📰 ASSUMPTA MAGAZINE

Quarterly International Edition

Article Title-MIGHT vs. RIGHT

African Legal Minds Challenge the Global Status Quo

In a decisive and timely conversation, Ghanaian broadcast journalist Berla Mundi brings together two distinguished African legal scholars—Serwaa Amihere, Esq. (Ghana) and Assumpta Gahutu, Esq. (Namibia)—to unpack the global implications of the recent U.S.-led strikes on Iran and the mounting anxieties surrounding the erosion of international legal norms.

At the center of the discussion lies a question now resonating across diplomatic circles, academic institutions, and global policy forums:

Is today’s world guided by the rule of law—or increasingly shaped by the rule of power?

Through a thoughtful and rigorous exchange, the panel examines foundational principles of sovereignty, diplomatic negotiation, and the obligations enshrined in the United Nations Charter—principles that were intended to anchor the post-war international order.

The conversation also confronts a growing global concern:

If diplomatic negotiations were actively progressing, why did the military strike occur at the very moment compromise seemed possible?

This special edition invites readers around the world to reflect deeply on what these developments mean for international justice, the credibility of multilateral institutions, and the future of peaceful conflict resolution.

📅 Special Edition Release: Friday, March 13, 2026

🌍 Available Worldwide

📍 Read exclusively at:assumptagh.live

Hair Senta Advertisement

https://www.instagram.com/hairsenta?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw==

Introduction

A Question That Reverberates Across the Global Order

In this compelling edition, journalist Berla Mundi engages two leading African legal experts—Serwaa Amihere, Esq. and Assumpta Gahutu, Esq.—to confront a question with far-reaching global implications.

Mundi opens by revisiting the recent military strikes against Iran and the official justification offered to the world. According to the prevailing narrative, Iran was believed to be advancing toward the construction of a nuclear weapon. Yet several public statements appeared to contradict this claim.
Assessments attributed to the U.S. intelligence community—as well as remarks from international nuclear oversight authorities—suggested that no confirmed evidence existed showing Iran was actively building a nuclear bomb.

Iran’s nuclear facilities, as Berla-Mundi noted, remain under IAEA monitoring mechanisms. Furthermore, Iran’s Supreme Leader had previously issued a religious decree (fatwa) prohibiting the development of nuclear weapons—another factor publicly cited to counter the allegation of imminent nuclear armament.

The diplomatic dimension was equally significant. Negotiations over uranium enrichment were ongoing, and mediators indicated that the central dispute revolved around the continuation and level of enrichment activities.
Yet according to mediators involved in the talks, Iran had reportedly agreed not to accumulate additional enriched uranium shortly before the strikes were executed.

This raised the central question capturing global attention:

If negotiations were nearing compromise, why was the attack authorized at that moment?

It is this question that sets the stage for the legal analysis that follows, as the two African legal scholars explore the implications for sovereignty, international law, and the credibility of the global diplomatic architecture.

Editorial Opening

When Power Challenges Principle

At a moment when global tensions are testing the very foundations of international law, a simple but profound question is echoing worldwide:

Is the international system still governed by law—or increasingly by power?

In a compelling exchange moderated by Berla Mundi, legal scholars Serwaa Amihere, Esq. and Assumpta Gahutu, Esq. turn their attention to the recent military strikes against Iran—probing the legal, political, and ethical questions that accompany them.

As conflicting narratives emerged regarding nuclear threats, diplomatic progress, and the rationale for military action, the discussion quickly transcended the immediate crisis.
It pressed deeper into the question of what comes next for international governance:
the future of state sovereignty, the integrity of diplomatic negotiations, and the endurance of a rules-based global order.

Against this backdrop, Mundi frames the question now being echoed across continents:

If diplomacy was progressing, and compromise appeared within reach, why was the attack carried out when it was?

This inquiry opens the door to a broader legal reflection—one anchored in the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter:
sovereign equality, non-intervention, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

🎙️ The Dialogue: MIGHT vs. RIGHT

A Historic Intersection of African Legal Thought and Global Crisis Governance

What follows is an opening exchange that marks a historic intellectual intersection—a moment where African legal expertise steps confidently into the heart of global crisis analysis.

