ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Raphael Oni

After nearly a quarter of a century walking the corridors of power—from the marble halls of the United Nations in New York to the vibrant conference rooms of the African Union in Addis Ababa, and from the Forbidden City in Beijing to the Presidential Villa in Abuja—I have learned one immutable truth: the media is not merely a witness to history; it is a participant. When the media participates in misinformation, whether through ignorance or design, it does not merely record a wrong turn—it leads the public straight into a ditch.

Let me speak plainly, as a journalist who has seen diplomatic fictions collapse and actual realities prevail. The recent attempts by a handful of Nigerian journalists to lend credibility to Taiwan’s separatist ambitions are not just professionally embarrassing—they are a betrayal of the public trust. They demonstrate a dangerous ignorance of the world order and a susceptibility to manipulation that should alarm every media house on this continent.

Understanding the World Order: A Primer for Journalists

The modern world order is not a mysterious maze. It is built on clear foundations: the UN Charter, the principle of sovereign equality, and the inviolability of territorial integrity affirmed by Resolution 2758 (1971). Taiwan is not a country.It has never been a member of the United Nations. It holds no seat in any specialized UN agency. It has no independent sovereignty under international law.

These are not political opinions—they are legal facts. Any journalist who travels to Taipei and returns to write as if these facts do not exist is not reporting; they are either misled or complicit in propaganda.

The world order also recognizes the reality of power and interests. Some advanced countries pays lip service to the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait. This act has been systematically arming the Taipei authorities, to continue in error. This is not about democracy—it is about containing China’s rise. Africa, which has no interest in becoming a pawn in great-power competition, the continent knows that truth, no wonder 53 out of 54 stands on the truth.

I have covered enough diplomatic operations to recognize a classic lobbying campaign when I see one. The Taiwan authorities deploy a well-funded, sophisticated playbook:

Media seduction: Journalists are invited on all-expenses-paid trips, wined and dined, and presented with glossy narratives about “democracy” and “resilience.” The reality of Taiwan’s diplomatic isolation, its lack of UN recognition, and its status as a province of China is carefully concealed.

Economic lures: Taiwan offers favorable trade deals, scholarships, and “development assistance” to the few countries—now only Eswatini in Africa—that maintain formal ties. This is not partnership; it is a purchase of recognition.

Cultural camouflage: “Taiwan” is presented as a distinct culture, language, and identity, obscuring the historical and legal reality that Taiwan has always been Chinese territory, inhabited by Chinese people, and governed under Chinese sovereignty.

The visiting Nigerian journalists fell for this playbook. They returned to Nigeria talking about “relocating the trade office to Abuja,” apparently unaware that Nigeria closed the so-called Taiwanese Trade Mission in January 2017 precisely because the One-China Principle does not allow for diplomatic representation of a non-sovereign entity. This is not a matter of opinion—it is Nigerian law and policy. As such the administration of the late President Buhari corrected the diplomatic blunder.

Let me be blunt: Africa has been manipulated before. During the Cold War, we were pawns in a game between Washington and Moscow. We paid the price in civil wars, coups, and economic devastation. We learned that lesson the hard way.

We must not allow ourselves to be manipulated again—this time by a separatist regime in Taipei, backed by some advance countries seeking to drag us into a conflict that is not ours. Fifty-three out of fifty-four African nations have made their choice. The African Union has made its position clear. The Beijing Declaration of FOCAC 2024 reaffirms the continental commitment. Eswatini stands alone—not because it has a better argument, but because it has been bought. The rest of Africa knows the truth.

I have spent years on this beat. I have seen regimes fall and alliances shift. I have covered the Arab Spring, the end of apartheid, and the rise of China as a global partner for Africa. Through it all, one principle has guided me: “the truth must come first.”

The truth is that Taiwan is part of China. The truth is that the One-China Principle is recognized by the United Nations and the overwhelming majority of countries. The truth is that the so-called “Taiwan independence” movement is a separatist project that threatens peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

The truth is also that China has been a consistent, reliable partner for Africa—building roads, railways, hospitals, and schools; providing vaccines during the pandemic; and respecting our sovereignty without the condescension that so often accompanies Western engagement. To undermine this relationship for the sake of a few free plane tickets and photo opportunities with Taiwanese officials is not just wrong, it is against the stand of Africa as a whole.

To my fellow journalists in Nigeria and across Africa: I urge you to do your homework. Understand the legal framework. Read UN Resolution 2758. Study the Cairo Declaration. Know that the “Republic of China” ceased to exist in 1949, and the People’s Republic of China has been the sole legitimate government representing all of China—including Taiwan—ever since.

