18, while more than 12 million girls enter marriage annually before adulthood. In Nigeria, about 33 per cent of girls marry before 18 and 11 per cent before 15. The prevalence reportedly reaches 63 per cent in Jigawa and Zamfara States and 61 per cent in Sokoto and Katsina. These figures represent millions of childhoods interrupted and futures imperilled.

These statistics explain why the United Nations continues to campaign against child marriage and advocate investment in girls. The consequences are devastating. Girls whose bodies are not fully developed face increased risks of maternal death, obstetric fistula, sexually transmitted infections and psychological trauma. The economic cost is equally significant. A 2017 World Bank and International Centre for Research on Women Study estimated that ending child marriage could generate an additional $7.6 billion in earnings and productivity for Nigeria, as early marriage deprives girls of education, skills, and opportunities to contribute to national development.

Educating a woman benefits the entire society. As a mother, she often becomes her children’s first teacher and a vital influence on their character. An educated mother helps raise enlightened children, just as one candle can light many others without losing its flame. Denying women education undermines families and communities. To expect wisdom while deliberately withholding knowledge is to demand the impossible.

Several reasons are offered for marrying off young girls, including economic hardship, cultural practices and religious beliefs. In some households, daughters are treated as commodities, married early so that their bride price can finance their brothers’ education. While boys enter classrooms, their sisters are sent to matrimonial homes. This discriminatory practice is shortsighted, depriving the nation of half its human potential. A country cannot expect to run effectively after deliberately crippling one side of its capacity.

Beyond these justifications lies the entrenched belief that women ultimately belong in the kitchen, regardless of their education. This outdated notion is demonstrably false. Countries where women lead governments, businesses, research institutions and other sectors show what investment in female talent can achieve. Rwanda’s substantial female parliamentary representation is one example. Confining women to domestic roles limits not only their ambitions but also the nation’s progress.

A girl-child must not surrender her childhood to poverty or prejudice. Some traditions discourage women from attaining educational heights comparable to or greater than those of men, driven by the baseless fear that educated women will disrespect their husbands. Such thinking equates enlightenment with insubordination and empowerment with threat. This patriarchal mindset perpetuates inequality and keeps society trapped in backwardness.

Consequently, some parents consider educating their daughters a waste of resources, likening it to watering another man’s garden. This attitude is deeply misguided. Every girl deserves the opportunity to learn, grow and pursue her dreams. Early marriage mortgages her future, stifles her potential and traps her in circumstances she might otherwise overcome. No society can justify sacrificing a child’s prospects to outdated customs or immediate financial gain.

Ending child marriage must, therefore, go hand in hand with investing in girls’ education, safety and rights. Every girl should have the opportunity to realise her potential. This requires more than annual declarations, billboards, posters and seminars held in air-conditioned halls. Awareness without action is like a cloud without rain: promising, yet incapable of nourishing the ground.

The campaign must move beyond tokenism to practical intervention, particularly at the state level, where the problem is acute. Governments should formulate policies that protect girls and make education accessible. Scholarships, bursaries, conditional cash transfers, school feeding programmes and other incentives can help keep girls in school. When education is affordable and adequately supported, more girls can choose the classroom over the bridal chamber.

Civil society organisations, faith-based groups, and traditional institutions must intensify efforts to challenge child marriage and dismantle harmful beliefs disguised as religious or cultural obligations. Parents must also uphold their responsibility to protect and educate their daughters, despite economic pressures. A society that educates its girls invests in its future; one that marries them off in childhood mortgages that future at an incalculable cost.

Editorial

Restructure the UN Power Arrangement

Published

2 weeks ago

October 19, 2026

The Tide

When Vice-President Kashim Shettima rose in New York on behalf of President Bola Tinubu to address the general debate of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, he carried a message that Africa has whispered, petitioned and pleaded for far too long: the world’s highest table of peace and security must make room for the continent. Nigeria’s demand is unambiguous: at least two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, with full rights, including the veto, alongside five non-permanent seats. It is a demand that deserves a fair hearing and a decisive response.

The President’s argument rests on a simple proposition: the architecture erected in 1945 cannot credibly govern the world of 2026. Reform of the United Nations, he insisted, must begin with the Security Council, where African representation remains grossly inadequate. Nigeria’s position, he reminded delegates, is anchored in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, which together articulate the African Union’s common position on Security Council reform. His most compelling point was also his simplest: Africa cannot continue to dominate the Council’s agenda while remaining absent from its permanent membership.

