Politics
Global Storm: South Africa Demands UN Action After U.S. Strikes Venezuela. A Demand for Justice, Sovereignty & African Agency.
Global Storm: South Africa Demands UN Action After U.S. Strikes Venezuela. A Demand for Justice, Sovereignty & African Agency.
George Omagbemi Sylvester
“Geo-Political Upheaval, Sovereign Rights, and the Mandate of International Law. With Reflections on Human Welfare, Governance and the African Moment.”
In a world roiled by geopolitical tension and fraught with bitter contests over power and principle, the recent unilateral U.S. military strike on Venezuela has sparked an unprecedented diplomatic crisis, compelling South Africa to urgently urge a meeting of the United Nations Security Council and the very body vested with the solemn responsibility of maintaining international peace and security.
This call from Pretoria represents more than procedural politicking; it is a forceful rebuke against what many perceive as a reckless disregard for the Charter of the United Nations and the sanctity of sovereign statehood. The implications (legally, morally and politically) are vast.
The U.S. Strike on Venezuela: What Happened and Why It Matters.
In early January 2026, the United States conducted a “large-scale military strike” on Venezuela, hitting targets near Caracas and other regions and culminating in the reported capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The operation was justified by U.S. authorities on grounds of a supposed counter-narcotics mission and alleged criminality involving Venezuela’s leadership, but reaction from around the globe was swift and powerful.
To many observers, this was not a surgical law-enforcement action but a dramatic military intervention into the sovereign affairs of a nation, raising immediate questions about compliance with international law and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
South Africa, already wary of unilateral interventions by global powers, did not mince words. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) described the strikes as a “manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations” and warned that such actions undermine the stability of the international order and the principle of equality among nations.
DIRCO spokesperson Chrispin Phiri emphasized that the UN Charter does not authorise external military intervention in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign nation. This point (legal in form and democratic in substance) goes to the heart of why South Africa felt compelled to demand urgent UN action.
Global Outrage: A Broad Chorus of Concern.
South Africa’s protest echoes a broader pattern of global criticism. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva condemned the strikes as “a serious affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty,” warning that such acts represent a threat to regional peace. European and Asian powers (from France to China) also warned that no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside, and many referred to international law as the only legitimate arbiter of disputes between states.
Even non-Western voices, historically wary of hegemonic intervention, registered intense concern. Latin American governments, Russia, and Cuba voiced condemnation, with human rights groups denouncing the violence and civilian impact. Collectively, these reactions underscore a broader anxiety: if one state can strike another without UN authorisation, then the legal framework that protects smaller nations is dissolved.
South Africa’s Stance: A Defence of Sovereignty and Rule of Law.
South Africa’s call for the Security Council to convene is rooted in principles formed from a painful history of colonialism, apartheid, and externally imposed domination. Pretoria’s position affirms that no nation (great or small) should be subject to military incursions without collective authorisation. As Dirco put it, “unlawful, unilateral force of this nature undermines the stability of the international order and the principle of equality among nations.”
Political analysts in South Africa, however, offer caution. Professor Andre Duvenhage of North-West University warned that while the call to convene the Council is legally sound, it carries potential economic and diplomatic costs, possibly straining Pretoria’s relations with major powers and exposing South Africa to geopolitical backlash.
Yet this is precisely the kind of moral leadership that defines nations that refuse to be cowed by power politics. South Africa’s stance is thus not merely defensive of Venezuela, it is a defence of the very legal fabric that gives voice to the Global South.
The Broader Lesson: Africa’s Moment to Uphold International Law.
For many scholars of international relations, South Africa’s position illuminates a critical moment in African diplomacy. As Professor Ifeoma Nwoye, a noted expert in international law, has argued: “Upholding the Charter protects all nations, especially those with limited capacity to respond to violations. To remain silent today is to invite arbitrary force tomorrow.”
Her point is simple but powerful: international law is only as strong as the willingness of states to defend it. In an era where might often masks itself as right, South Africa’s bold invitation to the UN Security Council to act is a call to resist the tyranny of power and defend the rule of law.
From Caracas to Gusau: The Human Cost of Leadership Failures.
While global capitals argue over geopolitics, ordinary citizens pay an incalculable price. In Venezuela, the spectre of war and foreign intervention threatens to upend civilian life, exacerbate humanitarian crises, and ripple into neighbouring regions. In the African context, we can reflect on a parallel crisis close to home: the ongoing struggle for peace and welfare in Nigeria’s Zamfara State.
Governor Dauda Lawal, the democratically elected Governor of Zamfara State, grapples daily with insecurity that has left communities terrorised and destabilised. Despite his administration’s repeated assurances to protect lives and livelihoods, insecurity persists as a defining challenge in the region.
