THE IMPERIAL GOLD COIN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF ATLANTIS UNVEILED AS SYMBOL OF SOVEREIGNTY AND HERITAGE

_[Atlantis City, United Kingdom of Atlantis – March 2026]_ – The United Kingdom of Atlantis proudly announces the introduction of its *Imperial Gold Coin*, a magnificent emblem of sovereignty, authority, and imperial heritage. The exquisite gold coin has been crafted to represent the nation’s regal tradition, economic strength, and the visionary leadership of its monarch.

The centerpiece of the coin features the dignified portrait of *His Imperial Majesty, Professor Solomon Wining*, depicted in full royal regalia. Crowned with a majestic golden crown and adorned with intricately crafted ornaments, the portrait embodies honor, wisdom, and noble leadership befitting a sovereign ruler. The depiction celebrates the monarch’s reign, which is associated with wisdom, development, and the pursuit of justice.

The golden coin itself signifies *prosperity, stability, and the enduring legacy* of the Atlantis Kingdom. Gold, historically a universal symbol of power, wealth, and permanence, reflects the strength and vision of the kingdom’s leadership and its aspirations for lasting greatness.

Encircling the royal portrait is the carefully engraved inscription *“United Kingdom of Atlantis”*, reinforcing the state’s identity any the authority of its sovereign ruler. The lower rim of the coin prominently displays the name *Solomon Wining*, commemorating the monarch whose leadership is linked to noble governance and national advancement.

The phrase *“Gold Coin”* highlights not only the currency’s intrinsic value but also its symbolic significance as a representation of the kingdom’s economic structure and royal treasury. Beyond its aesthetic elegance, the coin serves as a *mark of sovereignty*, a seal of authority, and a reminder of the royal institution governing the United Kingdom of Atlantis.

The Imperial Gold Coin represents:
– *Unity* among citizens,
– *Loyalty* to the crown,
– A vision of a kingdom built upon *justice, prosperity, and noble leadership*.

Every detail—from the engraved crown to the polished golden surface—makes the coin a timeless emblem of imperial prestige and national pride. It stands as both a symbol of wealth and a monument to the legacy of royal leadership, reminding all who behold it of the enduring power and majesty of the United Kingdom of Atlantis.

The United Kingdom of Atlantis is a sovereign nation dedicated to upholding traditions of regal governance, cultural heritage, and economic prosperity, guided by the wisdom of its imperial leadership.

_Notes to Editors_:
The Imperial Gold Coin is intended for commemorative and symbolic purposes, representing the nation’s imperial heritage and royal authority.

Ajadi Visits Ibadan Chief Imam, Receives Blessings

The leading gubernatorial aspirant in Oyo State on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Ambassador Olufemi Ajadi Oguntoyinbo, on Wednesday paid a courtesy visit to the Grand Chief Imam of Ibadanland, Sheikh Imam Abdul Ganiy Abubakir Agbotomokekere, at his Oja’ba residence in Ibadan, where discussions centred on leadership, integrity, and the role of prayers in governance.

Ajadi, who described the revered Islamic cleric as a spiritual pillar in Oyo State, said his visit was to seek prayers and wise counsel as he continues consultations ahead of the 2027 governorship race.

While addressing the Chief Imam, Ajadi commended his consistent prayers for Ibadanland, Oyo State and Nigeria, noting that religious leaders remain critical stakeholders in nation building.

“I have come to seek your prayers and spiritual blessings because of your important role in promoting peace, unity and moral guidance in our society,” Ajadi said.

“I also want to appreciate your continuous prayers for the progress of Ibadanland, Oyo State and Nigeria as a whole. My prayer is that Almighty Allah will continue to grant you sound health and long life to witness many more Ramadan seasons on earth.”

Speaking further, the PDP gubernatorial aspirant emphasised the need for leadership driven by compassion, fairness and accountability, stressing that his political aspiration is rooted in service to the people.

“My ambition is not just about occupying an office but about serving the people with sincerity and fear of God. We must continue to encourage politics that will bring development and improve the welfare of our people,” he added.

While speaking with journalists after the visit, Ajadi also assured the people of Oyo State and Nigerians at large that the internal crisis and political tensions within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) have been brought under control by the grace of God. He expressed optimism that the party would emerge victorious in all elective positions in the 2027 general elections.

In his response, Sheikh Agbotomokekere advised the governorship hopeful to remain focused on the principles of good governance, warning against corrupt practices often associated with politics.

The respected Islamic scholar noted that while politics is practised differently by individuals, only leaders with integrity and fear of God can truly deliver the dividends of democracy.

“Politics is practised by different kinds of people. Some play politics in a corrupt way, while others practise it with sincerity. My prayer is that you will be among those who will practise democracy in the right way if you become governor,” the Chief Imam said.

He reminded the aspirant that human ambition can only be fulfilled by divine approval, stressing that ultimate power belongs to God.

“Whoever is seeking a position should know that only Allah can make such an ambition come true. Whether a person becomes famous or remains unknown is also by the will of Allah,” he said.

Offering prayers for the politician, the cleric added: “Many people may be struggling for a position meant for one person, and it is only God who knows the rightful person. I pray that Almighty Allah will make you the chosen one among all the contenders.”

Using a football analogy to further illustrate his point, the cleric advised Ajadi to be wary of political distractions and misleading influences.

“On the football field, sometimes spectators believe they understand the game more than the players themselves. I pray that you will not be misled by so-called political gurus and that God will guide your steps aright,” he said.

Sheikh Agbotomokekere, the 18th Chief Imam of Ibadanland, is widely respected across South-Western Nigeria for his scholarship, spiritual leadership and advocacy for peaceful coexistence among religious and political groups.