Do not be seduced by junkets. Do not be manipulated by narratives designed to deceive. And above all, do not become tools of a separatist agenda that has no future, no legal standing, and no support from the international community.

The world order is not complicated. It is built on sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the rule of law. The media must be its guardian, not its gravedigger.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By Max Amuchie | The Sunday Stew

There is a specific kind of validation that academia confers and another that the world confers. The academy signals acceptance through citation, peer review, and the slow machinery of scholarly publication. The world signals it differently — through use. When a scholar picks up your framework not merely to interrogate it, but to build with it, something important has shifted. That is not endorsement. That is adoption.

That is what happened when Dr. Omoniyi Ibietan — Secretary General of the African Public Relations Association (APRA) and a Fellow of the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR)—reached for The Insecurity Triad to anchor the theoretical foundations of his paper on crisis communication in the Agatu conflict. He did not cite it as a curiosity. More importantly for this discourse, Ibietan is a member of doctoral faculty at Rome Business School’s DBA programme.

He used it as a load-bearing wall.
His words, addressed to Premium Times editorial page editor Ololade Bamidele, are worth sitting with: the framework took him back to Mbembe, offered fresh insight into, and  — and then did something rarer. It shaped what he was about to write. “So compelling was it,” Ibietan noted, “that it shaped my theoretical framing for a new paper I just submitted.”

Ibietan’s message to Bamidele was in response to last week’s edition of The Sunday Stew entiteld: ‘The Insecurity Triad: Azikiwe, Awolowo, and Chinweizu — Nigeria’s Elite Class of Framework Builders’.

Dr Ibietan’s words: “Thank you ⁨Ololade Bamidele. Please tell Dr. Amuchie to keep it coming. The first part of this took me back to Mbembe (one of Africa’s leading representation of activistic scholarship). Amuchie offered me a refreshing, lovely insight of the works of (Ali) Mazrui, (Claude) Ake, (Jean-François) Bayart, (William) Reno, especially his treatise on the ‘Relocation of Authority’ and of course Mbembe. It was a meta-analytical enterprise. So, compelling was it that it shaped my theoretical framing for a new paper I  just submitted on Crisis Communication in the Agatu Crisis. Needless to say this is also beautiful.”

This is not simply a compliment from a respected scholar. It is evidence of intellectual utility. Scholars are exposed to thousands of ideas during their careers. Very few are incorporated into ongoing research. Fewer still alter the theoretical architecture of work already in development. When an established academic changes the lens through which he interprets a conflict because of a framework he has encountered, that framework has crossed an important threshold. It has moved from proposition to application.

What makes Ibietan’s validation particularly significant is his position within African scholarly and professional networks. He occupies a rare intersection of communication studies, governance research, public policy, and professional practice. His adoption therefore functions as more than an individual scholarly decision. It is an early signal that the Insecurity Triad possesses interdisciplinary reach. A framework developed primarily to explain insecurity and conflict dynamics has proven capable of informing crisis communication research. That is not a small achievement. It suggests conceptual elasticity without sacrificing analytical precision.

What makes this moment even more consequential is that the Insecurity Triad was never designed as a self-contained theoretical exercise. It was built to travel. Its three pillars — Money, Land, and Mind — were deliberately constructed to be analytically portable across conflict environments, governance challenges, and security ecosystems. Ibietan applied it to the Agatu crisis, a deeply localised conflict in Benue State with its own history of farmer-herder tensions, displacement, and contested narratives. The framework held. It supplied categories capable of explaining not only the drivers of insecurity but also the communicative environment surrounding conflict.

That portability is often what separates enduring frameworks from temporary concepts. Many theories explain a single case. The most influential frameworks explain multiple cases without losing explanatory power. They move across disciplines. They generate new questions. They create intellectual bridges between fields that previously appeared unrelated. The early evidence suggests that the Insecurity Triad possesses precisely these qualities.

There is also a broader significance to this moment. African intellectual production has long suffered from a structural asymmetry. Frameworks generated in Europe and North America routinely become the default lenses through which African realities are interpreted, while concepts generated from African experience often struggle to achieve comparable visibility. As a result, African scholars frequently find themselves applying imported theories to indigenous problems rather than exporting indigenous theories to the wider world.

