Nigeria at UNGA 81: What Shettima Asked the World to Change — and What Others Are Saying

Vice President Kashim Shettima, representing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, has renewed Nigeria’s call for a fundamental overhaul of the global system — from the UN Security Council to international finance, peacebuilding and climate finance. But while several African and UN leaders share the call for greater African representation, turning the demand into actual institutional reform remains a much bigger challenge.

Nigeria has used the 81st United Nations General Assembly to make a renewed case for changes to the global institutions that shape international security, development and economic decision-making.

Representing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Vice President Kashim Shettima delivered Nigeria’s national statement during the General Debate in New York on September 24, 2026, arguing that the international system must better reflect the realities of the 21st century.

At the centre of the Nigerian position was a familiar but increasingly prominent demand: Africa should have permanent representation on the United Nations Security Council, including veto rights for as long as the veto remains part of the Council’s structure.

Nigeria also called for wider access to concessional finance, stronger debt-sustainability arrangements, greater attention to peacebuilding, protection of civilians in conflict zones and more equitable climate-finance mechanisms.

The speech was formally President Tinubu’s national statement, delivered by Vice President Shettima, rather than a separate statement issued in Shettima’s personal capacity. The full text identifies Tinubu as the author of the national statement and Shettima as the official delivering it.

Nigeria’s central argument: the world has changed since 1945

Nigeria’s most forceful argument concerned the structure of the UN Security Council.

Shettima said reform of the United Nations should begin with the Council because, in Nigeria’s view, the distribution of power established in 1945 no longer corresponds to the realities of the world in 2026.

Nigeria therefore renewed the African Union’s longstanding position for at least two permanent African seats, with the full privileges and responsibilities of permanent membership, including veto rights for as long as the veto exists.

It also called for five non-permanent African seats.

The position is not new. Nigeria linked its demand to the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration, which constitute the established Common African Position on Security Council reform.

The argument is fundamentally about representation.

Africa has 54 UN member states and is regularly affected by decisions taken by the Security Council, particularly on conflicts, peacekeeping and sanctions. Nigeria’s position is that a global institution claiming to act on behalf of humanity should not permanently exclude an entire continent from its highest decision-making body.

Guterres has raised a similar concern

Nigeria’s position comes at a time when the question of African representation has also been highlighted by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

In his final General Assembly address as Secretary-General, Guterres criticised global governance arrangements that continue to reflect an earlier distribution of power and specifically pointed to Africa’s exclusion from permanent representation on the Security Council. He argued that the world’s institutions must adapt as power is redistributed.

That provides important context for Nigeria’s argument.

The demand for African representation is therefore not solely a Nigerian initiative. It forms part of a wider debate over whether the UN’s principal political institutions adequately represent today’s international system.

Kenya and other African countries are making the same case

Kenyan President William Ruto has also used the UNGA to argue for stronger African representation.

Ruto pointed to Africa’s 54 UN member states and argued that the continent should not continue to be heavily affected by Security Council decisions while lacking permanent representation on the Council.

Burundi’s President Évariste Ndayishimiye has likewise called for permanent African representation, framing greater inclusion as part of efforts to build trust between Africa and other regions.

Taken together, these positions show that the issue extends beyond Nigeria’s national diplomacy. Nigeria is presenting its demand as part of the broader African position.

But representation and implementation are two different questions

There is an important distinction between broad support for reform and an actual agreement to change the Security Council.

Nigeria can make the case for two permanent African seats. The African Union can maintain its common position. UN leaders can acknowledge the imbalance. But changing the structure of the Security Council is considerably more complicated.

The current permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — possess veto powers that are themselves central to the Council’s existing structure.

Nigeria’s demand therefore raises a difficult institutional question: how can an organisation change the distribution of power when the states that currently hold that power have a decisive role in determining the rules?

Nigeria also connected security to development

The speech went beyond questions of diplomatic representation. Nigeria argued that terrorism, organised crime, cyberattacks and illicit financial networks cannot be effectively confronted by countries acting entirely on their own.

Shettima called for stronger intelligence sharing, greater institutional capacity, disruption of the financing of violence and measures to prevent illegal weapons from moving across borders.

But Nigeria also made a broader argument about the roots of insecurity.

Its position was that military victories cannot by themselves provide lasting stability. Education, economic opportunity, accountable governance and protection of people’s rights and dignity are also necessary foundations for peace.

That places Nigeria’s security argument within a wider development framework.

In other words, the message was not simply that the international community should help countries fight armed groups. It was also that countries need the economic and institutional conditions that reduce the vulnerabilities exploited by such groups.

Nigeria wants a different approach to development finance

Another major component of the statement was the international financial system.

Nigeria called for reforms that would expand access to concessional financing and produce debt-sustainability frameworks that better recognise the circumstances of developing countries.

The argument reflects a wider concern among developing countries: governments facing expensive borrowing and substantial debt-service obligations can have less fiscal space for infrastructure, education, social protection and economic investment.

Nigeria’s UNGA message therefore connected political representation with economic representation.

