By Isaac Asabor

Artificial intelligence has become the lightning rod of modern creativity. In every corner of the literary and publishing world, debates rage about whether AI-generated text undermines the craft of writing or democratizes it. Critics often frame AI as a looming threat, a machine poised to churn out endless streams of soulless prose, leaving human writers obsolete.

The truth is simpler, and more empowering: AI is not a replacement for writers, it is a tool that magnifies their abilities.

This article explores why foundational writing skills are essential for effective AI usage, and why the future of writing belongs not to machines, but to those who know how to wield them.

At the heart of AI usage lies a deceptively simple concept: prompt engineering. This is the art of communicating with an AI model through carefully crafted instructions. A prompt is not just a command; it is a miniature act of writing.

Those with strong writing skills excel at prompt engineering because they understand clarity, context, and nuance. They know how to frame a question, set a tone, and provide the right level of detail. For example, a vague prompt like “Write about history” will yield a bland, surface-level response. But a precise prompt such as “Write a 500-word essay on how the printing press transformed political discourse in 16th-century Europe, focusing on its role in democratizing access to information” produces a far richer, more targeted output.

This ability to guide the AI mirrors the skills of a seasoned editor directing a junior writer. The AI can generate words, but only a skilled human can steer those words toward meaning. In this sense, writing ability becomes the key that unlocks AI’s potential.

Even the most advanced AI models struggle with certain aspects of writing: logical structure, emotional depth, and contextual awareness. AI can mimic style, but it cannot truly feel. It can generate plausible arguments, but it often lacks the subtlety of human judgment.

This is where expert editing comes in. Writers act as the sculptors of AI drafts, refining raw material into polished art. They identify gaps in logic, smooth transitions, and inject genuine emotion. Without this intervention, AI-generated text risks sounding robotic, repetitive, or hollow.

Consider a scenario where AI produces a draft of motivational speech. The sentences may be grammatically correct and even inspiring at first glance, but they often lack rhythm, cadence, and emotional resonance. A skilled writer can transform that draft into something memorable by adjusting phrasing, adding anecdotes, and weaving in rhetorical devices.

So, editing is not just about fixing mistakes, it is about imbuing text with humanity. And that is something no algorithm can replicate.

However, for critics who are growingly becoming concerned in the digital age of what is now mockingly been referred to as “AI pollution”, they cannot be blamed to be. People are unduly afraid that AI will replace writing because it excels at mimicking the structure of writing, such as speed, grammar, and volume, while humans often underestimate the irreplaceable value of lived experience, emotional truth, and original thought in their own work. While generative AI can produce basic, formulaic content, it cannot replicate the human “spark” that creates authentic, deeply resonant, and memorable writing.

In fact, AI technology has unduly been blamed, but the phenomenon critics blame it for occurs when users treat AI as a replacement rather than as an assistant, or rather as a writing tool just the way a mathematician uses a calculator or four figure table. Good and skilled writers know when to accept an AI suggestion and when to discard it. They can spot clichés, challenge assumptions, and push the narrative into fresh territory.

In this way, writers serve as the “quality control” mechanism of AI-generated content. Without them, the digital landscape risks becoming a wasteland of statistical word predictions. With them, AI becomes a tool for originality rather than conformity.

AI models are powerful, but they are not infallible. They can “hallucinate”, producing fictional facts or misrepresenting information. They can reflect biases embedded in their training data. They can generate text that sounds authoritative but is subtly misleading. Writers with strong language skills are better equipped to recognize these limitations. They understand nuance, context, and the importance of accuracy. They know how to fact-check, cross-reference, and ensure that tone aligns with purpose.

For example, an AI might confidently assert that a historical figure lived in a certain year, when in fact the dates are wrong. In fact, it might be prompted to write about Nigerian president, and it would write about late president Muhammadu Buhari in the stead of writing about Nigeria’s current president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Caught in the foregoing situation or similar situation, a writer with research skills will catch the error and correct it. Similarly, AI might produce content that unintentionally perpetuates stereotypes. A thoughtful writer will recognize the bias and adjust the narrative.  In this sense, writers act as guardians of truth in the age of AI. They ensure that technology serves knowledge rather than distorts it.