The Insecurity Triad represents an attempt to reverse that flow. It is a framework theorised from Nigerian and Sahelian realities, derived from empirical observations of conflict, governance failures, criminal economies, and social fragmentation. Its ambition is not merely to describe Africa but to contribute to the global vocabulary of security studies.
That is why Ibietan’s engagement matters. Validation from a scholar of his standing demonstrates that the framework is not circulating solely because of media visibility or public debate. It is entering scholarly workflows. It is influencing research design. It is becoming part of the knowledge-production process itself.

His comparison to Mbembe is instructive. Achille Mbembe’s concept of necropolitics did not become influential because people admired it. It became influential because scholars found it useful. It provided explanatory power where existing frameworks fell short. Researchers adopted it, tested it, extended it, and applied it across contexts far removed from its original formulation.

The Insecurity Triad is not Mbembe, nor should it be measured against the trajectory of a mature global theory. But the comparison illuminates an important principle: intellectual influence begins when a framework starts solving analytical problems for other scholars. Ibietan’s adoption suggests that this process may already be underway.

The Agatu application is therefore more than a citation. It is proof of concept. It demonstrates that the framework can survive contact with a different discipline, a different methodology, and a different research question. In academic terms, that is often the first indication that a concept has genuine staying power.

What the scholarly community should watch is not whether the Insecurity Triad receives more praise — praise is abundant and often fleeting — but whether it continues to be used. Frameworks earn their place in the canon not through applause but through repeated deployment. They become influential when researchers begin treating them as tools rather than subjects.

Ibietan’s paper carries the architecture of the Triad into the literature on public relations, crisis communication, and conflict management. Tomorrow another scholar may apply it to political economy, peacebuilding, migration, state legitimacy, or violent extremism. Each application expands the framework’s reach. Each successful application increases its explanatory credibility.

That is how ideas compound. That is how indigenous theories become established traditions. That is how a framework moves from being an author’s insight to becoming part of a field’s intellectual infrastructure.
The Insecurity Triad is now in motion. The significance of Ibietan’s validation lies not simply in who endorsed it, but in what he did with it. He built upon it. He carried it into new terrain. He demonstrated that it travels.

The question is no longer whether the framework can move beyond its point of origin. It already has.
The question now is how far it will travel.

Unveiling the DSI in The Sunday Stew

​As an undergraduate at the University of Calabar, one of the first sets of books to catch my attention was The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper’s landmark two-volume 1945 work of political philosophy. In it, he passionately defended liberal democracy and mounted a fierce critique of totalitarianism. The other book of his I picked up was The Poverty of Historicism published in 1957, where he attacked the intellectual and logical validity of authoritarian teleology. While The Poverty of Historicism targeted the foundational logic, The Open Society dismantled the devastating political consequences of totalitarian rule.

However, long before he turned his sights on totalitarianism, the Austrian-British philosopher had already revolutionised western epistemology. In his groundbreaking 1934 book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Logik der Forschung), Popper introduced the concept of falsifiability as a solution to the demarcation problem—the question of how to distinguish between genuine science and non-science (such as pseudoscience, metaphysics, or myth). At its core, the concept insists that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. This means there must be at least one logically possible observation, metric, or experiment that could prove the theory wrong. A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.

For three consecutive weeks in this column beginning on April 26, I laid bare the Trinity of State Decay (TSD)—a macro-diagnostic theory mapping how nations fracture into dual or competing sovereignties. I analysed how this structural deterioration plays out in Nigeria and across the wider Sahelian context. Yet, the theory is fundamentally scalable; it applies to all contexts and geographies where the devastating conditions of the Insecurity Triad take root, from the fault lines of Latin America to the fragile corridors of Southeast Asia.

But to save the Trinity of State Decay from the graveyard of mere political commentary or fluid narrative, it must meet Popper’s uncompromising standard. It must be measurable. It must be testable. It must expose itself to empirical refutation.

By anchoring the theoretical formulation to quantitative metrics, I provide international organisations and the global scholarly, policymaking and intelligence communities with a verifiable yardstick. If the state’s legal authority and empirical reality remain tightly bound, the index will prove it; if they are violently drifting apart, the index will map the velocity of that separation.

Next week, therefore, I cross that scientific Rubicon. I will unveil the Decoupling Sovereignty Index (DSI).

I am moving from description to diagnosis.

Trust is sacred. Stay seasoned.

