By Ifeanyichukwu Afuba 

It was only a matter of time. Things had come to a head. Something had to give between the iron – necked Islamic regime of Tehran and Trump’s history –  obsessed presidency. The flurry of diplomatic activities in January and much of February 2026 was in futility. The attempted dialogue  facilitated by Oman was doomed from the outset. What was there to negotiate when the red lines of the two sides mutually cancelled themselves out? Washington was emphatic that discontinuation of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme and curbs on her ballistic missiles was the raison d’etre of the talks. Tehran, for it’s part, declared the two items, practically off the table. Updates about achieving guidelines on the round of talks were mere diplomatese. The discussion was going in circles, which meant that time was running out. Not surprisingly, the bombs rained down on the Islamic regime targets on Saturday, February 28.

The United States correctly predicted the scenario. Not a complex assessment anyway. By the expression iron – necked regime, we refer to the inflexibility of the theocratic rulership in Tehran. The regime hardly sees beyond it’s messianic delusion. A more sober, calculating actor would have come to terms with the shifting sands; decoded the meaning of America’s military buildup in the region.  Assembling of military armada to the point of two aircraft carriers was telling. The positioning of a variety of high skill combat vessels within striking distance of Iran as the talks faltered was a loud statement. You do not deploy such fleet of military weapons for fun.  Movement of the high grade arsenal  used in attacking Iran to the middle east is estimated to have cost millions of dollars. There had to be a justification for  the huge financial cost. If there was an element of surprise in the offensive, it was Israel’s participation. The latter had not featured as a player while the Iran – US confrontation unfolded.

It was not quite the case that the mullahs in Iran could not track America’s intention. Afterall, Donald Trump severally warned on the course of military action in the event of an aborted nuclear deal. The Iranian regime was rather suicidal. It chose to continue to be ruled by emotion. Trump’s repeated caution on military action was reciprocated with boasts of fire and brimstone by multi levels of Tehran’s dictatorship. From the religious ruler Ayatollah Ali Khameini, to Parliament Speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to the President, Masoud Pezeshkian, it was thunder of war taunts and threats. The warriors of Tehran were still vowing “crushing response to the enemy” when Israel’s precision missiles buried them. Against intelligence impression of a pattern of night cover sorties, Israel’s combat jets struck in daylight of Saturday, February 28, taking the jihadists by surprise. High profile casualties included Ayatollah Khameini, Ali Shamkani, Secretary of the Security Council, Mohammad Pakpor, IRGC Commander, Aziz Nasirzadeh, Defence Minister and Mohammad Shirazi, head of Military Bureau. On Monday, March 2nd, Israel added Sayed Yahya Hamidi, deputy minister of Intelligence and Jalal Pour Hossein, head of espionage division to the dispatched list.

Iran’s response further betrayed a suicidal instinct. For sure, she took the battle to Israel where nine civilian deaths were recorded from an unintercepted missile. Although two American jets were hit over Kuwait, the impact was thought to be from friendly fire. Notably, the United States lost six troops from an attack at an airbase in Bahrain. In all, the Islamic regime launched it’s firepower towards Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate, Iraq and Cyprus. A greater part of the projectiles were either shot down or landed harmlessly in open areas. On the face of it, the expanded offensive seems like the push of a courageous, fighting force. But it’s a fleeting impression that quickly gives way to reality. Tehran’s radical regime is only trying to create confusion. It seeks to provoke a wider conflict under which it will obtain respite, if not totally deflect the US – Israel assault. But where the survivalist game flops, the mullahs running Tehran want to try the Samson formula; not to go down alone; bring the roof crashing on all heads. Either way, they lose. Saddam Hussein tried the tactics in the 1991 Gulf war and it failed.

It will take the eight wonder of the world for the cantankerous regime in Iran to survive the thunder tearing through Tehran. Militarily, the regime forces stand no chance in a full scale war. In just three days of the conflict, the US destroyed nine Iranian navy ships. On Tuesday, fourth day of the undeclared war, Israel was hitting military targets all over Iran with little air resistance. The regime does not fare better on the socio – political side. News of elimination of Ayatollah Khamenei had sparked both mourning and celebration in the streets. The rejoicing obviously signposts  rejection of the status quo and assumes significance against the recent anti – regime riots in the country. With a battered economy and dispossessed population, the regime’s loyalists consists only of hardline Islamists and students of radical nationalism. For most part, Iran’s theocracy is merely tolerated by middle east countries. Every country in the Gulf region holds their breath suspiciously at the terror – sponsoring regime. A  firm resolve not to play into the hands of the desperate regime is what has stopped the countries attacked in the present conflict from hitting back. 