Be that as it may, it is expedient to opine in this context that AI is a creative partner, not a rival. In fact, the fear that AI will replace human creativity is misplaced. Creativity is not just about generating words, it is about connecting ideas, emotions, and experiences in ways that resonate with others. AI cannot replicate lived experience, cultural context, or personal perspective.  Instead, AI functions best as a creative partner. It can brainstorm ideas, suggest alternative phrasings, or help overcome writer’s block. It can fix grammar, polish syntax, and provide inspiration. But it cannot replace the spark of human imagination.

Think of AI as a co-pilot in the writing process. It can handle routine tasks, freeing writers to focus on higher-order thinking. It can accelerate drafting, but the writer remains the driver of narrative. The relationship is symbiotic, not competitive.

In fact, the emerging consensus among experts is clear: AI assists the writer, not the other way around. The future of writing will be hybrid, blending machine efficiency with human creativity.  In this future, strong writing skills will be more valuable than ever. Writers who understand the craft will be able to harness AI to amplify their voices, expand their reach, and explore new genres. Those without such skills will struggle, producing generic content that fails to stand out.

This shift mirrors other technological revolutions. Just as photographers adapted to digital cameras and musicians embraced digital recording, writers must learn to integrate AI into their workflows. Technology does not eliminate the craft, it evolves it.

Without a doubt, AI poses no threat to a good and skilled writer as writing skills remain the compass in the ongoing AI era. In fact, the debate about AI and writing often misses the point. The question is not whether AI will replace writers, but whether writers will learn to use AI effectively. And the answer depends on writing skills.  This is as prompt engineering, editing, judgment, and fact-checking all require a deep understanding of language. Without these skills, AI becomes a liability. With them, AI becomes a powerful ally.

Critics who fear the devaluation of writing overlook this reality. AI does not diminish the craft, it rewards it. Those who master writing will find themselves better equipped to harness AI, while those who neglect the craft will be left behind.

In the end, AI is not the enemy of writers. It is a mirror that reflects their skill. The stronger the writer, the more powerful the tool. And that is why, in the age of AI, writing skills are not optional; they are essential.

By Daniel Nduka Okonkwo

For decades, citizens endured the tyranny of a broken electricity system, an aging national grid crippled by corruption, debt, and chronic neglect. Nigerians were forced to buy their own transformers for their residences, while businesses hemorrhaged billions of naira on diesel.

In a country where billions have been poured into a faltering national grid, the decision to install a ₦10 billion solar mini-grid at the Presidential Villa is more than a technical upgrade. It is a symbolic rupture.

More than a technical upgrade, the move sends a powerful signal. If the seat of government can abandon unreliable grid power, then institutions, industries, and communities across the country can do the same.

Nigeria’s electricity sector is under immense strain. The national grid, much of it built over half a century ago, suffers from weak transmission infrastructure, outdated equipment, and inadequate maintenance. Frequent system collapses, several recorded in early 2026 alone, have left millions without consistent access to power.

An estimated 90 million Nigerians remain unconnected to the grid, while those with access often receive only a few hours of electricity daily, sometimes enduring outages that stretch for days.

Small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of the economy, face soaring operational costs and reduced productivity due to unreliable power supply. Households struggle with rising fuel expenses as they depend on petrol and diesel generators to meet basic energy needs. For many families, persistent outages mean spoiled food, disrupted routines, and a general decline in quality of life.

Critical sectors are equally affected. Hospitals face interruptions that threaten patient care, while schools experience disruptions that undermine learning outcomes. In northern regions, where extreme heat has intensified, the absence of reliable electricity compounds already difficult living conditions.

At the institutional level, privately operated generation and distribution companies remain burdened by debts exceeding ₦6.8 trillion, alongside technical and operational limitations that hinder effective service delivery. Unlike Nigeria’s telecommunications sector, which prioritizes continuous investment and maintenance, the power sector has often transferred infrastructure responsibilities to already burdened communities.

The Federal Government has begun prioritizing renewable energy as a pathway to stability and growth. In the 2025 fiscal framework, ₦500 billion has been allocated for the solarization of public institutions, alongside ₦70 billion dedicated to solar mini-grids in universities.

