The Middle East in Flames: The Erosion of International Law and the Imperative for Diplomatic Restoration | Dr Kayode Ajulo, OON, SAN

As of March 9, 2026, the Middle East confronts its gravest crisis in generations: a direct armed conflict between the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, now in its second week. 

What commenced on February 28, 2026, as coordinated airstrikes—eliminating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior officials—has escalated into sustained military operations targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, energy assets, and command structures. 

Retaliatory Iranian missile and drone barrages have struck Israeli territory and U.S. bases across the Gulf, while Hezbollah’s activation has reignited intense exchanges g the Lebanon-Israel border, displacing hundreds of thousands and claiming hundreds of civilian lives.

Recent developments underscore the conflict’s broadening scope: Israel has conducted fresh strikes on Tehran’s oil depots and Revolutionary Guard headquarters; Iran has named Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader amid pledges of allegiance from military and political figures; and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned of an impending “energy war” following attacks on Iranian refineries and storage sites. Casualties mount rapidly—Iran reports over 1,200 deaths from initial strikes, with civilian infrastructure (including schools and desalination plants) hit—while U.S. forces confirm soldier fatalities and global oil prices surge toward unsustainable levels, threatening economic stability worldwide.

This escalation exposes profound fractures in the post-1945 international legal order, particularly the United Nations framework designed to preserve peace.

The Prohibition on the Use of Force and Its Apparent Breach

The cornerstone of modern international law remains Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which obliges Member States to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” 

Exceptions are narrowly circumscribed: authorization by the Security Council under Chapter VII (Article 42) or the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence against an armed attack under Article 51.

The joint U.S.-Israeli strikes of February 28 occurred amid ongoing indirect diplomatic negotiations mediated by Oman, with preparations for further talks in Vienna. 

No Security Council resolution authorized the action, and no imminent armed attack by Iran justified preemptive force under prevailing interpretations of Article 51. Legal experts, including UN Special Rapporteurs and scholars, have condemned the strikes as a violation of the prohibition on aggression, lacking necessity and proportionality. 

UN Secretary-General António Guterres explicitly stated on February 28 that the attacks “squandered an opportunity for diplomacy” and undermined international peace and security. UN human rights experts further declared the operations unlawful, breaching sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and the duty to settle disputes peacefully.

Iran’s retaliatory actions—invoking Article 51 self-defence—targeted military objectives but extended to civilian areas in Gulf states and Israel, raising concerns of indiscriminate attacks prohibited under international humanitarian law (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, customary rules). Strikes on civilian infrastructure, including schools (deemed grave violations by the UN), demand impartial investigations and accountability.

The United Nations: A Forum Paralyzed by Division

The Security Council’s emergency session on February 28 produced condemnations from the Secretary-General and calls for restraint but no binding resolution or enforcement mechanism. Veto powers fractured consensus: the U.S. defended the operations as protective of Israeli security; Russia and China condemned them as aggression; European members urged de-escalation without explicit attribution. 

This mirrors historical patterns—vetoes have long stymied accountability in Middle East conflicts, rendering the Council more a mirror of great-power divisions than an effective guardian of peace.

While the UN excels in humanitarian coordination and documentation of violations, its political arm lacks coercive tools absent P5 unity. The organization’s warnings on civilian harm and nuclear safety risks remain non-binding rhetoric in the face of unilateral action by major powers.

Pathways to Restoration: Diplomacy Over Domination

Sustainable peace requires immediate cessation of hostilities, verifiable de-escalation, and return to negotiations. Practical steps include:

The urgent need for backchannel mediation through countries such as Oman, Qatar, or Egypt is essential to halt ongoing strikes and the activation of proxy forces. In parallel, there is a critical necessity to reinvigorate nuclear diplomacy, leveraging established pre-escalation frameworks to engage with Iran’s nuclear program through verified and peaceful channels.