Observers say the visit forms part of Ajadi’s ongoing consultations with key stakeholders, traditional rulers and religious leaders as political activities gradually gather momentum ahead of the next electoral cycle in Oyo State.

The cleric offered special prayers for peace in Oyo State, successful leadership, and continued unity among the people despite political and religious differences.

When Gaddafi Challenged the World Order: 2009 UN Speech, Veto Power and the Quest for Global Justice

By George Omagbemi Sylvester

“Gaddafi’s 2009 UN Address Exposed Security Council Inequities and Sparked a Continuing Debate on Veto Power and Global Justice.”

Muammar Gaddafi, the then‑leader of Libya and President of the African Union, delivered one of the most extraordinary speeches in the history of the United Nations General Assembly on 23 September 2009 at the UN headquarters in New York City. Originally allotted just 15 minutes, Gaddafi’s address stretched to nearly 100 minutes and became infamous for its confrontational tone toward the UN Security Council’s structure and global power imbalances.

Gaddafi’s central message was a fierce critique of the permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China) and their veto powers. He questioned whether an institution founded on principles of equality and peace could truly function when a handful of powerful states could unilaterally block action on urgent global crises. “The veto is against the charter, we do not accept it and we do not acknowledge it. Veto power should be annulled,” he declared in his address.

He held up a simple paperback copy of the UN Charter, reading sections aloud in front of diplomats, kings, presidents and delegates, and at times even tossing it aside to dramatize his point that the rules of international law mean little when selectively applied.

What Gaddafi Argued: Inequality at the Heart of the UN

Gaddafi’s speech was not merely rhetorical theatre; it was an unfiltered expression of frustration shared by many countries of the Global South, who view the UN’s highest decision‑making body as outdated and unrepresentative of global realities. According to his speech, the Security Council “did not provide us with security but with terror and sanctions,” a stinging indictment of how powerful nations have wielded war, intervention and punitive measures with little accountability.

Scholars and analysts have since weighed in on the structural issues Gaddafi raised, even if they disagree with his broader worldview. Professor Andrzej Polus, a political economist at the University of Wrocław, notes that the Security Council’s composition “reflects the situation of 1945 when it was created,” a geopolitical reality vastly different from the world of today. He explains that although many African countries gained independence in the 1960s, “Africa remains excluded from real influence within this structure”; a point that echoes elements of Gaddafi’s critique, even if not his rhetoric.

The Veto Debate: Scholarly Voices on a Flawed Mechanism

The heart of the controversy lies in the veto power, a unique privilege that allows any of the five permanent members to block substantive decisions, even if all other members vote in favour. Critics argue this mechanism creates a persistent “veto‑dilemma,” where the Council’s ability to act decisively on humanitarian crises (genocide, war crimes or severe conflict) is often stymied by narrow national interests. A legal study from the University of Cape Town highlights that even reforming the veto itself can be blocked by the veto, revealing a deep structural paradox that undermines effectiveness and human rights protection.

Scholars like those cited in a comprehensive review of Security Council dynamics spanning 1990–2022 conclude that “veto usage consistently delays or weakens responses”, especially in crisis‑related resolutions, exposing the tension between great power interests and collective security. Such research underscores that while the veto system was originally conceived as a safeguard for peace among major powers, in practice it has often paralyzed action and diminished the Council’s legitimacy.

Another academic analysis argues that the veto has “evolved from a collective safeguard into a political instrument” that obstructs accountability and inhibits effective humanitarian responses. The author suggests alternative mechanisms like a “Veto Accountability Index” and measures to restrict veto use in atrocity contexts to mitigate these effects; reforms that would preserve the broader structure while addressing some of its most damaging consequences.

Critics and Reformers: Beyond Gaddafi’s Rhetoric

Although scholars may agree on the need to reform the Security Council’s structure, they caution that simply abolishing the veto is no silver bullet. Achieving meaningful reform requires collective diplomatic consensus among the very powers reluctant to yield influence; a daunting political challenge. As one expert study notes, even legal mechanisms to regulate veto power are tangled in procedural hurdles that can themselves be blocked under current rules.

In the United Nations General Assembly debates of recent years, multiple member states have urged limiting or suspending veto use, especially in cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Delegates emphasise that “the veto should not serve as a weapon of hatred and war” and that without structural change, the Council’s legitimacy and broader reputation will continue to erode amidst ongoing global conflicts.

Why It Still Matters: The Legacy of 2009

Gaddafi’s speech was polarising, with some contemporary commentators dismissing it as rambling or opportunistic. Yet the core elements of his critique (the inequality embedded in global decision‑making, the power disparities between rich and poor nations, and the need for a more representative international order) remain central to scholarly and diplomatic dialogues today.

Professor Polus’s reminder that the current system was designed in a geopolitical context that no longer exists captures the essence of this debate. Many countries, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, continue to advocate for expanded representation or fundamental restructuring, whether through increasing the number of permanent seats or creating new models of weighted voting that reflect 21st‑century power distributions.

Critics of the veto, like institutional reform advocates and academic analysts, caution that while Gaddafi’s dramatic performance was controversial, his underlying question (Can international peace and equality be achieved if a few states can single‑handedly block action?) remains a central challenge confronting the UN.

Truth, Power and the Future of Global Governance

More than a decade later, the riffs between rhetoric and reform persist. Gaddafi’s 2009 address remains a symbolic flashpoint; not because it reshaped the United Nations overnight, but because it brought into stark relief the tensions between the ideals enshrined in the UN Charter and the realpolitik of international power.

For many scholars and diplomats today, the road to a more equitable United Nations is neither straightforward nor simple. But the debate over veto power (whether it should be retained, limited, or reformed) continues to shape discussions on international justice, collective security, and the legitimacy of global governance in an increasingly interconnected world.