By Alabi Williams
After an initial warning, President Trump ordered the Sokoto airstrikes of December 25, 2025. Thereafter, Nigeria stepped up diplomatic activities to convince the United States that it is willing to strengthen counter-terrorism measures, and particularly, protect vulnerable citizens and groups. There is evidence of calculated and systematic plot to annihilate and occupy indigenous homelands.
After the airstrikes and promise of more, what began on an unfriendly note of hostilities shifted to one of diplomatic and military collaboration. There is now a U.S.-Nigeria Joint Working Group, that is meeting and deciding on ways and means to move the collaboration to the next level.
President Trump is now favourably disposed towards Nigeria, a country he previously described in uncharitable terms. He even showered commendations on Nigeria’s First Lady, Mrs Oluremi Tinubu, evidence that diplomacy is winning. The U.S. has now made available military hardware and logistics to the armed forces of Nigeria.
At the last count, three C-17 cargo planes transporting personnel and equipment have arrived from the United States. Because of the sensitive nature of the deployments, not much publicity is given to the details. The three planes are reported to be deployed at three insurgency hotbeds in the Northeast and Northcentral.
Additional flights are planned for the coming weeks, according to U.S. Defence sources.
Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters admitted to foreign and local media that 200 U.S. troops have arrived, but they will not engage in combat operations. Their focus is non-combat roles such as training and intelligence. They are to operate mainly from command centres. The joint mission will operate across several unstable areas, where jihadists have taken hold of communities for years. Defence Headquarters spokesperson, Major General Samaila Uba said: “Nigerian forces retain full command authority, make all operational decisions and will lead all missions on Nigerian sovereign territory.’’
Despite the limited role the U.S. troops are announced to play, some citizens are not comfortable with the idea of having foreign troops on Nigerian soil. They are concerned that what is on the surface a military collaboration could assume the strength of a pact, which might undermine the doctrine of non-alignment, a position that Nigeria has held and championed for ages since the country’s independence.
Some believe that foreign military troops in the country compromises the country’s sovereignty and diminishes the dignity associated with Africa’s most formidable country. In their reckoning, it is disrespectful enough that President Trump fired missiles into the country. To them, allowing foreign troops reads like surrendering and renouncing the country’s independence.
There are other sentiments. Trump’s motive for coming had not been properly defined and nationally accepted. His offer to rescue only Christians from the onslaught of terrorism does not enjoy national consensus. From day one, there are those who resent Trump’s style. But others rejoice at it. Some in government and their supporters resented the U.S. interference at first; they were the ones who sold and pushed the sovereignty argument.
But after the airstrikes and the cooling effects of diplomacy, including paying precious sums to lobbyists, they no longer worry about sovereignty. They have since welcomed Trump and U.S. troops with open arms. They rather see regime stability andother benefits that may be in it for 2027.
Towards that end, Nigerian is benefiting in areas of intelligence, establishing secure communications, building base facilities and tightening operational security. There are trainings for soldiers on special operations units in combat skills, such as map reading and interpretation and strike missions and rescue support.
Indeed, the first batch of trained Nigerian commandos was deployed to Plateau, Taraba and other conflict-prone theatres. Intelligence gathering includes information collected by U.S. surveillance flights operating from a base located in Ghana. But it is not yet clear how long the American forces will remain in the country.
Despite the gains, cross-sections of citizens are still not convinced. The government has not explained enough, they plead. First, they want to hear from their representatives in the National Assembly on the need to invite foreign troops. It is constitutionally required that bilateral collaborations of this nature are first cleared with the legislature.
Section 12 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, says: “No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.” While the President signs treaties and conventions, they require the National Assembly to make them legally binding.
Last week, some concerned Nigerians raised objections to the deployment of U.S. troops in the country. In a profound and equally lengthy statement, a collection of prominent and well-meaning Nigerian academics and activists, reminded government that, “Nigeria’s history is replete with principled resistance to foreign military domination. At critical moments, our leaders – civilian and military alike- have asserted our sovereignty and rejected external interference. That legacy must not be abandoned.”
The statement was signed by Femi Falana, Prof. Jibrin Ibrahim, Dr Abubakar Siddique Mohammed, Dr Dauda Garuba, Prof Massud Omar, Prof Mahmood Kuna, YZ Yau, an engineer and Prof. Usman Bugaje. Despite the profundity, the statement was not particularly popular. Maybe they did not invest equal amount of leverage to popularise it.