The argument is essentially that reforming global institutions should not stop at who sits around the Security Council table. The financial rules governing access to capital and development resources also matter.

Climate finance was another part of the Nigerian position

Nigeria also called for climate-finance arrangements based on equity and shared responsibility.

The government argued that commitments to developing countries need to translate into financing that is accessible, predictable and adequately funded, rather than remaining largely promises made at international meetings.

For Nigeria and many other developing countries, this issue has particular significance because climate vulnerability and development needs often intersect.

Countries are being asked to invest in cleaner and more resilient economies while simultaneously dealing with infrastructure deficits, poverty reduction and limited fiscal capacity.

Nigeria wants peacebuilding, not only peacekeeping

The Nigerian statement also called for greater emphasis on peacebuilding, mediation and institution-building, rather than relying predominantly on peacekeeping or military responses once conflicts have already escalated.

This is consistent with Nigeria’s argument that lasting security requires foundations beyond military force. The approach places prevention, diplomacy and development alongside conventional security responses.

Humanitarian assistance versus long-term resilience

Nigeria’s UNGA engagement has also included a discussion about the future of humanitarian assistance.

The Guardian recently reported that about $7.83 billion in humanitarian funding was recorded for Nigeria over 13 years, based on data from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ Financial Tracking Service. The publication noted, however, that this figure represents humanitarian funding recorded for the country and should not be interpreted as money paid directly to the Nigerian government.

The broader Nigerian position is that international assistance should increasingly support national systems capable of reducing poverty, strengthening protection and building resilience rather than leaving countries dependent on recurring humanitarian responses.

That raises another difficult policy question: how can international assistance move people from crisis response to sustainable economic and social resilience?

Nigeria’s UNGA agenda extends beyond diplomacy

The Security Council argument has attracted the most attention, but Nigeria’s presence in New York has also been heavily focused on investment, education, minerals, technology and jobs.

Channels Television described Nigeria’s UNGA engagement as having a dual purpose: seeking a stronger African voice in global institutions while simultaneously pursuing investment and economic partnerships for Nigeria.

The government has also been pushing education financing.

Nigeria and Italy have been working with the Global Partnership for Education around a proposed $5 billion global education financing campaign, with Nigerian officials saying the initiative could benefit millions of Nigerian children and hundreds of thousands of teachers.

On the economic side, Nigeria has promoted its mineral resources, services sector and technology-enabled workforce to potential international partners during the UNGA week.

This makes Nigeria’s participation broader than the speech delivered inside the General Assembly Hall.

The question now is: what happens after the speech?

For Nigeria, the most important test may come after the cameras leave New York.

A speech can establish a country’s diplomatic position, attract attention and build alliances. But institutional reform requires sustained negotiations.

Nigeria will need to continue working with the African Union and other member states to maintain a common African position, while engaging the permanent members and other countries involved in the Security Council reform debate.

The same applies to Nigeria’s demands on development finance, climate finance, peacebuilding and international cooperation.

The UNGA platform gives Nigeria an opportunity to state what it wants changed. The harder task is turning those demands into negotiated outcomes.

What other voices tell us about Nigeria’s message

The reactions surrounding UNGA 81 reveal an interesting convergence — but also an important distinction.

On the principle of greater African representation, Nigeria’s position has found echoes in statements from Guterres, Ruto and other African leaders.

On Nigeria’s participation itself, Nigerian commentators have raised a different question: what measurable results should come from the country’s diplomatic presence?

Former presidential spokesman Reuben Abati has discussed Nigeria’s UNGA participation in terms of diplomatic engagement and the opportunity to advance national interests, while retired senior Foreign Ministry official Akinremi Bolaji has argued that attention should ultimately be placed on results rather than physical presence.

That provides perhaps the most useful lens through which to view the Nigerian delegation’s performance.

The issue is not simply whether Nigeria was heard.

It is whether the positions presented in New York can produce alliances, financing, investments, diplomatic commitments and institutional changes that can be measured after UNGA 81.

The bigger picture

Nigeria’s message at the 81st UN General Assembly can therefore be reduced to a broader proposition: the institutions governing the world should better reflect the world that exists today.

For Nigeria, that means permanent African representation at the Security Council, greater participation in global economic decision-making, more development-friendly financing arrangements, stronger international cooperation against transnational threats, greater investment in peace building and a more equitable approach to climate finance.

Other African leaders and the UN Secretary-General have expressed overlapping concerns about the current global governance structure, particularly Africa’s absence from permanent Security Council membership.

But recognition of the problem is not the same as reform.

For Nigeria and Africa, the next phase will be the diplomacy required to turn a longstanding demand into an agreement that can actually change the structure of global decision-making.

Watch the full presentation

Video: Full presentation of Nigeria’s national statement at the 81st United Nations General Assembly, delivered by Vice President Kashim Shettima on behalf of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, September 24, 2026.

Video: UNGA / official broadcast footage.

Key issues: UN Security Council reform • Permanent African representation • Global peace and security • Development finance • Climate finance • International cooperation.