THIS DAWN — The Arewa Research and Development Project (ARDP) has released a policy brief examining the constitutional, security, and governance implications of recent reports of United States airstrikes against terrorist targets in north‑western Nigeria.
The document highlights the urgent need for clarity, oversight, and accountability in Nigeria’s security cooperation with foreign powers.
ARDP Raises Constitutional Concerns
The brief situates the issue within the framework of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.
It vests command of the armed forces in the President but embeds that authority within a system of legislative oversight and civilian supremacy.
While international cooperation is not new, the execution of foreign kinetic military operations on Nigerian soil raises questions about constitutional legitimacy.
ARDP identifies a “constitutional clarity deficit”—not as an accusation of illegality, but as a governance vulnerability.
It stresses that foreign military action should ordinarily be grounded in treaties and executive agreements.
Such agreements are subject to legislative scrutiny, or emergency authorizations, following parliamentary review.
The absence of publicly available information on such frameworks risks eroding institutional trust and weakening democratic accountability.
ARDP Questions Security Strategy and Effectiveness
From a security perspective, the brief warns against conflating tactical success with strategic effectiveness.
ARDP noted that foreign airstrikes may deliver short‑term operational advantages.
However, sustainable counter‑terrorism depends on nationally owned command structures, institutional learning, and strategic coherence.
Externally executed operations, if not firmly embedded within Nigerian command authority, risk creating dependency patterns that undermine long‑term resilience.
ARDP emphasizes that Nigeria’s armed forces must remain doctrinal authors.
They ought not be mere consumers of foreign military action, ensuring institutional confidence and operational effectiveness.
Sovereignty and Diplomatic Implications
The ARDP policy paper adopted a nuanced view of sovereignty, defining it not simply as the absence of foreign presence but as the state’s capacity to author, control, and account for the use of force within its territory.
Even where consent is given, the absence of transparent legal articulation creates ambiguity about who governs security decisions.
For Nigeria—a regional power with leadership responsibilities in ECOWAS and the African Union—such ambiguity carries diplomatic consequences.
It risks weakening Nigeria’s historic posture of championing African‑led security solutions and could affect its standing in regional and international partnerships.
ARDP warns that exceptional arrangements, if left unbounded, may normalize practices that bypass domestic institutions, undermining strategic autonomy.
Civilian Protection and Human Security
The brief underscores the importance of embedding civilian protection at the core of counter‑terrorism operations.
In conflict‑affected regions already burdened by displacement and trauma, airstrikes carry risks beyond immediate casualties.
Civilian harm includes psychological trauma, disruption of livelihoods, and erosion of trust between communities and the state.
Where foreign forces are involved, accountability pathways become less visible, creating an “accountability vacuum.”
ARDP stresses that without transparent harm‑mitigation protocols, grievance‑redress mechanisms, and community engagement, operations risk deepening alienation and inadvertently sustaining insurgency.
Domestic Governance and Public Trust
The report highlights the broader governance implications of foreign military action.
Security operations of this magnitude influence civil‑military relations, public trust, and national cohesion.
In a plural and politically sensitive society, opacity in security governance creates fertile ground for misinformation, sectarian narratives, and extremist propaganda.
ARDP argues that democratic resilience requires not only operational success but visible adherence to constitutional norms and credible communication with citizens.
Silence or ambiguity cedes narrative control to non‑state actors, weakening the legitimacy of the state.
ARDP Policy Recommendations
The brief advances recommendations across immediate, medium‑term, and long‑term horizons:
- Immediate:
- Formal constitutional clarification of the legal basis for foreign kinetic cooperation;
- structured post‑operation briefings to the National Assembly; explicit affirmation of Nigerian command authority; and,
- establishment of civilian‑harm assurance mechanisms.
- Medium‑Term:
- Adoption of a National Security Cooperation Framework Act;
- institutionalization of parliamentary oversight;
- creation of a civilian‑harm accountability unit; and,
- integration of strategic communication protocols.
- Long‑Term:
- Recalibration of security partnerships toward capacity‑centred cooperation.
- reinforcement of intelligence sovereignty;
- reassertion of Nigeria’s leadership in African‑led security initiatives; and,
- embedding human security principles in counter‑terrorism doctrine.
Neutral but Cautionary
ARDP concludes that ambiguity itself is a strategic risk.
While expedient action may deliver temporary order, only power anchored in law, oversight, and public trust can secure enduring peace and national cohesion.
The U.S. airstrikes, ARDP argues, represent a defining governance moment for Nigeria.
It tested whether the country could confront violent threats while remaining faithful to the constitutional principles that define it as a democratic republic.
It neither condemned nor approved the U.S. airstrikes outright.
Instead, it adopted a neutral, analytical position, acknowledging Nigeria’s grave security challenges.
It, meanwhile, warned that foreign kinetic operations must be firmly anchored in constitutional order, democratic oversight, and sovereignty.
Instead, the policy brief took a neutral, analytical stance. It acknowledged Nigeria’s security challenges and
ARDP did not dispute the reality of terrorism or the possibility that the strikes were conducted with Nigerian consent.
However, it focused on the constitutional, governance, and oversight implications of allowing foreign kinetic military operations on Nigerian soil.
ARDP treated the airstrikes as a “defining governance moment”.
It’s a test of whether Nigeria can confront terrorism while remaining faithful to constitutional principles and democratic accountability.
