The Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Senator George Akume, has said the North should support President Bola Tinubu for a second term in 2027.

He insisted that any Northerner seeking the presidency in 2027 would be working against the region’s interests.

Akume said the North should allow Tinubu to complete his political project before considering another presidential bid in 2031.

The SGF stated this on Saturday while addressing Benue State indigenes resident in Kaduna ahead of the flag-off of the All Progressives Congress presidential campaign in the state capital.

He urged Northerners to remain united and resist political ambitions capable of dividing the region ahead of the 2027 general elections.

Add us to your Preferred Sources
“The North must remain united and focus on its collective interest rather than allow individual ambitions to divide us,” Akume said.

The former Benue State governor argued that the region needed to consider its long-term political interests and the implications of the 2027 presidential election for its future.

He said, “President Bola Tinubu should be allowed to complete his political project before the North considers its own presidential ambition in 2031.”

Akume also cautioned against attempts to divide Northerners along political, religious and personal lines, stressing that unity remained essential to the region’s political relevance.

“We must not allow political, religious or personal differences to undermine our common interests. The strength of the North lies in our ability to work together,” he said.

The SGF further called for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among Nigeria’s diverse ethnic and religious communities, saying national development depended on unity.

He urged the people to examine political developments carefully and avoid being misled by individuals whose ambitions might conflict with the broader interests of the region.

The meeting brought together Benue indigenes living in Kaduna and other political stakeholders to discuss issues affecting their community, political representation and engagement with leaders at the national level.

The APC presidential campaign flag-off in Kaduna is expected to bring together party leaders, supporters and political stakeholders from across the country.

President Bola Tinubu former Ekiti State Governor, Ayo Fayose
President Bola Tinubu former Ekiti State Governor, Ayo Fayose.

President Bola Tinubu has approved the appointment of 26 persons into the boards and leadership of 10 federal government agencies and commissions, including former Ekiti State Governor, Ayo Fayose, as Chairman of the Rural Electrification Agency.

The appointments, which take immediate effect, were announced in a statement on Monday by the President’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga.

“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has announced 26 new appointments into 10 Federal Government agencies and commissions, with former governor of Ekiti State, Ayo Fayose, emerging as chairman of the Rural Electrification Agency (REA), and Major General Junaid Bindawa as chairman of the National Salary and Wages Commission,” the statement read.

The Presidency said Fayose would head the REA board alongside Alhaji Ahmadu Abubakar and Engineer Ilyasu Ibrahim Makinta as members and non-executive directors, while “the incumbent DG of the agency, Abba Abubakar Aliyu, and three executive directors previously appointed make up the remaining board members.”

Tinubu also named Major General Junaid Bindawa as Chairman of the National Salary and Wages Commission and approved eight additional appointments into the commission.

The statement added that “Former member of the House of Representatives from Lagos, Olajumoke Okoya-Thomas, is the new secretary of the commission,” while Dr Ogbole Ene Lilian, Oladele Olatubosun and Yakubu Umar Barde were appointed commissioners representing Benue, Oyo and Kaduna states respectively.

It further stated that “Dr Mai Adamu Yau, from Borno, Ginika Florence Tor (Enugu), Engineer Lawrence Okoh (Edo) and Bello Morenike Iyabode (Kogi) were appointed as members of the Commission.”

The President also redeployed Tosin Johnson Adeyanju, who previously served as Executive Secretary of the National Lottery Trust Fund, to the Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission as Secretary.

Other appointments announced include Dr Abuh Mohammed as Director-General of the National Population Commission, Dr Akinola Odeyemi as Managing Director of the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc, Dr Anthony Inalegwu Godwin as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission, and Engineer Julius Oloro as Chief Executive Officer of the National Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation.

According to the statement, “Engineer Julius Oloro, a former council chairman, is the new CEO of the Kwara-based National Centre for Agricultural Mechanisation (NCAM), replacing Dr A.R. Kamal, who died last January.”