Moreover, ensuring humanitarian access and the protection of civilians must remain a priority, strictly adhering to international humanitarian law. To foster stability in the region, it is imperative to offer robust incentives, including reconstruction aid and sanctions relief conditioned on restraint, while simultaneously managing and containing existing proxy networks.

The UN could facilitate monitoring or host a conference if consensus emerges, but progress depends on bilateral/multilateral commitments backed by credible deterrence.

History demonstrates that military dominance breeds resentment and perpetual cycles of violence; enduring stability arises from negotiated compromises respecting core interests while enforcing red lines. 

The current conflagration, threatening global energy, migration, and security, demands that parties with leverage prioritize diplomacy. Failure to do so risks an unmanageable regional war, with reverberations far beyond the Middle East.

The international community must reaffirm the Charter’s principles: force is not a substitute for law. Only through dialogue, accountability, and mutual restraint can the flames be extinguished and a just peace restored.

*Ajulo is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and an Advocate for Justice and Peace

Eba Island Remains Ondo’s – My Forensic Dive into UK Archives Proves It Beyond Doubt! - Olukayode Ajulo San, OONI, FCIArbs UK

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Today, I make this position public not only as the Attorney General of Ondo State, but as an harbinger of truth, and a fierce defender of truth in these turbulent times. 

I present to you a case that is classical in its foundation, sound in its reasoning, profound in its depth, and utterly unassailable in its conclusion: 

Eba Island in Nigeria belongs unequivocally, historically, geographically, and legally to Ondo State – specifically to the ancient kingdom of Atijere in Ilaje Local Government Area.

The sudden and latest controversy involving Eba Island, personally to me is a profound matter of concerns which surprises me; nay, it astonishes me to the marrow of my bones! 

For I speak to you as one who served Ondo State during era of Dr Olusegun Rahman Mimiko as Governor with distinction in an earlier capacity as Chairman of the Ondo State Radiovision Corporation (OSRC). In that exalted role, I knew, as a matter of irrefutable, eyewitness fact, that the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (now NNPCL) and other federal agencies of repute visited Eba Island on multiple occasions, recognizing it without equivocation as Ondo territory. 

Then our government functionaries hosted them with pomp and circumstance, personally escorting these august visitors across the creeks, mangroves, and shimmering waters to conduct thorough inspections and due diligence. 

*EBA ISLAND REMAINS ONDO'S...AJULO UNEARTHS EVIDENCES FROM THE UK ARCHIVES* 

https://youtu.be/10AMxLXjUHs

The records were clear; the maps were unambiguous; I now therefore wonder, what sorcery, what sudden alchemy of interest, has produced this dramatic volte-face? What has changed since those official visits? Why does Ogun State now lay audacious claim to this oil-rich gem that yesterday was accepted as ours? 

It is precisely upon these glaring inconsistencies, and upon a burning thirst for unvarnished truth, that I embarked, upon a self-driven solo voyage of discovery to the United Kingdom, the very cradle of our colonial archives.

There, in the hallowed halls of the British Library, the National Archives at Kew, and the venerable museums housing the yellowed ledgers and faded maps of old British empire as well as that of Nigeria, I pored over original documents with forensic precision. 

Among the treasures I examined were:

•  Colonial administrative maps and boundary delineations from the Lagos Colony era (pre-1914 amalgamation), showing Eba Island and Atijere as integral parts of the Ilaje/Mahin Country under Governor Sir John Hawley Glover’s administration.

•  Intelligence reports and provincial sketches of the Ondo Province (post-amalgamation), particularly those covering the Okitipupa Division, where Ilaje District, including Atijere and Eba Island, was clearly marked under Native Authority control.

•  Treaty-related drawings and sketch maps from the 1885 protection treaty signed by the Amapetu of Mahin, incorporating the Mahin kingdom (encompassing Atijere corridors and Eba Island) into the Lagos Protectorate.