The beleaguered regime can count on only three allies in the region. These are the triple H of Houthi militia, Hezbollah and Hamas, all of them beneficiaries of Tehran’s power policies.Their common bond is the delusion of an international Caliphate, a world dominated by a mighty Republic of Islamic states beyond borders and tribes. As it were, Iran’s theocracy and her proxies meet a brick wall in their ideological fantasy with the reality of  geopolitics and reigning world order. The West represents the anathema of their ideological flights. Israel sits on the historical territory at the heart of this ideological heritage. Conquering these formidable barriers demanded possession of a nuclear bomb. Since seizing the throne in 1979, the mullahs and their hysterical crowds have not stopped yelling: We will march down to Jerusalem! Death to Israel! Death to America! Since the showdown started last Saturday, however, only Hezbollah, managed  a feeble kick at Israel. The fire – eating Houthis still had a mouthful from the barrage of red coal America dumped on them during the Gaza war. Hamas is busy searching for the gains of it’s bravado of October 27, 2023, in the ruins left of Gaza. Following Israel’s stinging response to Hezbollah’s misadventure, the Lebanese government has itself to blame for not insisting on disarming of Hezbollah.

Expectedly, devotees of liberalism idolatry, along with zealots of religiosity and captives of fundamentalism wasted no time in filing out to the streets in America. In a few more odd places in the West, the activists ever faithful to the placard parade, derided the action to rein in Iran’s loose rulership. Predictably too, pockets of protests popped up in some towns in northern Nigeria. Sure, the right of expression and dissent remains a cardinal feature of free society. But in upholding this personal freedom, we cannot but observe it’s one – sided momentum. How come that the puritans of political morality in the West are dogged by inconsistency? Why is the aversion to war selective? Is Vladimir Putin’s naked aggression on Ukraine acceptable to the crusaders of freedom and equal rights? Why are they not protesting Putin’s annexation ambitions? Will the suffering of the people of Ukraine ever receive one percent of the outrage poured out over Gaza? Are the restless marchers for human dignity not aware of the wrecking of democracy in Myanmar; and of the unjust imprisonment of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi? Why are the coalitions of conscience in the West yet to protest  South Sudan’s senseless war? And attendant humanitarian tragedy? How come that their activism  only comes alive when Israel is involved? Righteous indignation indeed!  Their howling will not change anything. The beginning of the end has come for Tehran’s totalitarians. And the world will be safer for it.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

By Kachi Okezie, Esq.

Australia’s move to restrict social media access for children under 16 has ignited a debate that stretches far beyond child safety. On the surface, the policy is framed as a protective measure, an effort to shield young people from cyberbullying, predatory behaviour, addictive design features, and harmful content. Yet beneath that official rationale, a more sceptical interpretation has gained traction: that safeguarding minors may be the vehicle for something broader, systemic digital identification and expanded data control.

The child-protection argument is powerful and emotionally resonant. Few would dispute that social media platforms expose minors to unprecedented psychological and social pressures. Regulators argue that age limits, coupled with age-verification systems, are necessary to counter algorithmic amplification, excessive screen time, and exposure to inappropriate material. From this perspective, restrictions are not about control, but about recalibrating a digital environment that has outpaced meaningful oversight.

However, critics contend that the implications reach much further. Governments in several democracies have struggled to implement comprehensive digital identification frameworks due to legal, political, and public resistance. In this context, mandatory age verification is viewed by sceptics as a “back door” solution: if access to major online platforms requires verified identification, then, in practice, much of the population must submit personal data to participate in modern civic life. Date of birth today, biometric or digital ID tomorrow.

This concern centres on gatekeeping. If every user must verify their identity to access social platforms, or potentially broader online resources, the infrastructure for population-wide digital tracking is effectively established. What begins as a child-safety measure could normalise routine identity checks across the internet. Privacy advocates warn that once such systems are embedded, their scope can expand incrementally, often with limited public scrutiny.

