society
AGF Lateef Fagbemi Clarifies State of Emergency in Rivers State
AGF Fagbemi Explains Suspension of Governor Fubara, Others
The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, has, in detail, explained the declaration of the State of Emergency in Rivers State by President Bola Tinubu.
Mr Fagbemi made clarification on the turn of events in the oil-rich state that led to the suspension of Governor Siminalayi Fubara and other elected officials at a press conference on Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at the State House Abuja.
Transcript of the engagement at the press conference is reproduced below…
It’s no longer news that the president of the nation, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu GCFR, yesterday, took the bull by the horns to do what was required of a statesman, a patriot and a head of State and commander in chief of the armed forces.
The events in Rivers State started long ago, and he tried to intervene many times. Apart from that, well-meaning Nigerians, leaders of thought, and concerned citizens have also attempted to settle the matter without any result. The president came out boldly yesterday to say the situation cannot be allowed to continue, a situation in which the critical economic life of the nation, what is giving lifeline to the nation to be, you know, criminally touched without any response from those who would ordinarily be expected to do so, cannot continue.
But don’t forget, the whole thing started or crystallised with the judgment of the Supreme Court that was handed down on the 28th day of February 2025 in which the Supreme Court, that’s the highest court in the land, made a categorical pronouncement after making very profound findings of breaches of the Constitution by the parties involved, particularly the governor of Rivers state, concluded that he was acting like a despot and that, as the situation is in Rivers State, there is no Government. These are very serious and very weighty allegations that only an irresponsible head of state or leader will fold his arms and ignore.
As I said, he made a very bold decision. We were all there when he addressed the public and chronicled all the facts from Genesis to Revelation.
So, I’m here. If there is any question to be asked on that, then I will be able to respond. But before then, don’t forget that the judgment of the Supreme Court had been widely reported and published in the papers. So, the President was not a party to it, so the question of trying to influence anything would not arise. And by virtue of certain provisions of the Constitution, everybody has a duty to ensure that the judgment of the court is obeyed, particularly coming from the highest court in the land; there is no other person to appeal to. There is no other body to appeal to. It’s not subject to any further test of validity. As things are, we all have a duty, collectively and individually to ensure that we give maximum respect and obedience to the judgment of the Supreme Court.
So, gentlemen, I’m available to answer any questions, clarify, or make observations. Thank you.
Q: Did the situation in Rivers State warrant the declaration of a state of emergency? Because some people say the president’s decision was hasty?
Let me start on a note of how we got to where we are today. How did it all start? That is about the genesis. We all know how we got there since 2023. Towards the end of 2023, things have not been going well to the extent that the governor took the law into his hands and demolished and brought down the House of Assembly. Don’t forget the role of the House of Assembly. They are the lawmakers. They are to consider the budget. They are to, you know, pass the budget. They are also to be approached in matters of appointment of commissioners for ratification and all other things. They are to do oversight functions. So, since that happened, things have not been the same at all.
In a community of 32, you expect that at least 15 or 16 people will be there to do the job. The governor, as I said, and it is no longer news, harboured three or four of the members, constituted them to the House of Assembly and gave them preferential treatment, and moved them to the Government House to perform legislative functions. This situation got to the court. There were about 10, 15, 16 cases, and at the end of the day, the Supreme Court came out and made very profound findings of breaches of the Constitution, mainly against the governor.
You see, you rise or fall based on what you took to court and what court decision is on it. The court came to the decision that the governor had long anticipated, wrongly, that he might be impeached, and because of that, he knew that the House of Assembly was a critical structure, or organ, so he brought down the House of Assembly. 14 months after that is as at yesterday, there was no effort to rebuild the House of Assembly.
The government stands on the tripod, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, and you have made the functioning of government impossible. It is not enough for the executive, to say, we are spending money, even the money you want to spend must have been appropriated for by the House of Assembly. These are some of the findings that the Supreme Court made. And at the end of the day, the Supreme Court said, or came to a decision, that the governor’s behaviour was like a despot, and that as the situation was, there was no government in Rivers. If there was no government in Rivers, what would we be looking for?
