Falana, Jibrin, Bugaje Lead Opposition to US Military Presence in Nigeria

US Military Boosts Support for Nigeria’s Fight Against Insurgency

Falana, Jibrin, Bugaje Lead Opposition to US Military Presence in Nigeria

Some prominent Nigerians have condemned the reported US military presence in Nigeria, describing it as a violation of Nigeria’s sovereignty, a potential breach of the 1999 Constitution, and a dangerous precedent for foreign military interference in the country’s security affairs.

The criticism followed the arrival of United States military aircraft in Nigeria last week, shortly after American and Nigerian officials disclosed plans to deploy about 200 US soldiers in advisory and training roles. US officials said the aircraft movements would continue for several weeks as part of a temporary counterterrorism mission.

Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters (DHQ) has insisted that the US personnel are technical specialists, not combat troops, and that they will operate strictly under the authority and control of the Nigerian government, in coordination with the Armed Forces of Nigeria. The military stressed that the deployment does not amount to the establishment of a foreign base or independent US operations on Nigerian soil.

Despite these assurances, a coalition of lawyers, academics and civil society figures issued a joint statement titled “No to Foreign Forces in Our Land: Defend Our Sovereignty”, warning that the presence of foreign troops raises serious constitutional, legal and national security concerns.

The statement was signed by human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), political scientist Jibrin Ibrahim, Dr Abubakar Siddique Mohammed, Dr Dauda Garuba, Prof Massaud Omar, Prof Mohammed Kuna, Engr YZ Ya’u, and political activist Usman Bugaje.

They recalled Nigeria’s long-standing resistance to foreign military domination, warning against what they described as a creeping neo-colonial security arrangement. According to the group, Nigeria’s independence was founded on firm opposition to external military control, a principle they said must not be compromised under any guise.

READ ALSO:

The signatories referenced the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact of 1960, which was abrogated in 1962 following widespread public protests, arguing that political independence without military sovereignty is incomplete. They also cited Nigeria’s rejection of foreign pressure during the 1976 Organisation of African Unity (OAU) summit on Angola, recalling the historic declaration by Murtala Mohammed that Africa would no longer operate under the influence of extra-continental powers.

The group further highlighted past attempts to impose military cooperation agreements on Nigeria, including a proposed US–Nigeria defence pact in 2001 that was withdrawn after opposition from the Ministry of Defence, and the Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA) signed in 2003 and later nullified by the Senate in 2005 for violating constitutional provisions and the Rome Statute.

They cited Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires National Assembly approval before any international treaty can have the force of law in Nigeria, insisting that any foreign military deployment must follow due legislative process.

Rejecting claims that Nigeria lacks the capacity to defend itself, the group pointed to the strong peacekeeping record of the Nigerian Armed Forces under the United Nations, African Union, and ECOMOG missions in Liberia and Sierra Leone. They argued that Nigeria should prioritise modernising its military, strengthening intelligence coordination, improving troop welfare, investing in local defence production, and addressing the root causes of insecurity rather than outsourcing national defence.

In a separate interview, Prof Jibrin Ibrahim warned that Nigerians appear less vigilant today than in the 1960s, when public resistance forced the government to abandon foreign defence pacts. He questioned the effectiveness of US military interventions globally, arguing that such involvement often deepens insecurity rather than resolves it.

Observers say the controversy has reignited debate over how Nigeria should balance international security cooperation with the need to protect national sovereignty, constitutional order, and democratic accountability amid rising security challenges across the country.