Tinubu also constituted the board of the Fiscal Responsibility Commission with Dr Abdullahi Maikano Saidu as chairman.

The board members, according to the Presidency, are “Mohammed Asmau, Mohammed Aliyu Makama, Dr Suleiman Gidado, Louis O. Ndukwe, Amaechi Ugwele and Olaniyi Idowu Onikola.”

The President further appointed Shuni Muhammad Dahiru as Executive Secretary of the National Commission for Mass Literacy, Adult and Non-Formal Education, replacing Professor Shu’aibu Shehu Aliyu, who was reassigned to the Petroleum Trust Development Fund in April.

He also named Gisaor Vincent Iorja as Executive Director (Finance) of the Federal Housing Authority, replacing Mathias Byuan, who resigned to contest the Benue State governorship election.

The Presidency said “all the appointments take immediate effect.”

By Michael Olukayode

The status of Taiwan remains one of the most enduring and strategically sensitive disputes in modern international relations — a question where history, law, identity, and geopolitics collide without easy resolution. It is not merely a territorial disagreement between Beijing and Taipei; it is a layered contest over legitimacy, sovereignty, and the meaning of statehood in a shifting global order.

Across recent scholarly salons and policy interventions in Africa and beyond — particularly the Abuja media salon hosted by the China General Chamber of Commerce in Nigeria — a striking convergence has emerged around the One-China Principle, even as interpretations of its implications remain sharply contested.

The Historical Fault Line: 1949 and the Birth of Two Political Realities

The modern Taiwan question originates in the Chinese Civil War, which ended in 1949 with the Communist Party of China establishing the People’s Republic of China on the mainland while the defeated Kuomintang (KMT) government retreated to Taiwan.

As Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim forcefully stated at the Abuja salon:

“Taiwan is not a sovereign entity, it has no independence and it is not a member of the United Nations.”

From Beijing’s perspective, this was not the creation of two states but the continuation of one China under different administrations.

This position aligns with the broader Chinese narrative repeatedly emphasized in diplomatic discourse, including the categorical assertion that:

“Taiwan has never been a country, was never one in the past, and will never be one in the future.”

Taiwan, however, evolved in a very different direction. Over decades, it developed into a functioning democratic polity with its own political institutions, elections, military structure, and constitutional governance.

This divergence produces what scholars describe as a central paradox: a de facto state operating with constrained de jure recognition, facing a sovereign claim from a rising global power.

The Legal Architecture: UN Resolution 2758 and Competing Interpretations

A cornerstone of Beijing’s argument is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, which restored China’s seat at the United Nations in 1971.

At the Abuja salon, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim insisted:

“This resolution has explicitly established… that there is only one seat for China in the United Nations, leaving no room for ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’.”

From this perspective, Taiwan is not a separate subject of international law but part of China whose representation is subsumed under Beijing.

Taiwan and its supporters contest this interpretation, arguing that Resolution 2758 addresses representation — not sovereignty — leaving Taiwan’s political status deliberately unresolved.

This legal ambiguity has become what many scholars now describe as structured uncertainty, sustaining diplomatic flexibility while preventing formal resolution.

Beijing’s Position: Sovereignty, Reunification, and Historical Mission

China’s position is rooted in sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national rejuvenation.

As reiterated by President Xi Jinping:

“The great tide of compatriots on both sides of the strait becoming closer, more connected and coming together will not change. This is the verdict of history.”

In Chinese official discourse, reunification is not framed as a negotiable issue but as a historical inevitability tied to national revival.

This perspective was reinforced in Abuja by African analysts who align with Beijing’s framing of sovereignty as non-negotiable, with Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim emphasizing that Africa’s diplomatic alignment reflects a global consensus increasingly anchored in the One-China Principle.

Taiwan’s Position: Democracy, Identity, and De Facto Sovereignty

Taiwan’s position rests on lived political reality and democratic self-governance.

