By Abiodun Oluwadare
There is also the risk that security-focused partnerships divert attention from governance reforms, economic inclusion, and social investment, the very factors that underpin sustainable peace.
Sovereignty, dependency, and the reconfiguration of Nigeria’s domestic security architecture
Security cooperation between states and external powers occupies a central place in contemporary security governance, particularly in states confronting persistent internal threats. While such cooperation is often justified on the grounds of capacity enhancement and threat mitigation, it simultaneously raises complex questions regarding sovereignty, institutional autonomy, and long-term security sustainability.
In the Nigerian case, the evolution of the domestic security architecture has been deeply influenced by decades of foreign military assistance, including training programmes, intelligence-sharing arrangements, logistical support, and the transfer of defence equipment. These interventions have contributed to short-term operational gains; however, they also risk generating structural dependencies if not embedded within a coherent framework of indigenous institutional development.
From a political economy perspective, reliance on external security assistance can distort domestic priorities and weaken incentives for internal reform. When critical intelligence, advanced surveillance capabilities, or specialised strike capacities are externally sourced, domestic institutions may become subordinated to foreign strategic preferences. This dynamic risks transforming security cooperation from a mechanism of capacity building into one of dependency, thereby constraining national autonomy in strategic decision-making. Over time, such dependency can erode the professionalism, accountability, and self-sufficiency of national security institutions, particularly when foreign assistance substitutes for rather than complements domestic investment.
An equally significant concern relates to transparency and democratic oversight. Security agreements between states are frequently negotiated within executive domains and framed in technical or classified terms that limit public and legislative scrutiny. Instruments such as status-of-forces agreements, intelligence-sharing protocols, basing arrangements, and operational exemptions often remain shielded from open debate.
In Nigeria, where democratic consolidation remains an ongoing process, the limited disclosure of such arrangements raises normative and institutional concerns. Without robust parliamentary oversight, judicial review, and civil society engagement, it becomes difficult to ascertain the legal boundaries, accountability mechanisms, and long-term implications of external security partnerships.
The absence of transparency not only undermines democratic governance but also reshapes state–society relations in problematic ways. Public expectations of security provision may increasingly be projected onto external actors rather than domestic institutions, thereby weakening the social contract between the state and its citizens. This phenomenon creates what may be described as a paradox of protection: as foreign involvement expands, domestic legitimacy may decline, particularly when external actors operate beyond the reach of national accountability frameworks.
Historically, the volatility of external security commitments further compounds these risks. International security partnerships are inherently contingent upon shifting geopolitical interests, domestic political calculations in donor states, and evolving strategic priorities. When these conditions change, external actors may reduce or terminate their engagement with little regard for the institutional consequences within host states.
Empirical evidence from multiple contexts demonstrates that such withdrawals often leave behind weakened security institutions, fragmented command structures, and unresolved security challenges. In this sense, dependency on external security assistance can produce a form of strategic vulnerability rather than resilience.
Within this broader context, Nigeria’s engagement with external security partners must be assessed not solely in terms of immediate tactical outcomes but through a long-term institutional and sovereignty lens.
Sustainable security requires the strengthening of indigenous capabilities, the reinforcement of civilian oversight mechanisms, and the integration of security policy within broader governance and development strategies. External cooperation, where necessary, should therefore be conditional, transparent, and explicitly oriented toward institutional transfer rather than operational substitution.
In sum, while external security cooperation may offer short-term advantages in addressing urgent threats, its long-term implications for sovereignty, democratic accountability, and institutional autonomy are far from neutral. For Nigeria, the challenge lies in navigating these partnerships in a manner that enhances national capacity without reproducing patterns of dependency or undermining the foundational principles of democratic security governance.
Nigeria’s security architecture at a crossroads
Nigeria’s long-term security cannot be outsourced without significant risks to sovereignty, institutional coherence, and democratic accountability. While external security partnerships may offer short-term tactical advantages, such as intelligence support, training, or technological assistance, they cannot substitute for a coherent, nationally owned security strategy rooted in local realities. Sustainable security architecture depends fundamentally on the professionalism and discipline of the armed forces, accountable and community-oriented policing, effective intelligence coordination, inclusive political governance, economic opportunity, and the cultivation of public trust between the state and its citizens.
These pillars are mutually reinforcing. Where armed forces operate without accountability, policing lacks legitimacy, or intelligence institutions function in isolation, security interventions tend to be reactive rather than preventive. Similarly, persistent socio-economic exclusion and political marginalisation create fertile conditions for insecurity that no amount of external military assistance can permanently resolve. Security, in this sense, is not merely a matter of force, but of governance, legitimacy, and social cohesion.
The risk arises when foreign assistance undermines rather than strengthens these foundations. Security cooperation that privileges kinetic force over institutional reform, secrecy over democratic oversight, or externally driven solutions over local ownership may exacerbate insecurity in the long term.
Such approaches can weaken domestic capacity, distort policy priorities, and reduce incentives for internal reform, thereby entrenching dependency rather than resilience. In extreme cases, they may alienate local communities, erode public confidence, and create new grievances that fuel the very threats they are intended to address.
A call for strategic clarity
This critique should not be misconstrued as an argument for isolationism or hostility toward the United States or other external partners. Strategic partnerships are a normal and often necessary feature of international politics, particularly in an interconnected security environment. The central issue is not whether Nigeria should engage external actors, but on what terms, to what extent, and with what long-term vision.
Nigeria must therefore engage from a position of strategic clarity. This requires the articulation of clear national objectives, clearly defined red lines regarding sovereignty and accountability, and explicit expectations about the scope and duration of external involvement. Security cooperation should be transparent, subject to democratic oversight, time-bound, and explicitly oriented toward capacity-building and institutional transfer. External support must remain subordinate to national strategy, rather than reshaping it in response to external priorities.
History offers cautionary lessons in this regard. Countries that enter asymmetric security relationships without rigorous scrutiny often discover, sometimes belatedly, that what was framed as assistance carried obligations that constrained future policy choices, limited strategic autonomy, and complicated domestic governance.
While history does not determine outcomes, it provides critical instruction. For Nigeria, the challenge is to learn from these precedents and pursue a security strategy that balances cooperation with autonomy, immediacy with sustainability, and tactical necessity with long-term national interest.
Conclusion
Beyond the excitement or anxiety surrounding alleged foreign military involvement lies a deeper and more consequential question: what kind of security partner does Nigeria wish to be, and on what terms? In an international system governed by interests rather than sentiment, vigilance is not cynicism; it is prudence.
Nigeria’s challenge is not merely to defeat immediate threats, but to do so in a way that preserves sovereignty, strengthens institutions, and secures long-term national autonomy. Security gained at the cost of strategic independence is rarely secure at all.
Concluded.
Oluwadare is Professor of Political Science, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna.
In this article