There are also civil liberties considerations. Overly broad restrictions may limit young people’s access to educational content, political discourse, and support networks, particularly for marginalised groups who rely on online communities for connection and affirmation. Meanwhile, flawed verification systems could create new risks: data breaches, identity theft, or disproportionate exclusion of vulnerable populations who lack formal documentation.

Effectiveness remains uncertain. Determined teenagers may circumvent restrictions using VPNs or offshore platforms, potentially pushing activity into less regulated and more dangerous digital spaces. If enforcement becomes the priority, the result could be increased surveillance without a proportional reduction in harm.

At the heart of the debate lies a deeper democratic question: how should societies balance child protection, privacy, and state power in the digital age? A healthy democracy depends on informed citizens who can weigh both the visible intent and the structural consequences of policy. Transparency, independent oversight, strict data minimisation, and sunset clauses are essential if such measures are to avoid mission creep.

Protecting children online is a legitimate and urgent goal. But so is safeguarding civil liberties. Public trust cannot be sustained if citizens suspect that noble aims are masking broader ambitions. The path forward requires open debate, rigorous evidence, and safeguards that ensure today’s protective measure does not become tomorrow’s permanent infrastructure of state control of citizens.

Knowledge empowers citizens to participate meaningfully in that debate. And meaningful participation is the foundation of democracy itself.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2026 should be made to work for the people despite its shortcomings, writes MONDAY PHILIPS EKPE

“What is crucial is the fact that you manage the process to the extent there will be no confusion, no disenfranchisement of Nigerians, and that we are all going to see democracy flourish. No matter how good the system is, it’s managed by the people, promoted by the people, and the result is finalised by the people. In fact, for final results, you are not going to be talking to the computer; you are going to be talking to human beings who will announce the final results….

And when you look at the crux of various arguments, maybe Nigerians should question our broadband capability. How technically are we today? How technically will we be tomorrow to answer the call of either real-time or not?
“It’s just the arithmetic accuracy that is to enter into Form EC8A. It’s the manual, essentially. The transmission of that manual result is what we’re looking at. And we need to avoid glitches — I’m glad you did — interference, unnecessary hacking in this age of computer inquisitiveness. Nigeria will be there. We will flourish. We will continue to nurture this democracy for the fulfilment of our dream for the prosperity and stability of our country.”

Last week, when President Bola Tinubu signed the 2026 Electoral bill into law, he was at his relaxed, confident, and hopeful best. Maybe I shouldn’t add carefree. Or less-sensitive. Or triumphant. The weeks leading to that presidential endorsement were animated by the anxiety of a chunk of the electorate about what the final piece of the legislation the National Assembly would take to Aso Villa could look like. For months, the federal legislators were said to have travelled across the country, engaged with relevant stakeholders, carried along the civil society and done adequate researches on the subject of how to make subsequent elections freer and fairer than the previous ones.

Those processes did gulp resources of all sorts. That stark reality wouldn’t have even mattered if the end results could lead to the integrity of polls; if the citizens could truly see themselves as useful, respected factors in the overall democratic project. Better still, if voting – that indispensable ingredient of democracy – is worth the time and stress in Nigeria. This last premise in particular shouldn’t be taken for granted or trivialised. Unfortunately, our politicians have carried on as if the Nigerian voter is an inconsequential quantity.

The Nigerian people didn’t need any vote or referendum to know that the citizens in support of the now proverbial “real time” electronic transmission of election results far outnumbered those who did not. But in democracy, popular opinions don’t always carry the day. Actually, our present dilemma is accentuated by the fact that what majority of the people think hardly affects the considerations and decisions of their political representatives. To worsen the matters, as exemplified by this case, the actions of the law makers can change drastically from hope to disillusionment.

Sometimes perceived as the more people-sensitive of the two-chamber assembly in this 10th National Assembly, the House of Representatives had appeared to go with the louder calls to fully embrace technology for the collation of election outcomes. Not surprisingly, the Senate thought and acted otherwise. Harmonising the opposing stands of the red and green chambers is normal and actually adds to the grace of the legislative enterprise. Exactly how the positions of the senators and representatives managed to become fused within hours has left the citizenry heartbroken and confused. But certainly not unexpected.
It’s doubtful if the concerns about the collation procedures that enabled disputable results in the past were on President Tinubu’s mind when he accented to the over-dramatised bill.

