Issues relating to sovereignty, self-determination and territorial integrity evoke emotions, whether it is in Venezuela, Canada, Greenland or Nigeria. As individuals or a community, man is wired to refuse, condemn and resist any attempt by another man or group to do anything that limits his freedom to exercise independence and authority within an area that has been acknowledged to belong to him. In political theory, sovereignty, being the concept in focus, is a substantive term designating supreme legitimate authority over a polity. In international law, sovereignty is held in sacred esteem. Sovereign states are all considered equal, and no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another sovereign state, except when considered necessary by the United Nations Security Council. These notions of inviolability formed the background against which most Nigerians viewed the Christmas Eve air interdiction against terrorists in Sokoto State and the subsequent arrival of American Service personnel in Nigeria.
However, how did Nigeria, formerly a regional and United Nations Peacekeeping power house, get to this point? A combination of leadership, policy and perhaps followership failures put Nigeria in its current unfortunate state of insecurity. Arising from this, is Nigeria in a position to deal with multifaceted conflicts and complex emergencies facing her internally? Without any debate whatsoever, the answer is no. The realisation of this unpleasant fact prompted the Federal Government delegation led by the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, to visit the United States in November 2025. Perhaps, the next critical issues to consider are: what is the mission of the Americans in Nigeria? How many American Service personnel are involved in the mission? And for how long are the Americans going to remain in Nigeria?
From the information made available during the visit by the Commander US AFRICOM, General Dagvin Anderson and corroborated by Nigerian authorities and news sources, the US AFRICOM team would be involved in 4 critical areas. These are: intelligence sharing, military training, Joint exercises and counterterrorism operations. These are critical elements needed if Nigeria must overcome terrorism related issues. Considering that Boko Haram, Lakurawa, Mamuda, and Ansaru terrorist groups and bandits are threatening national security from all directions, it would therefore be utterly irresponsible of any government to ignore foreign collaboration aimed at restoring normalcy. It would be similarly irresponsible of the citizenry, particularly the informed, to play politics with such well-intentioned foreign collaboration. Moreover, there is no guarantee that more terrorist groups will not spring up in Nigeria if the government fails to take advantage of this opportunity to eliminate threats to national security. After all, it is arguable that inadequate response by previous administrations led to the current proliferation of terror groups and mutation of Boko Haram. This initiative must therefore not falter on account of uninformed criticism. Furthermore, from available information, a little over 200 personnel of US AFRICOM are expected to be in Nigeria, and for a duration required to deal decisively with terror-related issues.
Critics of this developing military cooperation have made sundry claims about the US having ulterior motives and using military assistance as a smoke screen to conceal its interest in Nigeria’s “rare earth minerals”. This is crass cynicism. The dynamics of the US/Nigeria relations are not the same as those of other countries. Therefore, it is reckless and simplistic to draw such conclusions. Furthermore, the Nigerian economy is open to investment in practically all sectors. As a matter of fact, agencies of the Nigerian government attend international trade fair exhibitions to canvas for foreign investments into the Nigerian economy. Therefore, the US does not need to engage in subterranean activities to have access to Nigeria’s natural resources.
Critics have further claimed that records of the US military involvement in Muslim-dominated regions around the world suggest that the mission in Nigeria will fail spectacularly and leave behind a more fractious and divisive population. This conclusion is unfortunate and a product of an unhealthy spin on the entire narrative. It should be made adequately clear that the US AFRICOM is not in Nigeria to fight or lead any military operations, as was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Armed Forces of Nigeria remain the lead agency in all Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Insurgency operations in Nigeria. Therefore, the premise on which the conclusion mentioned above was made is faulty.
Finally, there is growing evidence that the entire opposition to the presence of the US AFRICOM in Nigeria is driven by emotions and bigotry. For instance, a conversation with some individuals who are vehemently opposed to the idea of the US Military in Nigeria shows that they support the government’s effort to push back the narrative about “genocide” in Northern Nigeria. Yet, they do not agree that there is a need for external help to address terrorism related issues. This is rather confusing. You cannot be comfortable with government on the compelling counter argument that the perceived “genocide” in Northern Nigeria is a mis-labeling; that the killings in Northern Nigeria are indiscriminate and against adherents of both faiths, but turn around and oppose steps being taken by the government to deal decisively with the perpetrators of the crimes of which you admit you are also a victim? This leaves serious doubt about the sincerity of purpose.
Antigha, a retired colonel and former Chief of Military Public Information at the Multinational Joint Task Force, N’Djamena, Chad, is the Executive Director of the Armed Forces of Nigeria Radio Service.
