A call for leadership, tempered by economic vulnerability

At the United Nations General Assembly, Vice President Kashim Shettima presented Nigeria’s case before the world with two requests that, at first glance, appear to stand at odds with each other. On one hand, he demanded fairness for Africa by asking that Nigeria be considered for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. On the other, he sought debt forgiveness, a relief that would allow the country to breathe economically. These twin appeals, one asserting global stature, the other confessing fiscal strain, are a study in contradiction, yet they also invite deeper reflection to better understand both the ambition and the vulnerability contained in Nigeria’s position.
At its core, Nigeria’s claim to a Security Council seat is a philosophical one. The global order, crafted after the Second World War, remains stubbornly resistant to the reality of the 21st century. Africa, a continent of over 1.4 billion people, contributes resources, human capital, and peacekeepers to the world, yet remains without permanent representation in the UN’s most consequential chamber. From the standpoint of justice, this is indefensible. Nigeria, with its demographic weight, peacekeeping history, and position as Africa’s largest democracy, has long seen itself as the natural candidate to right this imbalance.
The appeal is moral: the UN should reflect the dignity and equality of nations, not the outdated power structures of 1945. To exclude Africa permanently is to perpetuate a philosophical injustice. Nigeria, then, is not asking for a privilege but for equity. Yet philosophy also demands coherence. The very same voice that asks for a seat among the powerful also pleads for debt forgiveness. If justice is the principle underpinning the first demand, responsibility is the principle that must undergird the second. Philosophically, sovereignty is tied to agency. Can a country that depends on the benevolence of creditors convincingly argue that it is ready to exercise global authority in the name of justice? This is the dilemma at the heart of Nigeria’s twin requests.
Politically, Shettima’s intervention at the UNGA makes sense. Domestically, it plays well. Nigerians weary of economic hardship are reassured to hear their government insisting on a place of dignity for the country in the international order. Politicians know that appeals to national pride often resonate even when domestic governance struggles. On the international stage, it also positions Nigeria as a leader ready to carry Africa’s mantle.
But politics is also about optics and credibility. The permanent members of the Security Council, China, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France, are unlikely to open their exclusive circle without asking hard questions. They will weigh not only Nigeria’s size but also its governance record, its ability to build consensus across Africa, and its capacity to act as a responsible steward of international peace and security. Here, the contradictions of Nigeria’s politics become sharper. Domestically, governance continues to be marred by corruption scandals, weak institutions, and electoral controversies. Regionally, Nigeria has at times played a stabilizing role in ECOWAS, but its leadership has also been inconsistent. Globally, the optics of demanding a seat at the high table while simultaneously asking for debt relief may dilute the strength of Nigeria’s claim. Politics without coherence can easily be dismissed as performance.
From the economic perspective, Nigeria’s plea for debt forgiveness is understandable, even rational. The country’s debt servicing obligations consume an overwhelming proportion of government revenues, leaving little fiscal space for development spending. Without relief, investments in health, education, and infrastructure are constrained, threatening both human capital and long-term stability. Debt forgiveness could offer breathing space, allowing Nigeria to reset its economy, especially if tied to reforms that strengthen revenue mobilisation and curb leakages.
Yet economics is also about perception. Creditors and global partners do not simply look at need; they examine stewardship. Nigeria remains heavily dependent on oil, with diversification efforts progressing too slowly. Fiscal indiscipline, inefficiencies in tax collection, and leakages through corruption undermine the credibility of its economic management. To ask for forgiveness while failing to demonstrate rigorous fiscal reforms risks reinforcing the perception that Nigeria is caught in a cycle of dependency rather than pursuing sustainable growth.
Moreover, economics is closely tied to the legitimacy of Nigeria’s Security Council bid. A permanent seat is not merely symbolic, it carries the weight of expectation that the holder can contribute meaningfully to global stability and development. If Nigeria’s economic management continues to project weakness and dependence, it undermines the perception that the country is ready for such responsibility. For Nigeria, economic reform is not just a domestic necessity; it is also a diplomatic tool.
Diplomacy, unlike domestic politics, is as much about timing and presentation as it is about substance. The UNGA is a platform where nations project power, seek allies, and shape narratives. In this context, Nigeria’s twin requests may have been better served if sequenced differently. The bid for a Security Council seat should have been framed as a rallying cry for Africa, underscoring Nigeria’s contributions to peacekeeping, mediation in regional conflicts, and its role as a democratic anchor. This could have built momentum around the justice of Africa’s case.
The plea for debt forgiveness, by contrast, might have been packaged within broader conversations on climate justice, fairer global financial architecture, or the inequities of international lending systems. Linking debt relief to global solidarity in the face of climate change, for instance, would recast Nigeria’s ask as a call for fairness, not charity. By collapsing both requests into one intervention, Nigeria risked muddying the message, presenting itself as both a global leader and a struggling debtor in the same breath. Effective diplomacy thrives on narrative control, and here Nigeria missed an opportunity to harmonize ambition with need.
Diplomacy also depends on coalition-building. For Nigeria’s Security Council bid to gain traction, it must secure the backing of the African Union, consolidate regional support, and win over partners beyond Africa. Similarly, debt relief requires alignment with other indebted countries, building a coalition that can pressure creditors within the G20 and multilateral institutions. The effectiveness of both requests, therefore, rests not on rhetorical flourish but on the quiet, painstaking work of alliance-making.
Is it inherently contradictory to ask for both a Security Council seat and debt forgiveness? Not necessarily. In truth, Nigeria embodies both realities. It is a country of immense potential and crippling challenges; a nation that can project continental leadership while simultaneously struggling with domestic fragility. The duality is not false, it is our lived reality.
The challenge, however, is to reconcile these positions in a way that does not undermine credibility. This requires a philosophical coherence that links justice to responsibility, a political strategy that pairs ambition with credibility, an economic policy that demonstrates discipline and sustainability, and a diplomatic approach that carefully sequences and frames demands. Without such coherence, Nigeria risks being heard without being taken seriously.
For Nigeria’s call to resonate, several steps are essential. First, governance reforms must be accelerated at home. Anti-corruption measures, credible elections, and stronger institutions are not only domestic imperatives but also diplomatic assets. Second, the economy must be repositioned, through diversification, disciplined fiscal management, and policies that inspire investor and creditor confidence. Third, Nigeria’s diplomacy must mature, moving beyond declarations at the UNGA to sustained coalition-building across Africa and with sympathetic global partners. Finally, the narrative must be sharpened. Debt forgiveness should be framed as a global justice issue, not a national plea; the Security Council seat should be framed as Africa’s right, not Nigeria’s privilege.
Vice President Shettima’s address at the UNGA reflects both aspiration and limitation. It captures Nigeria’s desire to lead and its struggle to survive. We see that justice, credibility, and sustainability must converge if our diplomacy is to carry conviction. To seek power while asking for pardon is not inherently wrong, it reflects the dual reality of a country in transition. But unless the gap between aspiration and governance is closed, the world may politely applaud our speeches while leaving us outside the chamber we most long to enter.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s path to global influence will not be secured by declarations alone. It will require steady reforms at home, sustained credibility abroad, and diplomacy that is both strategic and coherent. The world respects ambition but rewards consistency. Until Nigeria aligns its lofty aspirations with visible reforms, our calls for justice may continue to echo in the halls of the UN without altering the seating arrangement at the world’s most powerful table.