I’m so sorry for bringing in this issue. In the Bible, they asked Jesus Christ, are You the Son of God? And he said, Yes. Then others chorused, what further evidence do we need from this man? So the stage is set, but no action was taken immediately in the expectation or hope that good sense will prevail, the governor would create an enabling environment, and that the House of Assembly too would be reasonable enough to ensure that the people of Rivers got a return for their voting of members of the House of Assembly and the governor and other elected officials to enjoy dividends of democracy. We are in a democracy.
So then, there was what I will call telegraphing of the militants, I will say, by the governor. And I said so when he beckoned to them that, oh, he will let them know when it was time to act, to the militant. Let us say it was wrong. Did he come out to disown them? The answer is no. And a week after, they swung into action; you see or witness the vandalisation of oil pipelines.
Don’t also forget that before now, that is when this government came into office. Nigeria was producing about 900,000 barrels of oil a day. With the efforts and all the ingenuity that the President had, he ensured that the production rose to about 1.5 million barrels per day. That’s about 45% increase; governors were smiling home at the end of the month with about 60% increase in their take home to their various states. Then somebody rose or encouraged or became inactive when he was supposed to act. There was not a word dissuading the militants who issued this threat.
In today’s Nigeria, maybe with the efforts of Mr President, Agriculture will come in. But as at today, we still rely largely on oil. Anyone who touches these pipelines is not only the enemy of Rivers but he is also the enemy of Nigeria. All Nigerians in all 36 states, share in what comes in from the production of this oil. And I believe that the decision of Mr President is anchored on the decision of the Supreme Court .
The second one is the inability of those involved, both the House of Assembly and the governor, to create an enabling environment for the people of Rivers to enjoy the dividends of democracy. The third part of the series is about the security situation in that place. You know, if the President had waited maybe a day longer, only God knows what would have followed. And as a result, he came out to say, I am not only the head of state, I’m commander in chief of the armed forces, and declared a state of emergency.
Q: What would you say to those who said Mr President’s decision was hasty?
I will ask rather rhetorically, when do you think he should have acted? When everything has collapsed? No, the law envisages that you come in when there is imminent danger to the security of lives and property. People were killing themselves. It’s no longer news. It’s not a question of making up the story. We all read papers every day. Those who live there are living in fear. So, there is undoubtedly the need to come in. We have about two years into the administration in the state, if he didn’t come in now, when do you think he should come in? Is it when everything has been destroyed? I don’t think so.
The President has acted timeously. He had allowed all the people involved, the parties involved, to make amends; before then, he assembled them, he tried to mediate. Some said he had no constitutional power after agreeing. And what they agreed to at the meeting were not implemented. So, to answer your question, I am certain that the President has acted timeously after giving them enough rope, and as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, it was a tough decision for him to make.
It doesn’t present anybody with joy, to disrupt the flow of democracy or practice of it. But the Constitution itself envisages that there may be this type of situation, and that was why it is provided in section 305 of the Constitution that extraordinary situations might arise. This is one of such extraordinary situations.
Q: People have expressed divergent views about the suspension of the governor, his deputy and members of the State House of Assembly. How legal would you say the suspension was?
You see, you decide each case on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Who are the people involved? Who are the parties involved in this saga? They are the governor and members of the House of Assembly. So, who else should have been affected? I’ve heard this funny argument. I’m sorry for saying it. It’s funny because it doesn’t make any sense to me. Oh, that the President should have just gone there to secure the pipelines and then come back when some people are there encouraging vandals to come in. The action of the President, you know what happened, is the effect of a fundamental cause, and you cannot be treating the effect to cure the cause. What was the cause? The governor and members of the House of Assembly. So, you have to behave responsibly, and you must have the gut. If it happens again, I will encourage Mr President to do the same, maybe this time with even greater vigour and vitality. So, the question of separating, treating, or giving preferential treatment to anybody does not arise. If you give preferential treatment to anybody, you are giving preferential treatment to hooliganism. Just call a spade a spade.
This is where I believe that we should put up our patriotism cap. It shouldn’t be about individuals. It should not be about anybody. It should be about the entity called Nigeria, but in this case, it is Rivers State. So, it is Rivers State’s turn today, it can be anybody’s turn tomorrow. Let the signal be clearly sent for those who want to foment trouble, who want to make the practice of democracy and enjoyment of democracy a mirage, to think twice.