Lawal has publicly committed to the welfare of the people, insisting that his government will “leave no stone unturned” to ensure justice and support for all residents, regardless of political affiliation. His promise to uplift education, security, and economic empowerment resonates with the aspirations of the state’s citizens.
Yet critics argue that persistent banditry and rising violence are evidence of leadership shortcomings. Local civic groups have accused the governor of inefficacy, claiming that insecurity in Zamfara continues to worsen under his watch — a sobering reminder that governance must be measured by results, not rhetoric.
Still, supporters highlight Lawal’s welfare programmes and recognition from labour unions for compassionate leadership, pointing to policies that have improved worker conditions and livelihood support.
Whether in Pretoria or in Gusau, the core issue is unchanged: people yearn for peace, dignity, and protection under accountable leadership. Governments must ensure that human welfare (not power projection) remains the cornerstone of policy.
What Lies Ahead: A Time for Principle Over Power.
The crisis ignited by U.S. military action in Venezuela and South Africa’s forceful appeal to the United Nations encapsulates a fundamental tension in the 21st century: the struggle between might and right, unilateral power and collective responsibility.
South Africa’s demand for a Security Council meeting is not an empty gesture. It is a principled stand for the rule of law, respect for sovereignty, and protection of international norms. It is also a reminder that in a world of shifting alliances and strategic interests, the voices of nations committed to justice and equality must be heard and loudly and without compromise.
As global leaders reckon with the fallout, the lessons echo across continents: peace cannot be imposed by force, rights cannot be guaranteed by bullets, and development cannot flourish in the soil of fear. Whether the United Nations heeds South Africa’s call will determine not just the fate of Venezuela but the fate of international order itself.
For the people of Zamfara and countless others who beleaguered by violence and insecurity, leadership (at all levels) must be anchored in accountability, compassion, and unyielding commitment to human welfare. Only then can we speak of true sovereignty and true peace.
Politics
Kogi’s Quiet Shift: Reviewing Governor Ododo’s First 24 Months in Office
Kogi’s Quiet Shift: Reviewing Governor Ododo’s First 24 Months in Office
By Rowland Olonishuwa
On Tuesday, Kogi State paused to mark two years since Alhaji Ahmed Usman Ododo took the oath as Executive Governor. Across government circles, community halls, and everyday conversations, the anniversary was more than a date on the calendar; it was a milestone that invites both reflection and renewed optimism. A moment to look back at how far the state has travelled in just twenty-four months, and where it is heading next.
Since assuming office in January 2024, Ododo has steered the state through a period of measured consolidation, delivering strategic interventions across security, infrastructure, human capital, and economic revitalisation that are beginning to translate into real improvements for residents.
Governor Ododo stepped into office at a time when expectations were high, and confidence in public institutions needed rebuilding.
His response to these was not loud declarations, but steady consolidation, strengthening structures, restoring order in governance, and setting a clear direction. Over time, that calm approach has become his signature: leadership that listens first, plans carefully, and moves with purpose.
Security has remained the most urgent concern for Nigerians, and Kogi residents are no exceptions; the Ododo-led administration has treated it as such. From deploying surveillance drones to support intelligence operations to recruiting and integrating local hunters and vigilante personnel into formal security frameworks, the government has built a layered safety net.
For farmers returning to their fields, travellers moving along highways, and families in rural communities, the impact is simple and deeply personal: fewer fears, quicker response, and growing confidence that the government is present and concerned about the ordinary people.
Infrastructural development has followed the same practical logic. Roads have been rehabilitated, easing movement for traders and commuters. Budget priorities have shifted toward capital projects and human development, while revived facilities like the Confluence Rice Mill now provide farmers with real economic opportunity. For many households, this means better income prospects, stronger local trade, and renewed belief that development is no longer a distant promise.
Health and education are not left out; the Ododo-led administration has expanded free healthcare services and supported students through examination funding and institutional improvements.
Parents who once struggled with medical bills and school fees have felt relief. Young people preparing for their futures now see government investment not as abstract policy but as something that touches their daily lives.
Governance reforms, from civil service strengthening to new legislative frameworks, have quietly improved how government functions. Salaries are more predictable, public offices are more responsive, and local government structures are more coordinated. These may not always make headlines, but they shape how citizens experience leadership every day.
As the second year anniversary celebrations fade into routine today and Governor Ododo enters his third year in office, the true meaning of the anniversary will continue to linger on.
Two years may not have solved every challenge in the Confluence State -no government ever does, by the way- but they have set a tone of stability, responsiveness, and direction. The next phase will demand deeper impact, broader reach, and sustained security gains.
But for many in Kogi State, the story of the past twenty-four months is already clear: steady hands on the wheel, and a journey that is firmly underway.
