society
Multilateralism’s Moment: The Johannesburg Declaration and the Case That Cooperation Can (and Must) Deliver
Multilateralism’s Moment: The Johannesburg Declaration and the Case That Cooperation Can (and Must) Deliver.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by saharaweeklyng.com
“The adoption of the G20 Leaders Declaration in Johannesburg is more than ceremony; it is a practical rebuke to cynicism; a binding message that well-crafted, inclusive multilateralism remains humanity’s best instrument for solving shared crises.”
When leaders gathered in Johannesburg on 22–23 November 2025 for the first G20 summit ever held on African soil, something very plain and very consequential happened: they adopted a Leaders Declaration that speaks to the core question of our time; can the world still govern itself cooperatively when so many forces push it toward fragmentation? The short answer, emphatically, is YES. The Johannesburg declaration sends a clear signal that multilateralism can and must deliver, and that signal matters because the alternatives (unilateralism, great-power rivalry, and competitive isolation) are already proving ruinous for ordinary people everywhere.
Why does a declaration matter? Because multilateralism is not a SLOGAN; it is a set of instruments (institutions, financial arrangements, commitments and follow-through) that, when working, translate global consensus into local gains. The Johannesburg text does not pretend to solve every problem in a single paragraph. It does, however, marshal consensus on immediate, measurable priorities: accelerating renewable energy and a just energy transition, catalysing finance for developing economies, strengthening disaster resilience and post-disaster reconstruction, and re-energising efforts to tackle inequality and food insecurity. Those are not abstract goals; they are policy blueprints that require joint financing, coordinated regulation and institutional reform; the very machinery that only multilateral cooperation can provide at scale.
The politics around the summit illustrate the stakes. Washington’s absence (a high-profile boycott of the leaders sessions) made headlines and revealed the limits and frictions of global diplomacy. But the fact that a broadly representative group of G20 members nonetheless adopted a joint declaration underscores the resilience of collective action even when one major power steps back. The adoption by consensus; and the willingness of participants to anchor the declaration to concrete financing and reform proposals — demonstrates that multilateral outcomes can be both pragmatic and principled. It is the practical capacity to deliver that gives multilateralism its moral force.
South Africa’s Presidency framed the summit with a theme that was more than rhetorical: “SOLIDARITY, EQUALITY and SUSTAINABILITY.” In his opening address, President Cyril Ramaphosa put it bluntly: “The adoption of the declaration from the summit sends an important signal to the world that multilateralism can and does deliver.” That line matters not as flattery but as a public affirmation; a promise that the commitments on the page will be turned into funding, institutional changes and measurable outcomes for countries that have too often been left on the margins.
Nor is this moment detached from long-standing calls for reform. The United Nations recent “PACT FOR THE FUTURE” and the Summit of the Future discussions have argued for a multilateral system that is “FIT FOR THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE” more representative, more democratic and more capable of rapid collective action. António Guterres has repeatedly warned that “we are here to bring multilateralism back from the brink,” a refrain echoed across policy platforms and echoed in Johannesburg by leaders and experts who see reform and delivery as two sides of the same coin. If institutions are to be strengthened, they must also show deliverables; climate finance disbursed, debt vulnerabilities addressed, supply chains stabilized, and social protections scaled.
Economic justice is central to credibility. The Johannesburg Declaration does more than nod to inequality; it foregrounds the necessity of mobilising trillions in finance (concessional lending, catalytic private finance and innovative instruments) to help developing countries invest in both DECARBONISATION and INDUSTRIALISATION. The G20’s own advisory workstreams, including an Extraordinary Committee on Global Inequality chaired by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, have produced evidence that inequality corrodes growth and that coordinated global policy can make redistribution and sustainable growth mutually reinforcing. Multilateralism’s delivery, in practice, will be measured by whether these financial pledges translate into affordable capital for infrastructure, energy access for isolated communities, and fiscal space for social investment.
Sceptics will say declarations are cheap; what matters is implementation. They are right to demand results. That is why the Johannesburg outcome matters: it links declaratory politics to institutional mechanisms and to an agenda for reform of the international financial architecture. The leaders did not simply declare a wish; they pointed toward the Sevilla Commitment and a set of G20 workstreams intended to create pipelines of bankable projects, reform multilateral development bank practices, and coordinate post-disaster reconstruction financing. In short, the declaration is a roadmap (heavy on specifics) for turning CONSENSUS into CAPITAL and CAPITAL into CAPACITY.
Although delivery will require more than good intentions. It will require political will at home and patience abroad. It will require democratic legitimacy for multilateral institutions (which means involving civil society, parliaments and subnational governments in oversight) and it will require INNOVATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY: CLEAR MILESTONES, TRANSPARENT MONITORING and INDEPENDENT EVALUATION. As IMF analysts and leading economists have argued, the multilateral system needs to become “INCENTIVE COMPATIBLE” so that every participant sees visible, near-term benefits alongside longer-term structural gains. That blend of incentives and oversight is how the system will survive the fractures of our multipolar age.