So, I will answer the question by saying, I return resounding no to the quest that the governor and deputy governor should have been spared, or the members of the House of Assembly, they were all in it.
Q: Would you say, that the declaration of state of emergency in Rivers State was some compromise to save the governor and his deputy from impeachment?
It appears so. Don’t forget, I think yesterday (Tuesday), there was a notice of impeachment from the House of Assembly. If that impeachment had been allowed to take its full course, then the governor would have lost wholly and entirely. So, in a way, if you say it’s a compromise, I will agree that instead of allowing the impeachment process to continue, and which in the end, would have seen both the Governor and the deputy governor out of office and would have been out for the entirety of the four-year term with the remainder of what it we have. We are one year, I think about nine months now, leaving a balance of two years and three months. So, if normalcy returns, Fubara Sim may come in. But for now, it could be a compromise. I will agree.
What do you say to people who feel the President has a stake in this and he appears to be playing the playbook of the minister of the FCT, Wike, who appears to be the one that is winning in all this?
About the playbook of the Honourable Minister of Federal Capital Territory. You see, there are occasions especially when it comes to national issues, we have to come out plainly and sincerely. Where do you put the Minister of FCT in this case? Was he the one who asked for the demolition of the House of Assembly? Was he the one who said the governor should not present his budget to the House of Assembly? Was he the one who advised the governor not to go through the House of Assembly to ratify the commissioner-nominees? I don’t know. Because if you want to look at a case, you look at the facts presented. The Supreme Court made these critical findings. The FCT minister did not feature. Whatever the situation, assuming he featured, he would have featured, maybe on the side of the legislators. But you have is: let everybody go home for the first six months. So I don’t see his hands here in what we have.
Look, I will encourage you to read that judgment of the Supreme Court. There were about 11 of 12 findings against the governor. What sentiments are we bringing on this matter? There isn’t any sentiment. If the National Assembly feels that the President has not done well, then you won’t have the two-thirds majority required to validate his action. Certainly, you know it is like a situation in which they veto, veto usually is on the side or with Mr President when a bill is presented. But the converse is the same here: It is the President who is initiating a move: I want to declare a state of emergency. He has to make that move. He made that clear in his speech and broadcast yesterday that I’ve made this decision and referred the matter to the National Assembly. It is for the National Assembly to now say we veto. That is to say, we don’t give you approval. And since the National Assembly is still in session, we expect that within 48 hours, something will come out for it.
So, whoever has any misgiving or concern, I will say, should channel it to the National Assembly to say, don’t give the required two-third approval. Otherwise, we should all, like I said, continue to put up our patriotism cap.
Q: When Mr. President was in the opposition, particularly in 2014, he criticised the declaration of state of emergency by then President Goodluck Jonathan on three states for elections to take place due to security emergencies. What has changed? Did the President explain to you why his position has changed on declaring the state of emergency and suspending an elected governor, his deputy and the entire legislature of the state.
About what happened during President Jonathan’s period. Don’t forget, like I said, every matter depends on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. You can declare an emergency in a variety of ways. It is like a man who is suffering from a disease, they say oh it’s cancerous, they say, oh, I hope it has not spread to so-so area, then you now excise the portion affected. I think that was what happened during President Jonathan’s period. If it’s about the COVID period, it has its own, Boko Haram has its own. Boko Haram was located or confined to a particular area. The governor then said please come to our aid. But the governor who is at the centre of it here has not made any such request and it would have been grossly irresponsible for Mr President to fold his arms. So, the situation in the era of former President Goodluck Jonathan is different from what we have here. What we have here is everybody is involved. You can exercise your rights but don’t forget, there are always lines, you don’t cross them, if you cross them, then you also suffer the consequences.
Q: With the state of emergency, who is going to reconcile them?
The people themselves, now that this situation has arisen, I believe, will call themselves to order. The President has intervened, 1,2,3, times without any result, and he alluded to this in his broadcast, that he had done his own. Well-meaning Nigerians have done their own to no avail, and that was why he had to come out and make the decision that he took yesterday. So, the people are left to allow good sense to prevail, so it is left to them to decide what they want, whether they want reconciliation or a continuation of the ugly situation.
