The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has strongly criticised President Bola Tinubu’s administration, labelling its response to recent US Africa Command (AFRICOM) airstrikes in Sokoto State as “historic incompetence.” The opposition party voiced profound concerns over foreign military operations conducted on Nigerian soil, suggesting such actions could significantly undermine the nation’s long-term strategic interests and sovereignty.
Bolaji Abdullahi, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, issued a statement affirming the party’s support for all lawful efforts aimed at protecting Nigerian lives and defeating terrorism. However, he unequivocally attributed the necessity for foreign military intervention to what he described as a fundamental “governance failure” by the current administration, highlighting the precariousness of relying on external forces.
Abdullahi cautioned that allowing foreign entities to conduct direct military operations within Nigeria is unsustainable and sets a dangerous precedent for national autonomy. He questioned Nigeria’s precise role in the operation, asserting that the country should not be relegated to the status of a “mere informant” in an exercise where it rightfully ought to be the leading authority.
The ADC further demanded immediate and comprehensive clarification from the Federal Government regarding several critical aspects of the airstrikes. These demands included details on the operational control of the mission, accurate casualty figures, and specific information identifying the number and identities of terrorists reportedly killed during the US-led operation in Sokoto.
In a contrasting statement, Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Tuggar, previously indicated that the United States had “carried Nigeria along” before executing the air strikes. This official stance aims to underscore Nigerian involvement and consent, yet it faces considerable scrutiny from opposition parties who question the depth of this collaboration and the extent of national command.
The United States launched the series of air strikes targeting ISIS terrorists in Sokoto during the early hours of Friday, an intervention that has now ignited a fierce debate within Nigeria’s political landscape. The incident brings to the forefront sensitive discussions surrounding national sovereignty, the permissible scope of foreign military presence, and the nation’s capacity to manage its own security challenges independently.
Nigeria currently grapples with multifaceted security threats, including entrenched Islamist insurgencies in the North-East, rampant banditry in the North-West, and various other forms of communal violence across its vast territory. While these challenges often necessitate international partnerships, the presence of foreign forces on Nigerian soil invariably triggers concerns about national pride and strategic self-determination.
The ADC’s robust condemnation is seen as a significant political move, positioning the party as a vocal critic of the ruling government’s approach to national security. Such criticisms frequently resonate with a populace increasingly concerned about the effectiveness of governmental responses to insecurity and the perceived erosion of national control over critical defense matters.
This incident in Sokoto could potentially influence future security cooperation agreements and necessitate a clearer articulation of engagement protocols to safeguard Nigeria’s national interests, thereby preventing accusations of subservience. The opposition’s insistence on transparency and accountability underscores a broader demand for governmental clarity on all collaborative ventures involving foreign military entities.
The controversy surrounding the US airstrikes in Sokoto encapsulates the delicate balance Nigeria must strike between leveraging essential international partnerships to combat persistent terrorism and steadfastly safeguarding its national sovereignty. The ADC’s sharp rebuke serves as a potent reminder of the inherent political and strategic complexities in such foreign military engagements, urging a re-evaluation of current security doctrines.