Consider how exclusive the club remains. Since the organisation’s founding, only five countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union’s seat, and China—have held permanent membership, with the privilege of the veto. When the UN Charter entered into force, the United Nations had 51 member states; today, it has 193. The organisation’s membership has nearly quadrupled, yet its inner sanctum has admitted no new permanent member in eight decades. A body that refuses to evolve invites the charge that it remains a monument to the victors of a long-concluded war.

The imbalance becomes even more striking when viewed through the lens of geography. Europe has two permanent seats held by European states, while Asia has one held by China. The United States holds another, and Russia, whose territory spans Europe and Asia, occupies the fifth. Africa, home to 54 countries and more than a quarter of the General Assembly’s membership, has none. We are entitled to ask why the historical circumstances of 1945 should continue to determine who sits permanently at the head of the table in the third decade of the twenty-first century.

The irony is bitter. According to Security Council Report, an independent monitoring organisation, Africa accounts for a substantial share of the Council’s formal meetings, while many of its peacekeeping and Chapter VII enforcement mandates concern African states. The Council, in effect, helps determine the fate of African nations without a permanent African voice in its deliberations. To make decisions with far-reaching consequences for a continent while excluding it from permanent decision-making is unjust, outdated and corrosive of the very legitimacy the Council claims.

Nor does the existing arrangement for African participation offer much consolation. Three non-permanent seats are allocated to Africa, but their occupants serve two-year terms, have no veto and enjoy no guaranteed continuity. The so-called A3 must repeatedly learn the corridors of power just as their tenure expires, while the permanent five enjoy continuity, influence and the power to block decisions. How can the United Nations credibly claim to represent the world equitably when an entire continent is excluded from permanent membership? If it is truly a global institution, Africa must have a seat at the table as of right, not at the discretion of others.

Demography reinforces the case. Africa is home to about 1.5 billion people, roughly a fifth of humanity, and its share of the global population is projected to rise. Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country, has an estimated population of more than 230 million and a long record of contributing to peacekeeping and regional stabilisation. Africa’s permanent representatives must be chosen through a process that reflects the continent’s collective interests, and Nigeria, by virtue of its population, diplomatic standing and record of service, is well placed to be considered for one of the two seats. We, therefore, endorse the Federal Government’s position that Africa should have at least two permanent seats on the Security Council.

The vexed question of the veto deserves equal candour. Our considered view is that the veto should be abolished. Where four members agree, a single dissenting voice should not be allowed to frustrate the will of the majority. Time and again, the veto has paralysed the Council in the face of atrocities and aggression, turning deliberation into deadlock and undermining collective action.

The African Union’s formal position is pragmatic: if the veto is abolished for all, so be it; but for as long as it survives, Africa must not be saddled with second-class membership without the same privilege. This is a logical and defensible position, even if the complete abolition of the veto remains the more desirable goal.

The lopsided composition of the Council helps explain why the international community has struggled to make meaningful progress on some of the world’s gravest conflicts. A chamber in which a handful of powers pursue their strategic interests, with limited accountability to the regions most affected by its decisions, can hardly be described as democratic. Legitimacy is the currency of any international institution. When that legitimacy is squandered, confidence in the Council’s decisions weakens, and the cause of multilateralism suffers.

Several practical steps should follow. First, Abuja and the African Union must speak with one voice, agreeing on the criteria for selecting Africa’s representatives and establishing a credible process for identifying candidates for the two seats. This would prevent internal divisions from being exploited by opponents of reform. Second, Nigeria should build alliances beyond the continent, notably with Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, as well as Caribbean and Pacific states that share an interest in reforming the international system. Third, Nigeria must continue to strengthen its credentials through sustained contributions to peacekeeping, sound democratic governance, and timely financial contributions to international institutions.

The Security Council was fashioned for a world that has long since vanished. To pretend otherwise is to court irrelevance. Africa is asking not for charity but for representation commensurate with its population, its responsibilities and its potential. Reform is long overdue, and the international community can no longer afford to ignore the issue. President Tinubu has set out Nigeria’s case with clarity; it is now incumbent on the major powers to demonstrate that the United Nations is a community of nations, not a private club reserved for the victors of a bygone era. History will judge them by how seriously and swiftly they respond.