Q: Are we going to see FCT Minister playing a role in this reconciliation journey?
That will be an affair of the people of Rivers State, if they want. They can call him. If he likes, he can call them. But I assure you that with this situation, a platform has been created for them to come together in the interest of the good people of Rivers State who have voted to have dividends of democracy.
Q: The NBA argued that the political crisis in Rivers State does not justify the emergency rule. What’s your reaction to that nation?
When you talk of a state of emergency, it is an extraordinary situation, demanding the suspension or putting in abeyance the normal situation that would have been. Normally you allow the legislature, the executive and the judiciary to continue to function. But like I said, section 305 envisaged that there might be a situation in which extraordinary matters or events will come up which will require suspending the normal rights or privileges of those who are involved, and that is why the justification for suspension of the people involved comes in.
I don’t see how you would have spared the governor and the legislature, they are both involved. Things are not working in Rivers. So, the justification is those who brought this to be, who caused this must be shown in clear terms that you don’t do it and get away with it. There must be consequences for our action. If section 305 were to be absent, then you can be talking of what justification do you have. But section 305 clearly spells out conditions in which the government, the President, will come out and say, I am suspending the normal operation of things. In times of war between Nigeria and another country, God forbid, that can come in. In other situations, yes, and you expect the governor to make supplication to Mr President, to say the situation I have in my state is such that we need you to come in, and that was why the President alluded to this in his broadcast. He said, the governor had failed to make the request, and I, as the President, have assessed the situation. I believe that a state of emergency should come in. A state of emergency presupposes the suspension of ordinary rights and privileges that you enjoy.
Q: Will the seized funds be released to the Rivers State Sole Administrator?
An extraordinary situation has arisen in Rivers State. When the administrator comes, he may request for these funds, and to me, it will be in order for the release of that fund, because the extraordinary situation has brought them out of the normal situation of things.
Transcript Released by the Office of the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy
GENERAL BULAMA BIU MOURNS BOKO HARAM VICTIMS, CALLS FOR UNITY AND RENEWED EFFORTS FOR PEACE
In a solemn message of condolence and resolve, Major General Abdulmalik Bulama Biu mni (Rtd), the Sarkin Yakin of Biu Emirate, has expressed profound grief over a recent deadly attack by Boko Haram insurgents on citizens at a work site. The attack, which resulted in the loss of innocent lives, has been condemned as a senseless and barbaric act of inhumanity.
The revered traditional and military leader extended his heartfelt sympathies to the bereaved families, the entire people of Biu Emirate, Borno State, and all patriotic Nigerians affected by the tragedy. He described the victims as “innocent, peaceful, hardworking and committed citizens,” whose lives were tragically cut short.
General Biu lamented that the assault represents “one too many” such ruthless attacks, occurring at a time when communities are already engaged in immense personal and collective sacrifices to support government efforts in rebuilding devastated infrastructure and restoring hope.
In his statement, he offered prayers for the departed, saying, “May Almighty Allah forgive their souls and grant them Aljannan Firdaus.” He further urged the living to be encouraged by and uphold the spirit of sacrifice demonstrated by the victims.
Emphasizing the need for collective action, the retired Major General called on all citizens to redouble their efforts in building a virile community that future generations can be proud of. He specifically commended the “silent efforts” of some patriotic leaders working behind the scenes to end the security menace and encouraged all well-meaning Nigerians to join the cause for a better society.
“Together we can surmount the troubles,” he asserted, concluding with a prayer for divine intervention: “May Allah guide and protect us, free us from this terrible situation and restore an enduring peace, security, unity and prosperity. Amin.”
The statement serves as both a poignant tribute to the fallen and a clarion call for national solidarity in the face of persistent security challenges.
When a Nation Outgrows Its Care.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG.com
“Population Pressure, Poverty and the Politics of Responsibility.”