They titled it, ‘No to foreign forces in our land: Defend our sovereignty’. In it, they launched into history, saying that shortly after Independence in 1960, the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact was signed, but was rejected by a cross-section of Nigerians, who denounced its neo-colonial toga. It was repealed in the Parliament and the message was that political independence without military sovereignty was incomplete.
The statement recalled another epoch, in 1976, when Nigeria galvanised the African Union, at the time, to reject the attempt by the United States to dissuade African leaders from backing the popular Angolan Liberation movement. It was the late Gen. Murtala Mohammed, who declared that Africa had come of age to decide what is good for the continent. It was a historic turnaround that fast-racked the total liberation of the continent from apartheid rule and neo-colonialism.
The statement equally recalled the pattern of attempts to enter into military agreements in the past. In 2001, a proposed Military Cooperation Agreement with the United States was thwarted after an opposition from the Ministry of Defence. In 2003, there was another attempt, when a Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA) to shield American citizens from surrendering to the International Criminal Court (ICC), was signed with the United States, but was nullified by the Nigerian Senate in 2005, citing constitutional violations and inconsistencies with the Rome Statute.
The concerned citizens queried ongoing military collaboration with the United States for lacking details. Regarding the “small team of troops”, they say: “While Nigerian officials describe them as advisory personnel supporting intelligence and training, details regarding their mandate, location, size and duration remain undisclosed. It has since been reported that no fewer than 200 American soldiers are present on Nigerian soil.”
They raised the constitutional question of Section 21(1) and demanded that the needful be done. “The Nigerian people deserve transparency. West Africa needs transparency and leadership at a critical time when many West African countries are seeking to liberate themselves from neo-colonialism, we cannot go in the opposite direction,” they charged.
Not done, they hailed the capacity of the Nigerian military to defend the country, recalling their valiant exploits across regional, continental and global expeditions in ECOMOG, in African Union and at several interventions by the United Nations.
So, “rather than outsourcing our security, Nigeria should equip and modernise the Nigeria Police and the Armed Forces, strengthen intelligence coordination, improve welfare and boost the morale of troops, invest in domestic defence production and address socio-economic drivers of insecurity,” they submitted.
There is something consistent about this group. At the time President Tinubu appeared to pander to France in the wake of coups in the Sahel, and as ECOWAS Chairman, the President was eager to deploy forces in Niger, a statement similar in tone and content was issued by the same personalities. Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali had severed military relations with the West and the United States and expelled their troops.
Looking at Mr. President’s body language at the time, it was perceived that foreign troops expelled from neighbouring countries could end up in Nigeria. So, the group warned that Nigeria could not host foreign countries’ military base, citing the historic examples earlier narrated.
Just that at the time, the political atmosphere in the country was divided between pro-war and anti-war elements. While a good number in the South didn’t mind a military expedition against the Nigerien coup plotters, the sentiment in the North was against it. Nigeria’s foreign policy architecture took the beating from that face-off, as the country couldn’t speak with one voice. The days of Gen. Murtala Mohammed may be long gone and Nigeria’s nationalism is due for urgent re-energising.
It’s pretty much the same policy dilemma Nigerian governments have faced over Boko Haram. There is no consensus on the origin and motive of Boko Haram, even before their affiliate jihadists joined the fray. Now it is complicated, with serious consequences for the country.
That had largely hampered containment measures; while some preach carrot and stick engagement with terrorists, others advocate their complete annihilation. This has resulted in a stalemate.
But now, it appears President Tinubu has little choice regarding U.S. troops deployment. The insurgency is now beyond what the country could single-handedly manage.
As it were, Nigeria is over-stretched. Trillions of naira budgeted for Defence is like water poured in a basket, due to corruption and compromise. The hardware to contain terrorism are not available locally. Foreign assistance is compulsory now, whether from U.S. or Turkey. The Chinese, Germans and the UK government, everybody is now offering to help. But not after the United States’ bold intervention.
Without discounting the nationalism and patriotism of advocates of sovereignty, truth must be told: there has to be a country first. At the rate Nigeria is going, there may soon be no country and no sovereignty. Yes, there must be due process in all engagements and collaborations.
In this article