Olonishuwa is the Editor-in-Chief of Newshubmag.com. He writes from Ilorin
Politics
Lagos Assembly Debunks Abuja House Rumour, Warns Against Election Season Propaganda
Lagos Assembly Debunks Abuja House Rumour, Warns Against Election Season Propaganda
The Lagos State House of Assembly has described as misleading and mischievous the widespread misinformation that it budgeted for the purchase of houses in Abuja for its members in the 2026 Appropriation Law.
This rebuttal is contained in a statement jointly signed by Hon. Stephen Ogundipe, Chairman, House Committee on Information, Strategy, and Security, and Hon. Sa’ad Olumoh, Chairman, House Committee on Economic Planning and Budget.
Describing the report as a deliberate and disturbing falsehood being peddled by patently ignorant people, the statement reads, “There is no provision whatsoever in the 2026 Budget for the purchase of houses in Abuja or anywhere else for members of the Lagos State House of Assembly. The report is a complete fabrication and a product of political mischief intended to misinform the public.
“The Lagos State House of Assembly does not operate in Abuja. Our constitutional responsibilities, constituencies, and legislative duties are entirely within Lagos State. It is, therefore, illogical, irrational, and irresponsible for anyone to suggest that legislators would appropriate public funds for personal housing outside their jurisdiction.”
The statement emphasised that the budget is already in the public domain and accessible for scrutiny by discerning Lagosians and Nigerians alike. It reiterated that the Lagos State Government operates a transparent budget that speaks to the needs of the people and the demands of a megalopolis.
“We view this rumour as part of a wider attempt at election-season propaganda, designed to erode public trust, sow discord, and malign democratic institutions.”
The chairmen further clarified that the 2026 capital expenditure of the House of Assembly is less than 0.04% of the total CAPEX of the state, which clearly demonstrates the culture of prudence, accountability, and fiscal responsibility that guides the legislature. However, they noted, “Historically, the House does not even access up to its approved budget in many fiscal years.”
They stressed that the Assembly remains fully committed to excellence, transparency, good governance, and the collective welfare of the people of Lagos State, in line with the objectives of the 2026 Budget of Shared Prosperity.
“We therefore challenge those behind this harebrained allegation to produce credible evidence or retract their statements forthwith. Failure to do so may attract appropriate legal actions.
“We urge Lagosians and the general public to disregard this baseless rumour and always verify information from official and credible sources.”
Politics
Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent
Democracy in the Crosshairs: How Nigeria’s Ruling APC Weaponises Power and Silences Dissent.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com
“Tinubu’s Government, the EFCC and the Strategic Undermining of Opposition Governors”.
In a striking indictment of Nigeria’s current political reality, Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State declared that “you cannot speak truth to power in this dispensation”, directly accusing the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of intolerance for dissent and an erosion of democratic norms.
Makinde’s remarks (made during a public event in Ibadan on January 25, 2026) were more than a local governor’s lament. They crystallised a mounting national frustration: that Nigeria’s political landscape has tilted dangerously toward executive overreach, institutional capture and political engineering.
This narrative is not isolated. Across Nigeria, governors from opposition parties have defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in numbers unprecedented in the nation’s democratic history. Critics argue that these defections are not merely voluntary political choices, but part of a strategic pressure campaign leveraging federal power and institutions to fracture opposition influence.
At its centre lies Nigeria’s principal anti-graft agency – the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The EFCC: Anti-Graft Agency or Political Instrument? Founded to combat corruption, the EFCC’s constitutional mandate is to investigate and prosecute financial and economic crimes across public and private sectors. Its legal independence is enshrined in statute and it has historically pursued high-profile cases, including recovery of nearly $500 million in illicit assets in a single year, demonstrating its capacity for tackling corruption.
However, critics now claim that under the Tinubu administration, the EFCC’s prosecutorial power is being perceived (if not deployed) as a political instrument.
Opposition leaders, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and coalition parties such as the African Democratic Congress (ADC), have publicly accused the federal government of using anti-corruption agencies to intimidate opposition figures and governors, effectively pressuring them into aligning with the APC.
In a statement released in December 2025, opposition figures alleged that institutions such as the EFCC, the Nigerian Police and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission were being selectively wielded to weaken political competitors rather than combat financial crime impartially.
This is not merely rhetorical noise. The opposition’s grievances centre on several observable patterns:
Reopened or New Investigations Against Opposition Figures: The ADC pointed to recent abnormal reactivation of long-dormant cases or new inquiries into financial activities involving senior opposition politicians. These, they argue, often arise shortly before critical elections or political realignments.