Nigeria is not merely growing. It is swelling and faster than its institutions, faster than its conscience and far faster than its capacity to care for those it produces. In a world already straining under inequality, climate stress and fragile governance, Nigeria has become a living paradox: immense human potential multiplied without the social, economic or political scaffolding required to sustain it.
This is not a demographic miracle. It is a governance failure colliding with cultural denial.
Across the globe, societies facing economic hardship typically respond by slowing population growth through education, access to healthcare and deliberate family planning. Nigeria, by contrast, expands relentlessly, even as schools decay, hospitals collapse, power grids fail and public trust erodes. The contradiction is jarring: a country that struggles to FEED, EDUCATE and EMPLOY its people continues to produce more lives than it can dignify.
And when the inevitable consequences arrive (unemployment, crime, desperation, migration) the blame is conveniently outsourced to government alone, as though citizens bear no agency, no RESPONSIBILITY, no ROLE in shaping their collective destiny.
This evasion is at the heart of Nigeria’s crisis.
The political economist Amartya Sen has long said that development is not merely about economic growth but about expanding human capabilities. Nigeria does the opposite. It multiplies human beings while shrinking the space in which they can thrive. The result is a society where life is abundant but opportunity is scarce, where children are born into structural neglect rather than possibility.
Governments matter. Bad governments destroy nations. Though no government, however competent, can sustainably provide for a population expanding without restraint in an environment devoid of planning, infrastructure and accountability.
This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable and therefore necessary.
For decades, Nigerian leaders have failed spectacularly. Public education has been HOLLOWED out. Healthcare has become a LUXURY. Electricity remains UNRELIABLE. Social safety nets are virtually NONEXISTENT. Public funds vanish into PRIVATE POCKETS with brazen regularity. These are not disputed facts; they are lived realities acknowledged by development agencies, scholars and ordinary citizens alike.
Yet amid this collapse, REPRODUCTION continues unchecked, often CELEBRATED rather than QUESTIONED. Large families persist not as a strategy of hope but as a cultural reflex, untouched by economic logic or future consequence. Children are brought into circumstances where hunger is normalized, schooling is uncertain and survival is a daily contest.
The philosopher Hannah Arendt warned that irresponsibility flourishes where accountability is diffused. In Nigeria, responsibility has become a political orphan. The state blames history, colonialism or global systems. Citizens blame the state. Meanwhile, children inherit the cost of this mutual abdication.
International development scholars consistently emphasize that education (especially of girls) correlates strongly with smaller, healthier families and better economic outcomes. Nigeria has ignored this lesson at scale. Where education is weak, fertility remains high. Where healthcare is absent, birth becomes both risk and ritual. Where women lack autonomy, choice disappears.
This is not destiny. It is policy failure reinforced by social silence.
Religious and cultural institutions, which wield enormous influence, have largely avoided confronting the economic implications of unchecked population growth. Instead, they often frame reproduction as a moral absolute divorced from material reality. The result is a dangerous romanticism that sanctifies birth while neglecting life after birth.
The Kenyan scholar Ali Mazrui once observed that Africa’s tragedy is not lack of resources but lack of responsibility in managing abundance. Nigeria exemplifies this truth painfully. Rich in land, talent and natural wealth, the country behaves as though human life is an infinite resource requiring no investment beyond conception.
This mindset is unsustainable.
Around the world, nations that escaped mass poverty did so by aligning population growth with state capacity. They invested in people before multiplying them. They built systems before expanding demand. They treated citizens not as numbers but as future contributors whose welfare was essential to national survival.
Nigeria has inverted this logic. It produces demand without supply, citizens without systems, lives without ladders.
To say this is not to absolve government. It is to indict both leadership and followership in equal measure. Governance is not a one-way transaction. A society that demands accountability must also practice responsibility. Family planning is not a foreign conspiracy. It is a survival strategy. Reproductive choice is not moral decay. It is economic realism.
The Nigerian sociologist Adebayo Olukoshi has argued that development fails where political elites and social norms reinforce each other’s worst tendencies. In Nigeria, elite corruption meets popular denial, and the outcome is demographic pressure without developmental intent.
This pressure manifests everywhere: overcrowded classrooms, collapsing cities, rising youth unemployment and a mass exodus of talent seeking dignity elsewhere. Migration is not a dream; it is an indictment. People leave not because they hate their country, but because their country has failed to imagine a future with them in it.