BERLA MUNDI:

Good evening to our audience joining us from every corner of the world—from the bustling streets of Accra and Windhoek to the diplomatic corridors of Geneva and New York. I am Berla Mundi, and you are reading a special international edition of Assumpta Magazine.

Today, we move beyond headlines and official statements to conduct what I call a legal autopsy on the current state of our world. With me are two of the continent’s most formidable legal minds.

Representing the distinguished legal tradition of Namibia is Assumpta Gahutu, Esq., a jurist whose work has consistently defended the integrity of sovereign states.
And joining us from Ghana is Serwaa Amihere, Esq., widely respected for her rigorous defense of the UN Charter and her advocacy for an equitable international legal order.

Ladies, it is an honor to have you here as we navigate these turbulent global currents. Welcome.

ASSUMPTA GAHUTU, ESQ.:

Thank you, Berla. It is a privilege to be here. At this turning point in history, Africa cannot afford to sit as a silent spectator. We must actively participate in shaping a more just and balanced international framework.

SERWAA AMIHERE, ESQ.:

Thank you for having us. Indeed, the questions we confront today reach far beyond any single region. They challenge us to examine whether the promises made to humanity in 1945—promises of peace, sovereignty, and collective security—still hold any real value today.

BERLA MUNDI:

Thank you both. Before we delve into the title of this edition—“Might vs. Right”—allow me to, as the philosophers say, blot out the sun.

We must strip away distractions.
Without a clear legal lens on the U.S.–Israel military strikes against Iran, the unfolding events may appear to many Africans—and indeed many global citizens—as perplexing or even illogical.

To the average observer, the sequence of actions seems to defy the very logic that international law is supposed to uphold. But with a proper understanding of jurisdiction and treaty obligations, it becomes evident that the cases examined in this issue are not isolated anomalies.
They are symptoms—the inevitable byproduct of a dysfunctional international system operating with two separate rulebooks: one for the powerful, and one for everyone else.

So let me put the hard question before you both, guided by our shared Pan‑African outlook:

If international law was designed to shield the vulnerable, why does it now resemble a sword in the hands of the mighty?

Is the “rule of law” being gradually replaced by the “rule of power”?
And what does this shift mean for the sovereignty of nations across the Global South?

🎙️ THE DIALOGUE CONTINUES

Responses from Africa’s Leading Legal Voices

BERLA MUNDI:

Assumpta, let me begin with you. You’ve spent years studying the ways powerful states shape, bend, or sometimes outright ignore the rules that are supposed to govern us all. From a Namibian standpoint—and drawing from Africa’s broader post‑colonial experience—how do you interpret this moment?

If international law was built to protect the weak, why does it now seem to function as a tool for the strong?
And what does this mean for the sovereignty of smaller nations as we move deeper into the 21st century?

ASSUMPTA GAHUTU, ESQ.:

Thank you, Berla-Mundi.

From Namibia’s vantage point—and indeed from much of the Global South—what we are witnessing today is not merely a diplomatic dispute. It is a structural fracture in the international legal system.

The UN Charter was designed with two core intentions:
to restrain power and to guarantee sovereignty.
Yet, over the decades, we have seen the opposite occur. Power has learned how to operate both inside and outside the law, bending it when convenient and bypassing it when necessary.

For smaller nations, this creates a dangerous precedent. If powerful states can unilaterally redefine threats, justify preemptive strikes, or reinterpret treaty obligations without consequence, then the guarantee of sovereignty becomes symbolic rather than real.

Namibia knows—Africa knows—what it means to live under systems where law protects some and exposes others. And the current moment feels hauntingly familiar.

The danger is not only the erosion of legal norms but the normalization of that erosion.
If the rule of law becomes optional for the powerful, it becomes meaningless for the rest of us.

This is why Africa cannot remain a silent observer. Our sovereignty depends on our voice.

BERLA MUNDI:

Thank you, Assumpta. That is a powerful and sobering reminder.
Serwaa, let me turn to you now.

