Better Future Production

History is often unkind to African leaders

A Tribute to Uncle Halifa Sallah: Leadership Completed by Restraint History is often unkind to African leaders, not because courage is absent in struggle, but because far fewer demonstrate courage in transition. It is therefore fitting and necessary to acknowledge the significance of Uncle Halifa Sallah's decision to step down as Secretary-General and flagbearer of

What a Man!

Sadio Mane, Nyancho won the AFCON for Senegal.

This Afcon semi-finals captures a familiar African football crossroads. Power, memory, rivalry, and unfinished business meet at the semi-final stage of the Africa Cup of Nations Morocco 2025. Senegal vs Egypt. Nigeria vs Morocco. Four nations with deep football lineages, each carrying history on their backs, not just shirts.

Senegal vs Egypt is one of Africa’s most psychologically charged rivalries. Egypt’s dominance defined early AFCON history, winning titles in 1957, 1959, 1986, 1998, 2006, 2008, and 2010. Senegal, long respected but historically under rewarded, broke that ceiling in 2021 by defeating Egypt on penalties in the final. That match reversed decades of near misses for Senegal and marked a symbolic shift from “talent without trophies” to continental authority. Since then, every Senegal–Egypt encounter carries the subtext of legacy versus momentum.

Nigeria vs Morocco tells a different story, one shaped by eras rather than repetition. Nigeria’s AFCON pedigree is among the strongest on the continent, with titles in 1980, 1994, and 2013, and more semi final and final appearances than almost any other nation. Morocco, champions in 1976, represents a tactically disciplined and increasingly modern football identity, reinforced by recent global performances. Their AFCON meetings have been infrequent but decisive, often signalling transitions in African football styles, from physical dominance to structured, possession based systems.

What this semi final image really shows is Africa’s football timeline colliding with its future. Experience against evolution. Memory against ambition. The trophy at the centre is not a decoration. It is a reminder that history rewards those who learn from it, not those who live inside it.

Engagement questions
1. Does recent success now give Senegal a psychological edge over Egypt, or does Egypt’s deep tournament experience still matter most?
2. Is Nigeria’s AFCON pedigree enough to overcome Morocco’s tactical discipline and home continent confidence?
3. Which of these four teams best represents the future direction of African football, and why?

Africa does not whisper at this stage of the tournament. These quarter-finals carry history, rivalry, pride, and continental ambition. From North to West, giants collide and new legends prepare to be written under Moroccan skies. This is not just football, this is Africa announcing itself.

Recent events compel a sober reassessment of claims regarding the defence of a rules-based international order. The United States has justified its military action against Venezuela on grounds of national security, asserting that the Venezuelan state constitutes a direct threat. Russia advanced an analogous justification in its invasion of Ukraine, likewise invoking security imperatives and pre-emptive necessity. In both cases, the legal rationale rests on unilateral threat perception rather than collective authorisation under international law.

From the standpoint of the United Nations Charter, such actions raise comparable concerns. The prohibition on the use of force, except in self-defence against an armed attack or with explicit Security Council authorisation, is a foundational principle of the post-1945 international legal order. Claims of anticipatory or expansive self-defence remain highly contested and, in practice, risk eroding the distinction between lawful defence and power-based intervention.

What is striking is not only the actions themselves, but the asymmetry in response. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was met with immediate, unequivocal condemnation across the Western political spectrum, framed explicitly as a violation of international law and sovereignty. By contrast, Western executive leadership has thus far responded to the US action in Venezuela with restraint, procedural caution, or silence, emphasising stability and clarification rather than legality. Explicit condemnation within the Western political space has emerged primarily from opposition figures rather than governing leaders.

This divergence is not merely rhetorical. Selective invocation of international law undermines its normative force. When legality is enforced rigorously against adversaries but treated flexibly for allies, the rules-based order risks devolving into an instrument of power rather than a constraint upon it. Such inconsistency weakens global trust in international institutions and provides justification for future violations by other states.

The implications extend beyond any single conflict. If threat-based unilateralism becomes normalised, the international system enters a more unstable and permissive phase, where precedent is shaped by capability rather than consent. Citizens therefore bear a responsibility to scrutinise not only violations by rivals, but also those committed by their own governments and allies. A credible commitment to international law requires consistency, even when such consistency is politically inconvenient.

In this context, statements by governments that decline participation in unlawful actions and reaffirm adherence to evidence, legality, and multilateral norms are important, but insufficient on their own. The defence of a genuine rules-based order demands not only restraint, but the willingness to name violations clearly, regardless of the actor involved.

Dr Lamin K Janneh