And still, the cycle continues.
At some point, honesty must replace sentiment. A nation cannot endlessly reproduce its way out of poverty. Children are not economic policy. Birth is not development. Hope without planning is cruelty.
True patriotism requires difficult conversations. It demands confronting cultural habits that no longer serve collective survival. It insists on shared responsibility between state and citizen. It recognizes that bringing life into the world carries obligations that extend far beyond celebration.
Nigeria does not lack people. It lacks care, coordination and courage. The courage to align birth with dignity, growth with governance and culture with reality.
Until that reckoning occurs, complaints will continue, governments will rotate and generations will be born into a system that apologizes for its failures while reproducing them.
A nation that refuses to plan its future cannot complain when the future overwhelms it.
society
Diplomacy Under Fire: South Africa’s Anti-Apartheid Vanguard Challenges U.S. Ambassador Nomination
Diplomacy Under Fire: South Africa’s Anti-Apartheid Vanguard Challenges U.S. Ambassador Nomination
By George Omagbemi Sylvester
Published by saharaweeklyng.com
“How history, sovereignty and global justice are colliding in Pretoria’s political theatre.”
South Africa stands at the intersection of memory, morality and contemporary geopolitics. In a dramatic and deeply symbolic challenge to international diplomatic norms, the South African chapter of the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) has publicly urged President Cyril Ramaphosa to exercise his constitutional right to reject the credentials of Leo Brent Bozell III, the United States’ ambassador-designate to South Africa. This demand is not merely about one diplomat’s qualifications but it represents a broader contest over historical interpretation, national sovereignty, human rights and the ethical responsibilities of global partnerships.
The statement issued by the AAM, drawing on its legacy rooted in the nation’s hard-won liberation from racial oppression, argues that Bozell’s track record and ideological orientation raise “serious questions” about his fitness to serve in South Africa. The movement insists that his appointment threatens to undermine the country’s independent foreign policy, particularly in the context of Pretoria’s pursuit of justice at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, where South Africa has taken the rare step of challenging alleged atrocities in Gaza.
The Roots of the Dispute.
At the heart of the controversy is the claim by activists that Bozell’s public remarks over time have been disparaging toward the African National Congress (ANC) and the broader anti-apartheid struggle that shaped modern South Africa’s democratic identity. These statements, which critics describe as reflective of a worldview at odds with the principles of liberation and equity, have animated calls for his credentials to be rejected.
South Africa’s constitution empowers the head of state to accept or refuse the credentials of foreign envoys, a power rarely exercised in recent diplomatic practice but one that acquires urgency in moments of intense bilateral tension. As the AAM’s leadership frames it, this is not about personal animus but about safeguarding the nation’s right to determine its own moral and geopolitical compass.
Historical Memory Meets Contemporary Politics.
South Africa’s anti-apartheid legacy holds deep cultural, political and moral resonance across the globe. The nation’s liberation struggle (led by giants such as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Oliver Tambo) was rooted in the universal principles of human dignity, equality and resistance to systemic oppression. It transformed South Africa from a pariah state into a moral beacon in global affairs.
As the AAM statement put it, “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of others.” This invocation of history is not ceremonial. It frames South Africa’s foreign policy not just as a function of national interest but as a commitment to a universal ethos born of struggle.
Renowned scholars of post-colonial studies, including the late Mahmood Mamdani, have argued that anti-colonial movements inherently shape post-independence foreign policy through moral imperatives rooted in historical experience. In this view, South African diplomacy often reflects an ethical dimension absent in purely strategic calculations.
The Broader Diplomatic Context.
The dispute over ambassadorial credentials cannot be separated from broader tensions in South African foreign policy. Pretoria’s decision to take Israel before the ICJ on allegations of violating the Genocide Convention has triggered significant diplomatic friction with the United States. Official U.S. channels have expressed concern over South Africa’s stance, particularly amid the conflict in the Middle East. This has coincided with sharp rhetoric from certain U.S. political figures questioning South Africa’s approach.