You have consistently argued that the promises embedded within the UN Charter still hold value—if the international community chooses to uphold them. But when actions on the global stage seem to contradict the Charter’s core principles, how should we interpret what is unfolding?

Are we watching the slow collapse of the post‑1945 legal order, or is this a moment for the Global South to reassert the original meaning of the international system?

SERWAA AMIHERE, ESQ.:

Thank you, Berla.

I want to begin by saying this: the UN Charter is not obsolete. It is simply being ignored.

The Charter was crafted in the aftermath of a world war that showed us the catastrophic consequences of unrestrained power. The entire framework—sovereign equality, non‑intervention, the prohibition on the use of force—was meant to prevent the very scenario we see today.

However, the problem is not the Charter itself.
The problem is selective compliance.

Some states treat international law as a binding framework. Others treat it as a menu—from which they choose only the items that suit their interests.

This two‑tiered system has created a world where legality depends on who is acting, not what is being done.

But I do not believe this means the system is doomed. In fact, moments like this expose the cracks so clearly that they force the world to choose:
either we recommit to principles, or we abandon them entirely.

And here is where the Global South becomes decisive. We are no longer passive recipients of decisions made elsewhere. We are stakeholders with a right—indeed, a responsibility—to redefine what international justice must look like in this century.

The legal order of 1945 is being tested.
But it is also being rewritten—and Africa must be part of the pen that writes the next chapter.

🎙️ THE DIALOGUE: MIGHT vs. RIGHT

UN Charter Breakdown · Omani Mediation · Collective Security Failure

BERLA MUNDI:

Ms. Gahutu, let me bring you into another critical dimension of this discussion.

Despite its architecture of international norms, bodies, courts, and traditions, the United Nations has never been fully functional in the way it is often presented—or perceived—to be.

And yet, interestingly, African governance models have long combined UN international norms with indigenous democratic methods in ways that offer important lessons for the global conversation on legality and legitimacy.

What are your thoughts on this, Ms. Assumpta Gahutu, Esq.?

ASSUMPTA GAHUTU, ESQ.:

Thank you, Berla-Mundi.

The truth is uncomfortable, but necessary:
The United Nations was born from noble intentions but built on unequal foundations. Its institutions—especially the Security Council—were structurally designed to privilege power, not balance it.

So when we say the UN has “never been fully functional,” we are not criticizing incompetence; we are acknowledging architecture. A system built on veto power cannot, by definition, treat all nations as sovereign equals.

Now, Africa offers a unique lesson here.

Across the continent—from Namibia to Ghana to Botswana—you will find democratic traditions that merge modern constitutionalism with indigenous consultative systems such as palaver, indaba, and baraza. These methods prioritize consensus, listening, and legitimacy over coercive authority.

This is precisely what the UN lacks.

Where African governance traditions insist that no voice is too small to matter, the UN’s structure insists that five voices are louder than the rest of humanity combined.

So yes, African political cultures offer a valuable blueprint:
that law must be legitimate to be effective; that authority must be shared to be respected; and that power must be accountable to community, not insulated from it.

If the UN truly embraced these principles, it would look very different—and it might actually function as the Charter intended.

BERLA MUNDI:

Profound insights, Assumpta. Thank you.
Now, let’s pivot to how these structural flaws became visible in the recent crisis.

Serwaa, I’d like to bring both of you into the next phase of this dialogue—
the legal breakdown of the UN Charter itself.

---

THE UN CHARTER: A SYSTEM STRAINING AT ITS SEAMS

SERWAA AMIHERE, ESQ.:

The UN Charter is clear on three foundational rules:

7. Sovereign equality of all states
8. Prohibition on the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council approval
9. Commitment to peaceful settlement of disputes

Every action taken in the Iran crisis challenges at least one of these pillars.

If military force is used without confirmation of an imminent threat…
If diplomatic negotiations are underway but ignored…
If the Security Council is bypassed because veto power makes action impossible…

Then we are witnessing not the failure of states, but the failure of the system itself.

The Charter is not weak.
It is simply being overridden.