Pius Nsabe
On the morning of 24th September 2025, the 80th United Nations General Assembly convened in New York, and all eyes turned toward the podium as Vice President Kashim Shettima of Nigeria prepared to speak. Delegates shuffled papers, interpreters adjusted their headsets, and the murmur of conversation faded into a tense hush. For Nigeria, the moment carried weight beyond protocol—it was an opportunity to articulate its global priorities, highlight Africa’s concerns, and clarify its position on several international issues. The Shettima Address opened with a stark statement: “The chaos that shadows our world is a reminder that we cannot afford the luxury of inaction.”
The speech traced Nigeria’s journey from colonial subjugation to modern sovereignty. Shettima reminded the assembly that, at the founding of the United Nations, Nigeria was a colony of twenty million people with little voice in decisions affecting its future. Today, the country stands with 236 million citizens, one of the youngest populations on Earth, a dynamic workforce, and a record of participation in 51 out of 60 UN peacekeeping missions since independence. The Shettima Address framed these facts not as boastful claims but as markers of Nigeria’s evolving role in global governance.
Central to the address was Nigeria’s aspiration for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Shettima outlined the rationale: representation must reflect current realities, not the world as it was in 1945. Africa, he argued, continues to be underrepresented despite its resources, population, and contributions to international peace. This argument extended to economic justice: African nations must benefit from their mineral wealth through local processing, job creation, and investment, rather than continue exporting raw materials that fuel inequality and instability.
The speech shifted to pressing humanitarian concerns. Shettima condemned violence in Gaza and Qatar, reiterating Nigeria’s stance that human life must never become collateral in political conflicts. He advocated for a two-state solution in Palestine, emphasizing dignity and justice for affected populations. The Shettima Address connected global security to Africa’s development, underscoring that instability in one part of the world can reverberate across borders, affecting migration, economic growth, and regional security.
Technology and development were also significant themes. Shettima spoke of the digital divide and Africa’s need for access to artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. Bridging this gap, he suggested, is essential not only for economic competitiveness but for informed citizenship and governance. Climate change, he continued, is inseparable from security and development, requiring coordinated international support for resilient infrastructure, sustainable housing, and education.
Reactions in Nigeria were immediate and multifaceted. Supporters pointed to Shettima’s clear articulation of Nigeria’s global priorities. Femi Fani-Kayode, former Minister of Aviation, commented that the Shettima Address reflected Nigeria’s interests without ambiguity, while online platforms such as Twitter and X lit up with hashtags referencing the speech. Some citizens expressed approval of the emphasis on Africa’s resource management and digital inclusion, noting that these were issues often overlooked in global forums.
However, there was also criticism. The African Democratic Congress (ADC), through its Deputy National Publicity Secretary Jackie Wayas, suggested that the government should prioritize domestic concerns such as insecurity, inflation, and power shortages before seeking a more prominent role internationally. Analysts on local media echoed this sentiment, questioning whether Nigeria could realistically project influence abroad while grappling with internal challenges, including insurgency in the north and rising unemployment.
International responses were equally nuanced. African leaders acknowledged the call for a permanent Security Council seat as a long-standing demand for equitable representation. Some diplomats viewed Shettima’s framing of mineral wealth as a responsible economic position, emphasizing local empowerment and investment. Western observers expressed measured interest: they recognized Nigeria’s contributions to peacekeeping and regional stability but highlighted the need for consistent governance reforms, institutional stability, and economic resilience to match global ambitions.
The Shettima Address did not dwell solely on advocacy for Nigeria; it repeatedly tied international engagement to domestic responsibilities. The Vice President emphasized that multilateralism requires more than presence—it requires policy alignment at home, the enforcement of human rights, and responsible governance that can sustain external commitments. Every point about digital inclusion, climate adaptation, and peacekeeping was linked to national capacity and the ethical exercise of sovereignty.
The speech also carried a narrative rhythm that drew attention. Shettima juxtaposed the optimism of Nigeria’s potential with the sobering realities of international conflict. The address highlighted both historical injustices—Africa’s exclusion from decision-making forums—and contemporary opportunities, such as emerging technology and resource management. This interplay of past, present, and future allowed the Shettima Address to be read not as mere policy exposition but as a narrative of positioning, aspiration, and responsibility.
Media coverage reflected this narrative tone. The Guardian Nigeria highlighted the policy aspects of the speech, noting its focus on Security Council reform, digital inclusion, and climate resilience. Premium Times emphasized Shettima’s discussion of resource governance and economic equity. Social media amplified both praise and scrutiny: while some Nigerians celebrated the articulation of Africa’s concerns, others criticized the lack of concrete solutions for pressing domestic challenges. Commentators on Channels TV and Arise News debated whether Nigeria’s global ambitions could realistically coexist with internal crises such as Boko Haram, banditry, and inflationary pressures.
In New York, the reactions of UN delegates mirrored the mixture of interest and caution seen in Nigeria. African representatives generally welcomed Nigeria’s framing of its permanent Security Council bid as fair representation, while Western diplomats acknowledged the moral clarity but sought reassurance that Nigeria’s domestic capacity could support sustained international engagement. The speech’s attention to climate resilience, technology, and human rights was noted for its breadth, though it prompted discussions about implementation and practical follow-through.
The closing of the Shettima Address returned repeatedly to multilateralism and collective responsibility. Shettima emphasized that sovereignty is not an isolated exercise but a covenant of shared duties. Peace, justice, and human rights were framed as inseparable, and the address consistently linked international action with internal governance. This repetition reinforced the central message: Nigeria’s international engagement is inseparable from domestic preparedness, policy coherence, and institutional strength.
In retrospect, the Shettima Address can be read as a careful balancing act. It neither claimed triumph nor exaggerated influence. It provided a clear statement of Nigeria’s priorities, ambitions, and ethical considerations on the global stage. For supporters, it outlined Africa-focused initiatives and the potential for international representation. For critics, it highlighted gaps between aspiration and domestic capability. For international observers, it offered a benchmark for evaluating Nigeria’s role in global diplomacy and regional stability.
As the UN session concluded, discussions continued online, in newspapers, and in policy circles. Analysts noted that Nigeria’s voice was being heard, but that its global influence would depend on domestic follow-through. The Shettima Address had provided clarity about Nigeria’s stance on peacekeeping, equitable resource management, digital inclusion, climate change, and multilateralism—but it also invited scrutiny of internal governance and policy execution.
Ultimately, the 24th of September did not mark a victory or failure but a stage in a longer narrative. The Shettima Address highlighted the tensions between ambition and capacity, between external advocacy and internal responsibility, and between representation and governance. For Nigerians, the speech was a prompt for reflection on their country’s place in the world; for African peers, a signal of collective interest in reform; and for global powers, a reminder that emerging nations are seeking an active role in shaping the rules of international engagement.
In the final analysis, the Shettima Address stands as a document of position, intent, and policy framing. Its significance lies less in immediate outcomes than in the conversation it has sparked—within Nigeria, across Africa, and in the halls of global diplomacy. It is a narrative of potential, challenge, and responsibility, written at the intersection of national ambition and international expectation.