•  Gazette notices and boundary adjustment graphs, including early 20th-century demarcations that placed the natural boundary at River Ufara, separating Ilaje/Mahin lands from Ijebu territories.

•  Forestry reserve plans and cadastral surveys from the 1930s onward, designating Eba Island within the Atijere Native Authority Forestry Reserve.

•  Hand-drawn intelligence maps and ethnographic boundary illustrations from the Colonial Office series (such as those in CO records), confirming continuous Ilaje administration without overlap into what became Ogun areas.

What I unearthed are facts as solid as the rock of Gibraltar: these colonial records—treaties, maps, drawings, graphs, and intelligence sources—brook no contradiction. Eba Island has belonged to the Ilaje/Mahin people of Ondo from time immemorial. I challenge, nay, I dare anyone, from any quarter, to step forward and controvert these unassailable findings in open debate!

Let us now examine the historical tapestry, woven thread by golden thread.

Long before the 1914 amalgamation that birthed modern Nigeria, Eba Island formed an integral part of the Ilaje/Mahin Country within the defunct Lagos Colony. In 1885, the paramount ruler, the Amapetu of Mahin, signed a solemn treaty with colonial authorities, bringing the entire Mahin kingdom, including the island and land called Atijere, under the protective aegis of Lagos Colony. 

Following amalgamation, it seamlessly became part of the Ondo Province, precisely the Okitipupa Division, and was proudly designated a Forestry Reserve under the Atijere Native Authority. By 1933, Atijere had risen as the undisputed administrative headquarters; it hosted the Native Court, where the Amapetu appointed vassal chiefs of pure Ilaje descent. The settlement of Atijere has stood since at least 1937, with Eba Island falling squarely under its Native Court Authority.

Around 1950, Eba was formally incorporated into the Ilaje District Council, with Atijere as its proud headquarters. Through every local government reform – the creation of Ilaje/Ese-Odo in 1975 and the carving out of Ese-Odo in 1997, Eba Island remained, and still remains, an indivisible part of Ilaje Local Government Area of Ondo State. It is still proudly gazetted as Ondo State Forestry Reserve. 

The indigenes, fishermen, farmers, traders of Ilaje blood – have lived, worshipped, and paid allegiance there for generations, never once to Ogun authorities. River Ufara, that natural and eternal boundary, flows as a clear demarcation between Ilaje land and Ijebu territory. Verily, the facts speak for themselves – res ipsa loquitur!Legally, the position is iron-clad and beyond peradventure.

Under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 44(3) and Item 39 of the Exclusive Legislative List vest mineral resources in the Federal Government. 

Yet derivation benefits and host-community rights under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021 – particularly Sections 104 and following – are determined strictly by the territorial location of the resource and the identity of the host communities. Ownership is not won by press releases, media sensationalism, or opportunistic assertions; it is established by historical title, continuous administration, and customary law. No gazette, no court ruling, no boundary adjustment has ever transferred Eba Island to Ogun. 

The National Boundary Commission stands ready to adjudicate if truly needed, but until then, Ondo’s longstanding jurisdiction is sacrosanct.

Geographically and factually, the evidence is overwhelming.

Eba Island lies in the Atijere axis of Ilaje LGA on our shores, administered by our councils, protected in our forest reserves, and inhabited by our people. The oil deposit sits on land whose owners are Atijere indigenes who have never paid royalties or homage elsewhere. Claims to the contrary are built on sand, misleading narratives, confusion between “Eba” and “Eba Island,” and a sudden hunger to join the league of oil-producing states. 

But truth cannot be rewritten for petrodollars. To attempt it is not only unjust; it is an affront to the federal principle that binds our dear nation.

Distinguished audience, the time for equivocation is over.