What was clear was the happiness he felt at the sight of the Chairman of the assembly, Senator Godswill Akpabio, and his crew that day. He declared that he had keenly followed the deliberations and was exultant over their resolutions. The meat of this electoral law, don’t forget, is that the digital transfer of the scores written in the almighty Form EC8A is upheld alongside its age-long manual alternative, the same combination that produced the glitch-induced results of the last presidential poll. At the stroke of Tinubu’s pen, someone said that Nigeria had just legislated glitches.

Call that cynicism if you will. Or waive it aside as an opposition or enemy whining. I’m not about to believe that simply putting our faith in technology would deliver credible voting. Even the big tech companies which literally own the technology and craft upon which contemporary information and communication are built are not free from occasional dysfunctionalities. So, those opposed to the speedy digital-technology based, on-the-spot transfer of election results are not without meaningful arguments. It’s painful, though, that yet another opportunity to reduce the increasing voter indifference, which is threatening whatever gains we’ve mustered in our difficult democratic journey, is being squandered.

The anger over Tinubu’s uncommon swiftness in signing that day hasn’t abated but the nation now has a new enabling electoral law in place. The president’s ink has dried on one of Nigeria’s most controversial democratic statutes. And Nigerians are expected to take it with spartan fortitude and be of good behaviour. Critics of government and the ruling party point to the disturbing fortunes of last week’s council elections in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) as direct consequences of the poorly-received law. Most of the people rejoicing are painted as the potential exploiters and beneficiaries of the loopholes contained therein.

The country is not a stranger to the pursuit of electoral probity, we shouldn’t forget. Different devices and strategies have been adopted at various times to make votes count but since we haven’t had any widely accepted election results in the mould of the famous June 12 presidential poll, it may be hard to fully justify these perennial experiments. Whatever happens, the battle to safeguard our attempts to move on from perpetual mediocrity and self-sabotage into the league of democratically progressive countries mustn’t stop.

As vulnerable as the Nigerian voter is at the moment, he shouldn’t be further sentenced to periodic abuses and irrelevance. The boldness with which the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan, has denounced his organisation’s shortcomings in the recent electoral exercises indicates the possibility of happier times ahead. Some optimism in the midst of overwhelming Shenanigans won’t hurt.

Ekpe, PhD, is a member of THISDAY Editorial Board
X: @monday_ekpe2

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

By Funke Egbemode

At the funeral, a woman clutched a photograph of two smiling pupils—perhaps her own daughters, now dead. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights demanded a “prompt, impartial and thorough investigation” into what it called a “horrific” attack. Iran is in mourning. One hundred and sixty-five schoolgirls and staff were killed in a strike during the US–Israel war, their small coffins draped in the national flag and borne on trucks through grieving streets. I read all these on Al Jazeera!

What kind of people spend their days and nights designing, manufacturing and storing weapons that mass-kill innocent school kids and which can ‘take out a city’ in minutes? Are those ones even human? And what kind of men think nothing of shedding human blood to prove, just to prove they have superior powers and report to no one? Those ones too, are they humans?

I am scared. The world is going up in flames. Nukes and warheads are making high rises dissolve like alum in water. If you are not scared, it is because you think the war this time is happening somewhere far far away, a war that may never get here. I feel you. I see you. In your cocoon. You think Iran is a million miles away and the stench of trapped bodies under hot rubbles will never get here. Well, let me break your bubble, that stench will get everywhere, including your kitchen. That is why it is called war. It is an intractable phenomenon.

Our fathers had a saying long before flying missiles, ibeere ogun l’aa mo, enikan o mo ibi ti yo pari si. Everyone knows how a war starts but not where or how it will end. Even the United States of America that has ‘budgeted’ four to five weeks for this hot smoking war has hinted that it could take longer. Meaning, many things unplanned can show up as this fire burns, as more leaders of Iran are taken out and refineries are attacked. I know the economists are already tallying up the numbers and projecting how much global financials will record in losses. Oil, crude and cooked, will flow in the wrong directions, forced to flow in drops instead of barrels and all of us, including the woman selling okro and crayfish will pay a price. But my real fear is in reprisal attacks and how that could play out badly, really badly.