While officially still called the Republic of China, Taiwan functions as an independent political system with its own elections, judiciary, military, and constitution.

Its leadership under President Lai Ching-te emphasizes Taiwan’s distinct political identity and rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims.

From Beijing’s perspective, this is framed as separatism. From Taiwan’s perspective, it is democratic self-determination.

The result is a deeply entrenched ideological divide: territorial integrity versus political identity.

Strategic Ambiguity and Global Power Politics

A critical dimension of the Taiwan issue is the role of external powers, particularly the United States.

Washington’s policy of strategic ambiguity — recognizing the One-China framework while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan — is widely seen as both stabilizing and contradictory.

At the Abuja salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim and other speakers framed external engagement with Taiwan as part of what they described as “separatist encouragement,” while emphasizing African alignment with Beijing’s position.

Africa’s Diplomatic Alignment and the One-China Consensus

A recurring theme in Abuja was overwhelming African diplomatic alignment with Beijing.

As multiple presenters emphasized:

“As of May 2026, 53 out of 54 African nations adhere to the One-China policy.”

The only exception remains Eswatini.

At the salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim argued that this position reflects historical continuity in African diplomacy:

“African nations have consistently stood with China on issues concerning its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Dr. Segun Showunmi, who is an Ace Public affairs analyst and social impact expert, with experience in governance, policy and civic engagement added that this alignment is not merely political but developmental:

“That consistency created trust and in international politics, trust often translates into investment, infrastructure, and strategic cooperation.”

The Abuja Diplomatic Intervention: China’s Official Position

A defining moment of the salon came from the representative of the Chinese state — the Counsellor of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Nigeria, Ms.Dong Hairong— who reiterated Beijing’s formal position in unambiguous terms:

“There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”

This intervention anchored the entire discussion within the framework of Chinese sovereignty doctrine and reinforced that diplomatic relations with China are premised on acceptance of the One-China Principle.

⸻

Prof. Sam Amadi: Strategic Ambiguity as Diplomatic Reality

Professor Sam Amadi, a policy strategist and law and governance expert, Director, Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts,
introduced a more analytical framing, arguing that global practice is defined not by clarity but by managed contradiction.

He stated:

“The One-China principle and One-China policy are clear, but difficult to operationalise.”

He further explained:

“What we have today is strategic ambiguity… meaning they acknowledge, but at the same time, they engage.”

For Amadi, the central question for Africa is not ideological but practical:

“Should we foreclose ambiguity and advance a straight One-China principle, which will exclude all kinds of trade and engagement with Taiwan?”

His conclusion favored diplomatic exclusivity with calibrated economic engagement.

Strategic Realism: Why the Status Quo Persists

Despite rhetorical intensity, the Taiwan issue persists in its unresolved form due to structural constraints:

* China cannot accept formal separation without undermining sovereignty doctrine
* Taiwan cannot accept reunification without losing political autonomy
* The United States benefits strategically from ambiguity
* African states largely align diplomatically with Beijing while prioritizing development ties

As Professor Amadi summarized:

“We acknowledge these principles, but we go back there and also deal with Taiwan in trade… using strategic ambiguity.”

Conclusion: History as Contest, Diplomacy as Equilibrium

The Abuja salon underscored a broader truth about the Taiwan question: it is not merely a territorial dispute but a global governance dilemma.

On one side stands China’s categorical assertion, echoed in Abuja:

“There is only one China.”

On the other stands Taiwan’s democratic identity and de facto autonomy.

Between them lies a global system that simultaneously enforces principle and tolerates ambiguity.

As reflected across the Abuja interventions, including those of Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, Dr. Segun Showunmi, Prof. Sam Amadi, and the Chinese diplomatic Counsellor, the Taiwan question endures not because it lacks answers — but because every available answer carries strategic consequences the world is unwilling to fully accept.

And so Taiwan remains what it has become in the 21st century: not only a territorial dispute, but a permanent stress test of international order itself.