Ogun’s assertions risk inflaming communal tensions and eroding the peace we have long cherished along our shared coastline. Ondo State will defend its territorial integrity with every lawful weapon at our disposal – in the courts, before the Boundary Commission, and in the court of public opinion. We call for calm, for dialogue, and for constitutional resolution. But let there be no illusion, no shadow of doubt: Eba Island is Ondo State’s, yesterday, today, and forever!

The oil beneath its soil is a divine endowment for the people of Ilaje and the entire Sunshine State. We shall ensure it translates into development, prosperity, and lasting legacy for our children yet unborn.

I thank you most profoundly.

God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria!

Thank you.

Dr Olukayode Ajulo, OON, SAN, FCIArb. UK

Why has Dadiyata refused to disappear? By Seun Kolade

By Seun Kolade. 

Nine years after he was abducted by unknown gunmen alleged by some to be state security agents, Dadiyata has re-appeared again like the proverbial Banquo’s ghost- a presence that unsettles power and resists erasure.

Abubakar Idris, widely known by his online pseudonym Dadiyata, was a Nigerian lecturer, social media commentator and civic critic whose voice resonated across northern Nigerian political discourse. Before his disappearance in August 2019, he had built a significant following by blending sharp political commentary with data-driven critique on governance, corruption and public accountability- often targeting powerful figures and administrations across state politics. On 2 August 2019, as he pulled into his home in Barnawa, unidentified armed men abducted him, and he has not been seen since, sparking sustained public outcry, legal actions and the long-running #WhereIsDadiyata movement demanding answers from authorities.

For years, debate swirled over who was responsible: many accused then-Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai of complicity, given that the disappearance occurred under his watch. In a 2026 interview, El-Rufai denied Kaduna’s involvement and instead suggested Dadiyata was more fiercely critical of former Kano governor Abdullahi Ganduje, alleging a police confession about officers being sent from Kano. Ganduje has vehemently rejected such claims as “reckless and unfounded,” insisting the critic’s documented opposition was rooted in Kaduna governance, and calling for a transparent probe.

Regardless of where you sit about the truth of the claims and counter claims, this latest instalment of the Dadiyata "re-appearance" underlines a bigger truth that is of special relevance and resonance to Nigeria: it is practically impossible to kill an idea with brute violence. Let's dilate on that. In fact, it does not matter if it is a "bad" idea or good idea. Once you bring brute violence to the battleground of ideas, you automatically elevate an otherwise bad idea to a higher moral ground. And if it is a good idea, you elevate it higher still to a mythical realm, infusing it with transcendent powers to command stronger hold on minds and hearts of adherents. This is the ultimate paradox of brute force: it is an instrument of the weak unable or unwilling to engage in a battle of ideas; unable to mobilise superior arguments; unable to communicate to win hearts and minds with great ideas of their own.

Dadiyata was no philosopher. He was a public commentator with strong and often partisan views. He was an unapologetic supporter of former Kano state governor Rabiu Kwankaso, and his fierce criticisms of Kwankaso's successor, Ganduje, could be reasonably seen by some as an extension of his loyalty to Kwankaso. He was also a critic of the then Kaduna State governor El Rufai, in spite of the latter's disingenuous denial of knowledge of Dadiyata's existence.

The thing is, whether or not you agree with his views, Dadiyata has the rights to air them. If any of his public commentary was libelous, there are laws to resolve that and mete out appropriate consequences to offenders. Once you bring in brute violence and force, you elevate the man of ideas- good or bad ideas- to a higher moral, and human, pedestal. Arguably the most significant thing that distinguishes humans from beasts is the singular capacity to generate ideas and communicate them in language. It is precisely why ideas are the life force of human civilisation, and it is the highest form of human endeavour. It is no surprise that the most advanced societies, throughout history and contemporary times, are societies that cultivates, incentivises and rewards ideas. Conversely, the dark ages of human civilisations were the ages when men and women of ideas were hounded, killed and persecuted.