For instance, critics in the United States have at times framed South Africa’s foreign policy as both confrontational and inconsistent with traditional Western alliances, especially on issues relating to the Middle East. These tensions have underscored how global power dynamics interact (and sometimes collide) with post-apartheid South Africa’s conception of justice.
Within South Africa, political parties have responded in kind. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have condemned Bozell’s nomination as reflective of an agenda hostile to South Africa’s principles, even labelling his ideological lineage as fundamentally at odds with emancipation and equality. Whether or not one agrees with such characterisations, the intensity of these critiques reveals the deep anxiety amongst some sectors of South African civil society about external interference in the nation’s policymaking.
Sovereignty, International Law and National Identity.
Scholars of international law emphasise that the acceptance of diplomatic credentials is not merely ceremonial; it signals a nation’s readiness to engage with a foreign representative as a legitimate interlocutor. Legal theorist Martti Koskenniemi has written that diplomatic practice functions at the intersection of law, power and morality, shaping how states perceive each other and interact on the world stage.
In this light, the AAM’s appeal to Ramaphosa reflects a profound anxiety: that South Africa’s sovereignty (and its moral authority on the world stage) is being tested. To refuse credentials would be to affirm the nation’s agency; to accept them without scrutiny could be interpreted, in some quarters, as a concession to external pressure.
President Ramaphosa himself has, in recent speeches, stressed the importance of upholding constitutional integrity and South Africa’s role as a constructive actor in global affairs. His leadership, shaped by decades as a negotiator and statesman, walks a fine line between defending national interests and maintaining diplomatic engagement.
Moral Certainties and Strategic Ambiguities.
What makes this situation especially complex is the blending of moral conviction with strategic diplomacy. South Africa, like any sovereign state, depends on a web of international relationships (economic, security, political) that require engagement with powers whose policies and values do not always align with its own.
Yet for many South Africans, drawing a line on diplomatic appointments is not just about personalities but about reaffirming the values fought for during decades of struggle. As anti-apartheid veteran and academic Professor Pumla Gobodo-Madikezela once observed, “Our history is not a relic; it is the compass by which we navigate present injustices.” This idea captures why historical memory acquires such force in debates over current foreign policy.
Towards a Resolution.
Whether President Ramaphosa will act on the AAM’s call remains uncertain. Diplomatic norms usually favour acceptance of appointed envoys to maintain continuity in bilateral relations. However, exceptional moments call for exceptional scrutiny. This situation compels a national debate on what it means to balance sovereignty with engagement, history with pragmatism, values with realpolitik.
Experts on international relations stress the need for South Africa to carefully assess not just the semantics of credential acceptance but the broader implications for its foreign policy goals and relationships. Former diplomat Dr. Naledi Pandor has argued that “diplomacy is not merely about representation, but about conveying what a nation stands for and will not compromise.” Whether this moment will redefine South Africa’s diplomatic posture or be absorbed into the standard rhythms of international practice remains to be seen.
Summation: History and the Future.
The AAM’s call to reject a U.S. ambassadorial nominee is more than an isolated political manoeuvre, it is a reflection of South Africa’s evolving self-understanding as a nation shaped by legacy, committed to justice and unwilling to dilute its moral voice in global affairs. The controversy casts a spotlight on the tensions facing post-colonial states that strive to be both sovereign and globally engaged.
At its core, this debate is about who writes the rules of international engagement when history has taught a nation never to forget what it fought to achieve. It is a reminder that in a world of shifting alliances and competing narratives, moral clarity, historical awareness and strategic foresight are indispensable.
South Africa’s decision in this matter will not only shape its diplomatic engagement with the United States but will reverberate across continents where questions of justice, human rights and national dignity remain at the forefront of global discourse.
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoWhy Babangida’s Hilltop Home Became Nigeria’s Political “Mecca”
-
society5 months agoPower is a Loan, Not a Possession: The Sacred Duty of Planting People
-
Business6 months agoBatsumi Travel CEO Lisa Sebogodi Wins Prestigious Africa Travel 100 Women Award
-
news6 months agoTHE APPOINTMENT OF WASIU AYINDE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS AN AMBASSADOR SOUNDS EMBARRASSING