The Johannesburg declaration is also political theatre with policy teeth. It shows that when countries are willing to compromise and to prioritise collective gain over zero-sum signalling, they can put in place a common platform to tackle shared threats: climate shocks, food insecurity, pandemics, technology risks and violent conflict. These are not problems a single state can solve alone. They require interoperable rules, pooled financing, and coordinated action. The Johannesburg leaders’ document is an admission that the old adage remains true: sovereignty is protected, not weakened, when nations cooperate to reduce risks that respect no borders.
So what should we expect next? First, rigorous follow-up: project pipelines must be created, funded and monitored. Second, reform: the G20 and other institutions must accelerate the hard work of reforming governance structures (including representation and voice) so that developing countries have meaningful agency in decisions that affect their futures. Third, accountability: civil society, academia and parliamentary institutions must be empowered to hold leaders to the commitments they signed in Johannesburg. And finally, results: more renewable capacity deployed in Africa, debt relief and restructuring where necessary, and tangible reductions in vulnerability for the poorest communities.
If Johannesburg teaches us anything, it is that multilateralism’s moral claim rests on its practical performance. As Joseph Stiglitz and other leading scholars emphasize, multilateral action is both economically sensible and politically necessary; without it, inequity and instability will deepen. António Guterres’ plea to “bring multilateralism back from the brink” is not a rhetorical flourish; it is an agenda that demands both reform and delivery. The Johannesburg Declaration is a constructive step along that path. Now the real test begins: turning WORDS into WORK, and COMMITMENTS into CHANGE.
History will judge Johannesburg not simply by the eloquence of its statements but by whether the summit’s promises are lived out in schools with power, hospitals with supplies, farms with drought resilience, and economies with inclusive jobs. That is the only defensible yardstick for multilateralism: performance that improves lives. The declaration says it can be done. The world must now prove it — quickly, transparently and with fierce resolve. The future of cooperative global governance depends on nothing less.
society
Stop Means Stop”: Legal Experts Warn Ignoring ‘Stop’ During Intimate Acts Can Be Criminally Punishable
“Stop Means Stop”: Legal Experts Warn Ignoring ‘Stop’ During Intimate Acts Can Be Criminally Punishable
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG
“Grounded in international law and consent principles, legal authorities stress that continuing sexual activity after a partner withdraws consent may constitute sexual assault and lead to imprisonment.”
A growing body of legal interpretation and expert opinion reaffirm that consent in intimate encounters is not a one-off event but an ongoing requirement; withdrawn at any time by either participant. Legal practitioners and rights advocates are increasingly warning that if one partner clearly says “stop” during sexual activity and the other continues, this conduct can constitute a criminal offence with significant penalties, including imprisonment.
Consent must be “a voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question,” and crucially can be revoked at any stage. Once a partner expresses withdrawal of consent (by words like “stop” or by unmistakable conduct) the other party is legally obligated to cease all activity immediately. Failure to respect this is widely recognised in multiple legal jurisdictions as sexual assault or rape.
Professor Deborah Rhode, a prominent authority on legal ethics, has stated: “Respect for autonomy and bodily integrity lies at the core of consent law. Ignoring a partner’s withdrawal of consent undermines basic personal freedoms and is treated as a serious offence in criminal law.”
According to experts, this legal principle is not limited to strangers but applies equally to long-term partners and spouses. The Criminal Code in many countries explicitly rejects implied or blanket consent based on relationship status.
Human rights lawyer Amal Clooney has similarly emphasised that clear communication and mutual agreement are essential, and that “once consent is withdrawn, any continued sexual activity crosses the line into criminal conduct.”
This means that in places where consent law is well-established, ignoring an explicit “stop” can lead to charges of sexual assault, with courts interpreting such conduct as a violation of an individual’s autonomy and dignity.
The issue has gained media and legal attention in recent years across numerous jurisdictions (including Canada, parts of Europe, and reform discussions in U.S. states) as courts and legislatures clarify that sexual consent is continuous and revocable at any time. Although no globally consolidated database exists of individual cases tied specifically to a news report on this warning, reputable legal frameworks consistently reinforce that continuing after “stop” is unlawful.
The subject engages legal scholars, criminal law practitioners, human rights experts, and statutory bodies advocating sexual violence prevention. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors may pursue charges when clear evidence shows that consent was withdrawn and ignored.
In practice, consent frameworks require that the person initiating or continuing sexual activity take reasonable steps to ensure ongoing affirmation of willingness. Silence, passive behaviour, or failure to stop when asked cannot substitute for ongoing consent.
In summary, the legal maxim is clear: verbal or unambiguous withdrawal of consent must be respected. Ignoring it shifts the encounter from consensual to criminal, potentially resulting in serious legal consequences including imprisonment.