The German Philosopher, Friedrich Hegel, makes this point eloquently in his Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and his Science of Logic (1812–16): human understanding, and the societies built on it, advance when we stop treating disagreement as a threat and instead work through it. For Hegel, clashing viewpoints expose what each side can’t see on its own; the friction forces clearer thinking, better institutions, and, over time, a more mature public life. He captures the engine of progress bluntly: “Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world.” As he puts it elsewhere, “The True is the whole,” meaning truth emerges through development, not instant certainty. When we allow competing ideas to meet in open argument, the aim is not endless quarrel, but a wiser outcome- often a third position that keeps what is strongest in both sides while correcting blind spots. That is how civilisations learn: by testing claims in the public square, refining norms, and widening collective freedom rather than shrinking debate.

Beyond the specific views he espoused, which anyone is free to support or contradict, Dadiyata stood for the transcendent idea that humans in society should be able to form and communicate opinions. It is for this very idea that Dadiyata wont disappear, seven years after he was disappeared. The capacity to form and express ideas is a distinctly human vocation and, when you think about it, the principal objective of education. Any leader that threatens this human vocation is not only unfit to lead, they are also inherently lesser humans by the very fact. There is no middle ground or hiding place on this matter.

While, in a liberal democracy, we elect representatives and office holders to take responsibilities, governance itself is, and has to be, a collective enterprise driven by the Office of the Citizen, the most important office of all in a democratic society. And it is through the exercise of freedom of thought and expression that citizens are able to bring their elected leaders under scrutiny, continuously demand accountability about how public resources are being deployed, and thereby elevating the quality of representation and the quality of governance.

Nigeria, sadly, is a country that has routinely meted violence, threat and intimidation on journalists, citizen inquirers, and public intellectuals. The 1986 parcel-bomb assassination of Dele Giwa, founding editor of Newswatch, remains one of the most chilling symbols of impunity. In 1995, writer and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others were executed after a widely condemned military tribunal. In 1998, investigative reporter Bagauda Kaltho disappeared; his remains were later linked to a bomb blast. In September 2009, journalist “Bayo” Ohu of The Guardian was shot dead in Lagos after his reports on corruption and the oil sector. Even in the social-media age, intimidation persists: in 2021, the army arrested and detained broadcaster and influencer Ahmad Isah (“Ordinary President”) over a broadcast that embarrassed security agencies, while journalists covering protests and insurgency have faced arrests, beatings, and equipment seizures. During the #EndSARS protests, security forces opened fire on demonstrators at the Lekki Toll Gate on 20 October 2020, an event documented and amplified by journalists and influencers who themselves faced harassment and asset freezes. These episodes- spanning military and civilian eras- signal a troubling pattern: when scrutiny is answered with force, the state weakens the very civic energy that sustains democratic life.

There is an even more troubling pattern here- one that suggests a nation-state in atrophy, inching towards the precipice. Political leaders, with the full weight of security agencies at their command, threaten, brutalise and intimidate journalists and ordinary citizens for speaking plainly, organising peacefully, or asking inconvenient questions online. Yet the same state often appears indulgent, sometimes even deferential, towards bandits and other open merchants of violence. The signal is perverse and corrosive: dissent attracts punishment, while violence attracts negotiation, recognition, and, in some cases, political relevance. When citizens learn that the safest way to be heard is to be feared, civic life begins to collapse into a grim marketplace of coercion. In such a climate, civil society is weakened, responsible leadership is disincentivised, and the public square is emptied of the very voices that make governance smarter, fairer, and accountable. A country that trains its institutions to hunt critics while tiptoeing around armed predators is not merely struggling with insecurity; it is eroding the moral logic of the state itself.