Have you thought of that angle? If this war is drawn out for too long (it is already too long, according to me), both the antagonists and protagonists would end up with their own sympathisers and supporters. Already, there are talks about who has the right to invade a sovereign nation and who doesn’t have the right to build and assemble weapons that can wipe the world out in minutes. I can see a future of plenty of arguments about existential threats and mismanaged information and unclear images.

Call my fear funny, foolish or even wise, timid or sharp. Right now, all I can smell is smoke and artillery, gasoline like we are at the petrol station. The kind of fear that hits a pregnant woman when she’s told her baby is in a breach position at 39 weeks. Yes, that kind of fear you cannot do much or anything about. Knives, sorry, scalpels, blood and her open tummy would be most likely the images that would fill her mind. But the Iranian fear is widely different because it is not likely to give birth to a good child. War is not like pounded yam and vegetable soup with seven lives, it is about gore, blood and sudden termination of lives, dreams and ambition. One minute, a man is at his desk and the next, he’s just another figure on the casualty tally. Widows, orphans, childless aged parents everywhere.

My fear is Iran fighting back, Iran finding friends to supply her support that will prolong this war. Imagine if one day the lifeblood of modern life as we know it—oil and gas—simply became unreachable.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway hugging Iran’s shores, is a funnel through which a huge chunk of the world’s oil and gas passes. About 20% of global petroleum traverses it every day. If this chokepoint is blocked—even if for one week—prices will spike, factories across the globe will start gasping for breath and ordinary people will pay more for fuel, food, transport, and electricity. As if we are not tried and tired already as it is. This isn’t theory. It has happened before — and economic analysts warn it could happen again.

Modern wars are rarely clean. They are monstrous. They feed on human flesh and future, and everything in sight. A strike in one city can spark retaliation in another, proxy forces might enter the fray. Some Nigerians are already doing notice-me-dance so Mr Trump can add more to our sins.

Further strikes — whether by Iran, Israel, the United States, or others — will most likely drag other nations into the cauldron of chaos. Blocked straits, displaced people, missiles flying across borders, and shifting loyalties are all part of the terror and horror ahead.

But wait, why do leaders of nations think first with their brawn before deploying brains? From where I am sitting on my balcony, I don’t see how America, Iran, or Israel will just wake up one day and just stop firing missiles. The Gulf states caught in the middle are not going to sit on their hands. They are already dropping bad things. These leaders of the developed world will waste truckloads of money that could and should have gone into more profitable things. Every nation involved in this war will lose money and men. They will leave thousands or corpses behind. Then one day, they will walk through the blood and rubbles to ‘discuss ceasefire and the way forward’. Right now, they are drunk on muscle-flex cognac, prime cut ego and my-armory-is-bigger than-yours powdery stuff.

This war will kill, maim and destroy dreams. Yet, it will all stop one day, maybe later than sooner. The drones will stop dropping. The missiles will stop flying. Trillions would have caught fire. Then, boom, the demon of war intoxication will return to the pit of hell and there will be ceasefire, first a small one, then a full stop after the comma, and many in coma. These leaders will stop. But the dead will remain dead. The felled high-rise buildings will remain charred dust and bent iron. The orphans and widows will remain bewildered. The world, our world will not remain the same. But these angry leaders will eventually go to that place they call the round table. Not now. They have not shed enough blood!

Even if a war is “short” the consequences are not measured in weeks or months — but years and decades. Previous skirmishes between Iran and her neighbours damaged infrastructure, plunged economies, and left communities scarred. The echoes of those conflicts are still there in their markets, politics, and families. Once trust is lost and wounds are inflicted, healing is slow — not just for nations, but for the whole global community that depends on stability. Let us not forget that all of the tough talk and press conferences will produce refugees who will seek safety beyond borders. There will be social tensions in neighbouring states and humanitarian crises that will spread wider and beyond the battlefields.

Who is going to tell our world leaders that fear, in the right measure, is not weakness?

Who is going to tell them to talk instead of shooting?

Who is going to push for peace rather than escalation?

Who is going to remind world leaders that bullets may talk loudly — but their echoes are deafening?

Peace isn’t the absence of trouble. It’s the presence of resonance and leaders who reason—the kind that let us share stories, not sorrows.

Why would nations be interested in weapons of mass destruction, anyway? That part I still do not understand.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.