Lagos Family Property Dispute Turns Violent After Death of Chief Omotayo Ojo
By Ifeoma Ikem
A festering family dispute over property has escalated into a series of violent attacks in Lagos, leaving residents of a contested apartment in fear for their safety.
Mrs. Omotayo-Ojo-Alolagbe (Nee Omotayo-Ojo) the third child and first daughter of the late Omotayo Ojo, has alleged repeated assaults and destruction of property by her siblings from her father’s other marriages.
According to her account, hostility against her began while her father was still alive, allegedly fueled by the affection and support he showed her. She claimed that tensions worsened after his death in 2019.
Mrs. Alolagbe stated that her late father had given her a particular apartment during his lifetime, assuring her she would not suffer hardship, especially after her husband left the marriage. She said the property became her primary source of livelihood and shelter.
However, she alleged that her siblings had sold off several other family properties and were determined to dispossess her of the apartment allocated to her by their father.
The dispute reportedly turned violent on Nov. 15, 2025, when unknown persons allegedly attacked the building. She said the incident prompted her to petition the Chief Judge of Lagos State and the Commissioner of Police.
Despite the pending legal proceedings, she alleged that another attack occurred on Jan. 21, 2026. During that incident, parts of the building were vandalised, including the walkway and the main gate, which was reportedly removed.
A third attack was said to have taken place on Feb.18, 2026, during which the roof, gates, and sections of the walkway were allegedly dismantled. Residents were reportedly assaulted, and some were allegedly forced to part with money under duress.
Tenants in the apartment complex are said to be living in fear amid the repeated invasions, expressing concern over their safety and uncertainty about further violence.
Mrs. Alolagbe alleged that the attacks were led by a man identified as Mr. Alliu, popularly known as aka “Champion,” whom she described as a political thug. She claimed he arrived with a group of about 50 men, allegedly brandishing weapons and breaking bottles to intimidate residents.
She further alleged that the group boasted of connections with senior police officers, politicians in Lagos State, and even the presidency, claiming they were untouchable.
According to her, some arrests were initially made following the incidents, but the suspects were later released. She expressed concern that the alleged perpetrators continue to threaten her, making it difficult for her to move freely.
She also disclosed that during a meeting on Feb. 23, 2026, an Area Commander reportedly told her that little could be done because the matter was already before a court of law.
The development has raised concerns about the enforcement of law and order in civil disputes that degenerate into violence, particularly when court cases are pending.
As tensions persist, residents and observers are calling on relevant authorities to ensure the safety of lives and properties ,while allowing the courts to determine ownership and bring lasting resolution to the dispute.
Adron Homes Introduces Special Ramadan Offer with Discounts and Gift Rewards
As the holy month of Ramadan inspires reflection, sacrifice, and generosity, Adron Homes and Properties Limited has unveiled its special Ramadan Promo, encouraging families, investors, and aspiring homeowners to move beyond seasonal gestures and embrace property ownership as a lasting investment in their future.
The company stated that the Ramadan campaign, running from January 20th to April 6th, 2026, is designed to help Nigerians build long-term value and stability through accessible real estate opportunities. The initiative offers generous discounts, flexible payment structures, and meaningful Ramadan-themed gifts across its estates and housing projects nationwide.
Under the promo structure, clients enjoy a 30% discount on land purchases alongside a convenient 36-month flexible payment plan, making ownership more affordable and stress-free.
In the spirit of the season, the company has also attached thoughtful rewards to qualifying payments. Clients who pay ₦200,000 receive a Provision Hamper to support their household during the fasting period, while those who pay ₦400,000 receive an Automated Prayer Mat to enhance their spiritual experience throughout Ramadan.
According to the company, the Ramadan Promo reflects its commitment to aligning lifestyle, faith, and financial growth, enabling Nigerians at home and in the diaspora to secure appreciating assets while observing a season centered on discipline and forward planning.
Reiterating its dedication to secure land titles, prime locations, and affordable pricing, Adron Homes urged prospective buyers to take advantage of the limited-time Ramadan campaign to build a future grounded in stability, prosperity, and generational wealth.
This promo covers estates located in Lagos, Shimawa, Sagamu, Atan–Ota, Papalanto, Abeokuta, Ibadan, Osun, Ekiti, Abuja, Nasarawa, and Niger states.
As Ramadan calls for purposeful living and wise decisions, Adron Homes is redefining the season, transforming reflection into investment and faith into a lasting legacy.
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoWhy Babangida’s Hilltop Home Became Nigeria’s Political “Mecca”
-
society5 months agoReligion: Africa’s Oldest Weapon of Enslavement and the Forgotten Truth
-
society6 months agoPower is a Loan, Not a Possession: The Sacred Duty of Planting People
-
news7 months agoTHE APPOINTMENT OF WASIU AYINDE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS AN AMBASSADOR SOUNDS EMBARRASSING