Alleged Differential Treatment: According to opponents of the current administration, individuals who have defected to the APC appear less likely to face sustained legal scrutiny or prosecution in EFCC proceedings, even in cases of credible allegations of mismanagement.
Timing of Actions: The timing of certain high-profile investigations, emerging ahead of the 2027 general elections, reinforces perceptions that anti-graft measures are tailored to political cycles rather than legal merit.
The EFCC and Presidency have publicly denied these allegations, insisting that the commission operates independently and pursues corruption irrespective of political affiliation and that Nigeria’s democratic freedoms (including party choice and mobility) remain intact.
Yet the perception of bias, once systemic, is hard to erase, especially when political actors deploy powerful state machinery with strategic timing and selective intensity.
Defections and Power Realignment: A Democracy at Risk? Since 2023 and particularly through 2025, a remarkable number of state governors and senior political leaders have crossed over from opposition parties (notably the Peoples Democratic Party – PDP) to the APC. Though defections are normal in Nigeria’s fluid political system, the scale and speed in recent years are historically noteworthy, raising critical questions about underlying incentives.
The SaharaWeeklyNG reported Makinde’s comments within the broader context of a political climate where dissenting voices face greater obstacles than at any time in recent democratic memory.
Governors who remain in opposition find themselves squeezed between growing federal assertiveness and dwindling political capital. Some analysts argue that the combination of federal resource control, political appointments and influence over public agencies exerts tangible pressure on subnational leaders to align with the ruling party for political survival. This dynamic, they contend, undermines competitive party politics and weakens Nigeria’s multiparty democracy.
Speaking Truth to Power: What Makinde’s Critique Exposes. Governor Makinde’s core grievance (that it is increasingly difficult, perhaps perilous, to speak truth to power) resonates widely among civil society actors, political analysts and democratic advocates:
“YOU CANNOT SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER IN THIS DISPENSATION,” Makinde declared, specifically citing the government’s handling of contentious tax reform bills as an example where dissent was neither welcomed nor transparently debated.
Makinde’s critique reflects deeper structural concerns:
Exclusion of Key Stakeholders: Opposition leaders and state executives report being marginalised from meaningful consultation on national policies affecting federal-state relations, revenue sharing and fiscal reforms.
Institutional Intimidation: The perception that state politicians become targets of federal legal scrutiny after taking firm oppositional stances (real or perceived) discourages robust democratic debate.
Erosion of Opposition Space: A symbiotic effect of party defections and institutional pressure is a shrinking viable space for genuine political opposition, weakening checks and balances essential to democratic governance.
A respected political scientist, Dr. Aisha Bello of the University of Lagos, recently argued that “when opposition becomes fraught with state leverage instead of ideological competition, the very foundation of democratic contestation collapses,” adding that “a government that shies away from criticism risks inversion into autocracy.”
Another expert, Prof. Chinedu Eze, former dean of political studies at Ahmadu Bello University, warned that “selective use of anti-corruption agencies as political tools corrodes public trust and ultimately delegates justice into the hands of incumbents rather than independent courts.” These observations echo growing public skepticism.
The Way Forward: Strengthening Democracy and Institutions. Nigeria’s path forward depends on restoring confidence in democratic norms and institutional independence.
Transparent EFCC Processes: Civil society groups and legal scholars are advocating for enhanced transparency in anti-graft investigations, including clear prosecutorial thresholds and independent audits of case initiation and closures.
Judicial Oversight: Strengthening the judiciary’s capacity and independence is critical to ensuring that allegations of political weaponisation do not go unchecked. Courts must remain the ultimate arbiters of evidence and guilt.
Political Reforms: Advocates demand reforms to party financing, federal-state fiscal relations, and consultation mechanisms to reduce incentives for defections driven by federal resource leverage.
Public Engagement: A more informed and engaged civil society, anchored by independent media and civic education, must hold both government and opposition accountable for adherence to democratic principles.
Beyond The Present Moment.
Governor Makinde’s assertion that it is no longer tenable to “speak truth to power” under the current administration reflects unsettling trends in Nigeria’s evolving democratic landscape. While the EFCC and the Presidency maintain that anti-corruption efforts are independent and constitutionally grounded, opposition leaders (backed by political data and patterns of defections) argue that state power is being used to consolidate one-party dominance and undermine political pluralism.
At this critical juncture, Nigeria must choose between entrenching competitive democracy or sliding toward a political monopoly where dissent is subdued, institutions compromised, and power concentrated.
For Nigeria’s democratic ideals to survive (and thrive) its leaders and citizens must ensure that speaking truth to power remains not a perilous act of defiance but an honoured pillar of national life.
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoWhy Babangida’s Hilltop Home Became Nigeria’s Political “Mecca”
-
society6 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