International partnerships are also playing a critical role. A 750 million dollar World Bank-backed program aims to provide distributed solar electricity to approximately 17.5 million Nigerians, particularly in underserved and off-grid communities. In parallel, a 400 million dollar investment is being directed toward developing local solar manufacturing capacity, an effort that could reduce import dependence while creating jobs and strengthening the domestic energy value chain.

These initiatives reflect a deliberate move away from a centralized, fragile grid toward decentralized energy solutions. Mini-grids and standalone solar systems are emerging as viable alternatives, capable of delivering reliable electricity directly to homes, businesses, and institutions without relying on overstretched national infrastructure.

The solarization of the Presidential Villa is, at its core, both practical and symbolic.

Practically, it demonstrates the cost-saving potential of renewable energy by reducing long-term expenditure on diesel and maintenance. Symbolically, it represents a shift in governance, an acknowledgment that the existing system can no longer meet the country’s needs.

For ordinary Nigerians, this transition carries significant implications. Reduced dependence on diesel generators could lower energy costs, improve air quality, and enhance public health. Reliable electricity would support economic productivity, enable small businesses to thrive, and improve living standards across urban and rural communities alike.

The collapse of the traditional power system has exposed decades of systemic failure, but it has also created an opportunity for transformation. Renewable energy, particularly solar, offers a pathway not only to energy security but also to economic resilience and environmental sustainability.

Sustained investment, regulatory reform, and transparent implementation will determine whether these ambitious initiatives translate into real and lasting change. Without accountability and technical capacity, even the most promising policies risk falling short.

Yet, if successfully implemented, the current shift could mark the beginning of a new era, one in which access to reliable electricity is no longer a privilege, but a standard.

For millions of Nigerians, energy is more than infrastructure. It is opportunity, dignity, and survival.

Transitioning to solar and decentralized power is more than an energy shift. It is a declaration of resilience, innovation, and hope. By harnessing the boundless light above us, nations can illuminate pathways to prosperity, empower communities, and secure a sustainable future. The dawn is no longer a promise deferred; it is a reality within reach. As this new age of light unfolds, it carries with it the assurance that progress, equity, and opportunity will shine on every corner of the land.

Daniel Nduka Okonkwo is a Nigerian investigative journalist, publisher of Profiles International Human Rights Advocate, and policy analyst whose work focuses on governance, institutional accountability, and political power. He is also a human rights activist, human rights advocate, and human rights journalist. His reporting and analysis have appeared in Sahara Reporters, African Defence Forum, Daily Intel Newspapers, Opinion Nigeria, African Angle, and other international media platforms. He writes from Nigeria and can be reached at dan.okonkwo.73@gmail.com.

By Kayode Adebiyi

On Feb. 28, the U.S. and Israel launched a coordinated military campaign against Iran, codenamed “Operation Epic Fury” and “Operation Roaring Lion” respectively, conducting nearly 900 joint strikes on Iran within the first 12 hours.

Since then, the world could barely keep up with happenings in the Gulf region.

The opening bombardment on Iran successfully targeted a high-level meeting in Tehran, resulting in the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several top military commanders.

President Donald Trump, who entered into the war while negotiations with Iran on shutting down its nuclear programme were ongoing, has been threatening fire and brimstone.

He said that the goal was to “raze the missile industry to the ground” and ensure that Iran never achieves nuclear capability.

According to reports, more than 2,000 strikes have targeted the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facilities, air defenses, and nuclear research sites.

Iran has responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles and loitering munitions developed by Shahed Aviation Industries.

The Iranians have expanded their target list to include Gulf Arab states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia), striking civilian infrastructure like desalination plants and airports to pressure the U.S. into a ceasefire.

Although this round of conflict has shifted from a shadow war into a direct, large-scale military confrontation, it has its roots in a previous crisis.

In June 2025, the long-simmering hostility between Israel and Iran erupted into overt military confrontation, putting the Middle East on a razor’s edge and sending shockwaves across the globe.

For weeks, the two regional powers exchanged deadly blows, with each strike pushing the spectre of a wider regional war closer to reality.

