Transparency on US deal not optional

For a country battling insecurity on multiple fronts, clarity in communication is not a luxury; it is a duty. Yet, once again, Nigerians were left to piece together sensitive national security information from foreign media before their own government found it necessary to speak.

The recent controversy surrounding the alleged presence of United States troops on Nigerian soil is not just about military cooperation; it is about trust, sovereignty and the government’s obligation to carry its citizens along.

The speculation followed reports by Reuters in which the head of the United States Africa Command, General Dagvin R.M. Anderson, openly acknowledged that a “small U.S. team” had been sent to Nigeria after airstrikes ordered by President Donald Trump on Christmas Eve against what Washington described as Islamic State targets. That disclosure, coming from a foreign military official, understandably triggered anxiety and outrage at home.

Nigerians were left asking basic questions: Who invited them? Where are they operating? For how long? And under what rules?

It was only after days of public debate that the Defence Headquarters issued a clarification on February 5, insisting that no foreign troop deployment had taken place beyond existing security cooperation arrangements. According to the Armed Forces of Nigeria, Nigeria maintains a long-standing and structured security partnership with the United States, rooted in mutual respect and focused on capacity building, professional military education, intelligence sharing, logistics support and strategic dialogue. All engagements, the military said, are conducted in full respect of Nigeria’s sovereignty and within existing bilateral frameworks.

The Defence Headquarters further explained that a recent two-day high-level Working Group meeting involving senior U.S. officials and Nigerian counterparts at the Office of the National Security Adviser was part of routine engagements between both countries. Proposals discussed at the meeting, it noted, were aimed at strengthening cooperation, improving coordination and enhancing accountability in joint efforts to counter violent threats, while protecting civilians and communities. Crucially, the military stressed that these proposals remain under review and do not amount to the deployment of foreign troops.

While the clarification helped to douse some tension, it did not address the deeper issue: why Nigerians keep learning first about sensitive national security matters from foreign governments and international media. In a democracy, citizens should not be the last to know. When communication is delayed or reactive, suspicion naturally fills the vacuum.

This is particularly troubling given Nigeria’s security context. In just the past week, terrorists and armed groups have carried out deadly attacks across Kwara, Benue, Niger and Kaduna states, leaving scores of civilians dead, villages burnt, places of worship destroyed and communities displaced. Nearly two decades of persistent insecurity have eroded social cohesion, damaged the economy and fractured mutual coexistence, deepening ethnic and religious fault lines.

There is no doubt that Nigeria needs support from wherever it can get it to confront terrorism and transnational crime. No serious observer disputes the value of intelligence sharing, surveillance, training and equipment support. However, there is a critical distinction between technical cooperation and foreign boots on Nigerian soil. That line must never be blurred without the explicit knowledge and consent of the Nigerian people.

Indeed, till date, Nigerians are still awaiting a clear explanation of the outcomes of the U.S. aerial attacks carried out on Christmas Eve on a purported terrorist enclave in Sokoto. What were the targets? What was achieved? Were there civilian casualties? Silence on such questions only deepens mistrust and feeds conspiracy theories.

We strongly believe that Nigeria does not require foreign combat troops on its soil to contain insecurity. The Armed Forces of Nigeria, despite challenges, have the manpower, local knowledge and constitutional mandate to defend the country. What they require is better intelligence, modern equipment, improved welfare, political will and accountability, not a quiet outsourcing of sovereignty.

Equally concerning is the growing perception of irresponsibility in how the government engages with citizens on sensitive matters. Transparency should not be forced by leaks or foreign confirmations. On partnerships with the United States or any other country, the government must be clear about intent, scope and limits. Nigerians deserve to know the level of assistance involved, the nature of any foreign technical presence, its duration and the institutions responsible for oversight.

Nigeria must also never become a launching pad for foreign forces to prosecute their own strategic battles under the guise of protecting 200 million people. National interest is not served by ambiguity. Sovereignty is not preserved by silence. It is preserved by openness, lawful agreements and public accountability.

The Defence Headquarters has assured that Nigeria’s defence partnerships are transparent, policy-driven and aligned with constitutional provisions. That assurance must now be matched by proactive, timely and honest communication from the highest levels of government. Insecurity thrives in darkness; so does mistrust.

At a time when citizens are already burdened by fear, grief and economic hardship, the least the government owes them is truth, clarity and respect. Transparency is not optional. It is the foundation of national unity and the first line of defence in a democracy.

Nigerians can now invest ₦2.5 million on premium domains and profit about ₦17-₦25 million. All earnings paid in US Dollars. Rather than wonder, click here to find out how it works.

Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.