Questions Mount as President Tinubu Remains Silent Over Alleged U.S. Airstrike on Nigerian Soil
Maryam Aminu
Nigeria’s civil society community has raised the alarm over what it describes as an unprecedented and deeply troubling security incident: an alleged United States airstrike conducted on Nigerian territory on Christmas Day, followed by a deafening silence from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the nation’s top security authorities.
In a blistering joint statement titled “Where Is Nigeria’s President?”, dozens of civil society organisations and rights groups accused the federal government of abandoning its constitutional responsibilities and undermining Nigeria’s sovereignty by allowing a foreign military to conduct offensive operations within the country without public disclosure, legislative oversight, or accountability.
At the centre of the controversy is the absence of the President, who constitutionally serves as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Neither President Tinubu, the Service Chiefs, nor the leadership of the National Assembly has addressed Nigerians on the alleged strike, its objectives, its legal basis, or its consequences. Instead, public explanations have come from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar an arrangement the groups describe as a dangerous circumvention of constitutional authority.
The coalition argues that inviting or permitting a foreign power to manage what is fundamentally an internal security challenge represents a serious surrender of sovereign control.
They cite Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which makes the security and welfare of the people the primary purpose of government, and warn that this provision cannot be reconciled with secretive military operations that expose civilians to harm.
Despite repeated calls for clarity, the government has yet to disclose whether the alleged airstrike was conducted under a formal bilateral agreement, whether Nigerian forces were involved in target selection, or what legal and operational frameworks governed the use of force. There has also been no confirmation that any legitimate belligerent targets were neutralised.
More troubling are reports that debris from expended munitions landed on civilian farmlands in Jabo, Tambuwal Local Government Area of Sokoto State, and near a hotel facility in Offa, Kwara State. These incidents, if verified, raise serious concerns about civilian safety and the conduct of aerial warfare over populated areas.
Although the Nigerian Air Force announced the establishment of a Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) Board in July 2025, civil society groups note that no civilian harm mitigation protocols were publicly communicated before or after the alleged strike. There has been no disclosure of target verification procedures, proportionality assessments, post-strike damage evaluations, or avenues for civilian complaints, investigations, or compensation standards that are now considered non-negotiable in responsible military operations.
The coalition further warns that the government’s handling of the incident risks inflaming religious and communal tensions at a time of widespread insecurity and social fragility.
They caution against security narratives that stigmatise communities or deepen national divisions, stressing that counterterrorism efforts must be rooted in human rights, inclusivity, and transparency.
Beyond questions of legality and sovereignty, the groups say the incident exposes a wider governance failure marked by secrecy, institutional paralysis, and the erosion of democratic oversight. The absence of briefings to the National Assembly, the lack of public accountability from security chiefs, and the continued silence of the President have, they argue, widened an already dangerous trust gap between citizens and the state.
The organisations are demanding immediate and transparent investigations into the alleged operation, full public disclosure of findings, and prompt support and compensation for any civilians harmed. They warn that without accountability and redress, public confidence in Nigeria’s security architecture will continue to deteriorate.
In one of its strongest passages, the statement asserts that if Nigeria’s political and military leadership believes it lacks the capacity to manage the country’s internal security without outsourcing force to foreign powers, then constitutional integrity requires resignation, not silence.
The statement was endorsed by a wide range of organisations, including Amnesty International Nigeria, BudgIT, CISLAC, CLEEN Foundation, Yiaga Africa, SBM Intelligence, Media Rights Agenda, and dozens of other groups spanning human rights, governance, youth advocacy, women’s rights, and peacebuilding sectors.