What began as a shadow war of proxies and covert operations has escalated dramatically, with resultant destruction of lives and property.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a series of targeted airstrikes on Iranian military infrastructure and nuclear facilities.

After the attacks, Israel claimed to have set back Tehran’s nuclear programme significantly and decapitated key military leadership.

As expected, Iran swiftly retaliated with barrages of missiles and drones, hitting Israeli cities and towns.

By the time the smoke of bombardments cleared, both parties had suffered significant casualties, with Iran’s Health Ministry stating more than 220 people had been killed, and Israel confirming more than 20 fatalities.

The audacious nature of Israel’s strikes, targeting nuclear sites like Natanz and Fordow, and even the headquarters of Iranian state TV, signified a profound shift in the intensity of the conflict.

Raphael Cohen, an expert at RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think-tank, said then that Israel viewed Iran’s proxy attack as an existential threat.

“Israel believed it was almost out of time to stop an Iranian bomb and that the time was right for a preventative strike,” he said.

According to the White House, Trump framed the war as a “dawn of a new season” for the Iranian people.

Trump has also called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and stated that he intends to play a direct role in selecting Iran’s next leader, famously dismissing the late Supreme Leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as “unacceptable”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also justified the strikes as an “act of necessity against an existential threat”.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki and some leaders in the Baltics have also offered clear political backing, viewing the operation through a security lens similar to their stance on Russian aggression.

However, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has repeatedly condemned the strikes as a violation of the UN Charter, warning that “when force replaces law, barbarism takes its place.”

Notably, he said that the conflict now directly impacts 16 countries.

While China and Russia have been observing the situation from afar, yet condemning the U.S. and Israel, analysts say they could determine the future of the conflict.

Many of the U.S. allies in Europe oppose or stay neutral, citing the violation of the UN Charter. However, Spain has been the most vocal Western critic of the U.S.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez vehemently refused to allow U.S. forces to use Spanish bases and doubled down even after threats of diplomatic retaliation from President Trump.

Regardless of support, neutrality or opposition to the war, conflict analysts are debating whether the world will, again, be plunged into an unending regional conflict.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies said the U.S. has transitioned from a state that uses diplomacy to one that chooses results over rules.

It warned that, while air superiority is near-complete, the shift toward targeting the 1.2 million-strong IRGC and Basij forces will require a massive increase in strike capacity.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies reported that the cost of the first 100 hours of the war was 3.7 billion dollars, most of which was unbudgeted, posing a significant long-term fiscal challenge for the U.S.

Middle East Institute (MEI) labelled the war as an intelligence gamble, questioning if the decapitation of leadership would lead to a collapse or if the regime would prove adaptive and resilient potentially leading to a protracted insurgency.

Others, such as the Just Security, argue that the preemptive justification of the war fails the legal test of imminent assault, setting a dangerous global precedent for unilateral regime change.

Meanwhile, a consensus is emerging among analysts that, while the military campaign has been seemingly successful, the political endgame is murky.

They claim that 80 per cent of Iran’s air defence system has been destroyed.

However, other analysts, such as those at the Council on Foreign Relations, point out that, by excluding allies from the initial planning, the U.S. may find itself without a coalition of the willing.

This, they warn, might disrupt the management of the post-war humanitarian and governance crisis that follows a regime collapse.

There are also consequences for global trade and cooperation, even in regions not directly affected by the conflict.

Already, oil prices have surged due to the crisis, with global supply chain disruption and economic growth decline further forecast by analysts.

According to the BBC, crude oil prices surged over 20 per cent to exceed 100 dollars to -114 dollars per barrel; the highest level since 2022.

It further reported that the trend is threatening regional and global shipping, causing sharp declines in global stock markets.

In Nigeria, the impact of the conflict has started to tell on citizens, with oil prices going up since the conflict started.

Of course, with oil price hike comes an increase in commodity prices, cost of living crisis and, ultimately, domestic inflation.

With conflicts in the eastern flank of Europe and elsewhere, public affairs analysts, including Azubuike Ishiekwene, believe that the U.S and Israel’s action amounts to war mongering and a deliberate destabilisation of global peace.

While Tehran’s regime is not far from blame, the urgent question remains: Can the international community sustain the cost of another protracted, unending conflict? (NAN)