There is one final point to make. The recent lamentations of former Kaduna State governor Mallam Nasir El-Rufai offer an instructive lesson for all who have held, or still hold, power. He has watched a former protégé, now governor, turn against him; and his loudest denunciations of President Tinubu have gathered force only after he was sidelined from the inner corridors of influence. Yesterday’s ally becomes today’s inconvenience; today’s shield becomes tomorrow’s target. The Yoruba capture this truth with unsparing clarity: Igba kan kì í lọ bí oréré; ọba mẹ́wàá, igba mẹ́wàá- no season lasts forever; ten kings, ten eras. Power is episodic; authority is borrowed time. And when that time runs out, what remains is not the sirens, the swagger, or the machinery of state you once commanded, but the idea: what you stood for, the principles that shaped your choices, the restraint you showed when you could have been ruthless, and the memory you leave behind when the crowd has moved on.

_The power of ideas that elevate human consciousness and animate public service will always trump the idea of power as an end in itself._

Alaafin harps on imperative of religious conventions, says unity is greatest strength, asset of any society

Alaafin harps on imperative of religious conventions, says unity is greatest strength, asset of any society 

The Alaafin , Paramount Ruler of Oyo Kingdom and the Superior Head of Yorubaland, His Imperial Majesty, Oba Engineer Abimbola Akeem Owoade 1, has said that unity remains one of the greatest strength and asset of the people of any community, state and Nigeria despite their ethnic, religious, and cultural differences.

Speaking  at the SHAFAUDEEN International Mosque  2026 Annual Convention held in  Ibadan , the Oyo State Capital, Oba Owoade noted that religious conventions and institutions play a significant role in national stability by acting as foundational pillars for social order, moral guidance, and community cohesion.

The annual international convention was organised by the founder and spiritual leader of SHAFAUDEEN Worldwide, Wakajaiye Ibadan, Professor Engr Sabit Ariyo Olagoke who happened to be a lecturer for His Imperial Majesty Oba Engineer Abimbola Akeem Owoade at the Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro. 

 These gatherings and the institutions behind them, he stated, promote shared values, mitigate social conflicts, and often bridge gaps in service provision, particularly in developing or transitional states.

 According to him, ""religious institutions serve as agents of socialization that foster community identity and harmony among diverse groups. They bring people together, encouraging cooperation, trust, and a shared sense of purpose.

""By fostering values such as honesty, integrity, and discipline, religious conventions help shape individual conduct, which reduces crime and strengthens social order.

Conflict Mediation and Peacebuilding: 

""Religious leaders and organizations frequently act as mediators in conflicts, utilizing their moral authority to promote reconciliation. They are often more trusted in fragile states than political leaders, making them effective agents for peace Religious tolerance and stability fostered by these groups create an environment that attracts investment and promotes economic growth"".

In many societies, the Alaafin pointed out that, religious institutions provide a framework for legitimacy and social stability by endorsing principles that resonate with the population, such as justice and equity.

""While having the potential to strengthen stability, religious conventions can also become points of contention if they fuel extremism, intolerance, or the politicization of faith. When religious differences are exploited for political purposes, they can lead to insecurity and hinder national development.

""To ensure that religious conventions enhance rather than disrupt stability, it is important to: promote understanding and reduce, prejudice,, and mistrust between different religious communities, build strategic partnerships between religious institutions and government bodies for development,  and emphasize universal moral principles that promote peace, justice, and service over divisive doctrines.  

Alaafin's extempore address was interjected with rounds of applause by delegates at the  convention  who were impressed by the Paramount Ruler's intellectual sagacity. 

Conclusively, Alaafin  highlights the significant impact of religious tolerance on a nation’s development, saying it is instrumental in driving progress and prosperity by fostering unity, social cohesion, and a harmonious environment within diverse societies.

He emphasized that embracing religious diversity and promoting respect for different faiths strengthens social bonds and encourages innovation, economic growth, and cultural enrichment. 

"" This inclusive approach unlocks the potential of all citizens, leading to a thriving environment conducive to national development"".

By Bode Durojaiye, Director of Media and Publicity to the Alaafin, Paramount Ruler of Oyo Kingdom and Superior Head of Yorubaland.