•Dr. Max Amuchie is the CEO of Sundiata Post and architect of The Insecurity Triad and Trinity of State Decay. He writes The Sunday Stew, a weekly syndicated column on faith, character, and the forces that shape society, with a focus on Nigeria and Africa in a global context.
X — @MaxAmuchie | Email: max.a@sundiatapost.com | Tel: +234(0)8053069436

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

A Spotlight By Nnolim Nnaji, Member House Of Representatives

As Nigeria marks Democracy Day, Enugu State has quietly emerged as one of Nigeria’s safest and fastest-growing economy under Governor Peter Mbah. Three years in, the administration’s narrative is shifting from laying foundations to scaling transformation, anchored on an audacious goal: a $30 billion economy by 2031.

The numbers back the ambition. Enugu’s 2026 budget stands at ₦1.62 trillion, a 66.5% jump from 2025. What’s striking isn’t just the size, but the structure. 80% of the budget, ₦1.296 trillion, is allocated to capital projects, breaking the recurrent-heavy spending pattern that has trapped most Nigerian states. The shift is powered by a surge in internally generated revenue. IGR contributes 51% of the 2026 budget, roughly ₦825.9 billion, cutting the state’s overdependence on federal allocations and giving Enugu more fiscal autonomy to execute its plans.

Security was the first wall Mbah’s team had to break. By tackling insecurity head-on, Enugu has become one of the safest states in the country, a prerequisite for investment. Phase 2 of the state’s surveillance system, budgeted at ₦11 billion, will deploy CCTV and searchlights at bus stops, junctions, and highways, all linked to a central command center. That sense of security has translated directly into investors confidence. In the last three years, Enugu secured over £500 million in foreign direct investment, with another £2 billion in the pipeline. The pitch to investors is simple: internal rate of return projections of 25-40% making Enugu one of the most competitive emerging-market destinations in Nigeria. The result is visible in the rankings, with the state climbing from 36th to 6th in Nigeria’s ease of doing business index. With the proposed coal power generation plant set to come on stream, more FDI inflows are expected.

Infrastructure has been the most visible proof point. The administration is pushing legacy road projects like the 40km Owo–Ubahu–Amankanu–Neke–Ikem Dual Carriageway, the Abakpa Nike–Ugwogo Nike–Ekwegbe–Opi–Nsukka Road, the Amodu–Akpugo–Akpawfu–Amagunze Road, and upgrades of Enugu–Abakaliki Expressway. The 2026 plan targets 1,200 urban roads and numerous rural roads, ensuring every LGA gets a major project. The goal is to eliminate the rural-urban connectivity gap that has stifled trade and access for decades.

Human capital and basic services are getting the same treatment. The 260 Smart Green Primary Schools and 260 Type-2 Primary Health Centers, one per ward, are nearing completion. Water supply is being revamped through the 9th Mile 24/7 Scheme, Ajali, and Oji River projects. These sit alongside a 10,000-hectare smart city development as a mixed-use commercial and residential hub. If delivered, the schools, health centers, and roads address two of Enugu’s longest-standing pain points: education access and connectivity.

The abandoned International Conference Center and the presidential hotel have been completed to position the state as a hub for regional and national events, tourism, and business summits. At the same time, construction of a state-of-the-art specialist hospital is underway to raise the standard of healthcare delivery and reduce medical tourism out of the state. These projects signal a push to build the kind of infrastructure that attracts investors, skilled professionals, and high-value events.

A less discussed but critical pillar is the revamp of ailing state-owned companies. For years, Enugu’s public enterprises existed mostly on paper, draining resources without delivering value. The Mbah administration is restructuring them for commercial viability and private sector participation, turning dormant assets into revenue-generating ventures, creating jobs, and reducing the burden on the state treasury. This aligns with the broader strategy of mobilizing private capital to complement public spending and accelerate GDP growth from the current ∼$4 billion toward the $30 billion target.

The administration’s boldest signal to the world is Enugu Air. Launched to position Enugu as a regional aviation and logistics hub, the airline plans to grow its fleet to 20 aircraft and expand operations beyond Nigeria by the end of 2026. It already connects the South to the North with daily flights between Enugu and Kano. Enugu is no longer content being a transit point. It has become a destination.

Three years in, the Mbah model is clear: spend on capital, not overhead; secure the state, then market it; and use data-driven incentives like high IRR projections to attract private capital. The risk is execution. Delivering 1,200 roads, functional smart schools, a modern hospital, a completed conference center, revived industries, and a functioning airline in one term is a heavy lift. But if even half of it lands, Enugu will have redefined what subnational governance can achieve in Nigeria.

A Spotlight on Enugu State by Nnolim Nnaji, A member of the House of Representatives