Strike impinges Nigeria’s sovereignty — ARDP

The Arewa Research Development Project has queried the air strike by US troops in Nigeria saying it impinges on Nigeria’s  sovereignty.

It insists the reported U.S. airstrikes represent a defining governance moment saying they test whether Nigeria can confront violent threats while remaining faithful to the constitutional principles that define it as a democratic republic and concludes that lasting security is inseparable from legitimacy.

ARDP in a policy brief issued by its Head of partnership and collaboration Babayola Toungo in a statement, said reports concerning United States airstrikes targeting terrorist elements within Nigerian territory have brought into sharp focus a set of constitutional, security, and governance questions that Nigeria can no longer afford to treat as peripheral.

The brief reads in part: “While international security cooperation has long been part of Nigeria’s counter-terrorism architecture, the execution of foreign kinetic military operations on Nigerian soil – without clear, publicly articulated constitutional grounding or visible democratic oversight – raises issues that go beyond the immediate imperatives of counter-terrorism.

“At stake are the integrity of Nigeria’s constitutional order, the coherence of its national security strategy, the credibility of its sovereignty, and the sustainability of public trust in the state.

The group which comprises northern leaders that include Kabiru S. Chafe; SZ Abubakar and Abdullahi M. Ashafa,

says while it neither disputes the reality of Nigeria’s grave security challenges nor presumes illegality in the reported actions, it interrogates the governance framework within which such actions occur and the precedents they establish.

“The central concern is not whether terrorism must be confronted – there is no ambiguity on that – but whether the manner of confrontation strengthens or weakens the constitutional and institutional foundations of the Nigerian state.

“From a constitutional standpoint, the brief situates the issue squarely within

Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, which vests command of the armed forces in the President while embedding that authority within a system of legislative oversight, civilian supremacy, and accountability.”

It says the deployment of force, especially when it involves foreign military participation, is among the most consequential expressions of state power. In constitutional democracies and such actions are ordinarily governed by clearly defined legal instruments – such as treaties, security cooperation agreements, or emergency authorizations – subject to legislative scrutiny.

“Where such frameworks are opaque or absent from the public record, constitutional balance is strained, even if executive coordination occurred. The brief, therefore, identifies a constitutional clarity deficit, not as an accusation, but as a governance vulnerability that demands corrective action.”

The ARDP cautioned against conflating tactical outcomes with strategic effectiveness.

“While externally supported kinetic operations may deliver short-term operational advantages – particularly in intelligence integration or strike capability – sustainable counter-terrorism depends on nationally owned command structures, institutional learning, and strategic coherence.

“Security partnerships are most effective when they enhance domestic capacity rather than substitute for it. The brief warns that reliance on externally executed force, if not firmly anchored within Nigerian command authority and oversight mechanisms, risks eroding institutional confidence and creating dependency patterns that undermine long-term security resilience.”

On the question of sovereignty, the group in the brief adopted a nuanced and modern understanding saying sovereignty is not merely the absence of foreign presence but the capacity of the state to author, control, and account for the use of force within its territory.

“Even where consent is given, the absence of transparent legal and institutional articulation risks creating ambiguity about who ultimately governs security decisions. For Nigeria – a regional power with historic leadership responsibilities within ECOWAS and the African Union – such ambiguity carries diplomatic and normative consequences. It shapes regional expectations, affects Nigeria’s standing in African-led security initiatives, and influences how international partners perceive Nigeria’s strategic autonomy.

The brief further examines the human security and civilian protection dimensions of foreign kinetic operations. In conflict-affected regions already burdened by displacement, trauma, and economic dislocation, airstrikes carry inherent risks that extend beyond immediate casualties. Civilian harm includes psychological trauma, disruption of livelihoods, displacement, and the erosion of trust between communities and the state. Where foreign forces are involved, accountability pathways become less visible, increasing the risk of an accountability vacuum. The brief underscores that counter-terrorism operations that fail to incorporate transparent civilian-harm mitigation, community engagement, and grievance-redress mechanisms risk deepening alienation and inadvertently reinforcing the conditions that sustain insurgency.

Beyond operational concerns, the brief situates the airstrikes within Nigeria’s broader domestic political and governance context.

It says: “Security actions of this magnitude shape civil-military relations, influence public trust, and affect national cohesion. In a plural and politically sensitive society, opacity in security governance creates fertile ground for misinformation, sectarian narratives, and extremist propaganda. Silence or institutional ambiguity cedes narrative control to non-state actors. Democratic resilience, the brief argues, requires not only operational success but visible adherence to constitutional norms and credible communication with citizens.

In the immediate term, it calls for formal constitutional clarification of the legal basis and limits of foreign kinetic cooperation; structured post-operation briefings to relevant committees of the National Assembly; explicit public affirmation of Nigerian command authority over all military actions conducted on its territory; and the establishment of civilian-harm assurance mechanisms in affected regions.

It says these measures are designed not to inhibit security operations, but to reinforce their legitimacy and public acceptance.

“In the medium term, the brief recommends institutional safeguards to prevent the recurrence of ambiguity. These include the adoption of a National Security Cooperation Framework or Act to codify authorization, oversight, accountability, and civilian-protection standards; the institutionalization of parliamentary security oversight procedures; the creation of a dedicated civilian-harm mitigation and accountability unit; and the integration of strategic communication protocols across defense, intelligence, and information institutions.

“Over the long term, the brief urges a recalibration of Nigeria’s security partnerships toward capacity-centred cooperation that strengthens domestic autonomy. This includes deepening intelligence sovereignty, reinforcing institutional learning systems within the armed forces, reasserting Nigeria’s leadership in African-led security mechanisms, and embedding human security principles at the core of counter-terrorism doctrine. Such reforms are essential to ensure that security cooperation enhances, rather than dilutes, Nigeria’s constitutional and strategic agency.

“The overarching policy message is unambiguous: ambiguity is itself a strategic risk. While reform delays may be inconvenient, unresolved opacity in the governance of force undermines constitutional legitimacy, erodes public trust, and weakens security outcomes more severely than transparent institutional correction ever could. Nigeria’s security challenges cannot be addressed sustainably through force alone; they require governance structures that command public confidence and withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

“Power exercised without visible constitutional discipline may impose temporary order, but only power anchored in law, oversight, and public trust can secure enduring peace and national cohesion, “ it stated.

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.