A group of Civil Society Organisations has criticised Nigeria’s political and military leaders for not responding to reports of a U.S. airstrike on Nigerian soil on Christmas Day, urging President Tinubu to respond to the public. In a statement titled “Where is Nigeria’s President?” The coalition accused the President of neglecting his duties as Commander-in-Chief
A group of Civil Society Organisations has criticised Nigeria’s political and military leaders for not responding to reports of a U.S. airstrike on Nigerian soil on Christmas Day, urging President Tinubu to respond to the public.
In a statement titled “Where is Nigeria’s President?” The coalition accused the President of neglecting his duties as Commander-in-Chief by permitting foreign intervention in a domestic security issue and not addressing the nation, raising concerns about Nigeria’s sovereignty and democratic governance.
Organisations that endorsed the statement include Amnesty International Nigeria, BudgIT, CLEEN Foundation, Media Rights Agenda, Yiaga Africa, CISLAC, SBM Intelligence, the Kukah Centre, Enough Is Enough, and Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA), among others.
On Christmas Night, the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, announced that the U.S. launched airstrikes in Nigeria targeting ISIS militants he accused of killing Christians, calling the operation decisive and warning further attacks would follow if the violence continued.
Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the Nigerian government worked with the United States to carry out “precision hits” targeting Islamic State (ISIS) locations in northwest Nigeria. The ministry stated these air strikes were aimed at terrorist targets in the region.
The CSOs criticised the government’s secrecy over the strikes, stating that only Foreign Affairs Minister Yusuf Tuggar has addressed the issue publicly, while the President has remained silent.
Acknowledging the significance of international counterterrorism collaboration, the organisations emphasised the urgent necessity to thoroughly assess Nigeria’s efforts against terrorism, including its Policy Framework and National Action Plan for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism. This review should consider the recent US operation conducted on Nigerian territory to establish whether current strategies are consistent with these frameworks or reveal substantial deficiencies.
They further stated that the absence of information regarding the incident for Nigerians has perpetuated trust deficits among citizens, potentially intensifying narratives that could heighten religious and communal tensions in an already sensitive national context.
The statement partly reads, “By inviting a foreign government to manage what is fundamentally an internal security challenge, the President ceded sovereign authority in a manner that undermines Nigeria’s constitutional order. Even more disturbing is that during and after the operation, the President, the Service Chiefs, and the leadership of the National Assembly were either on vacation or completely silent, leaving the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar, to publicly rationalise decisions that strike at the core of national sovereignty and democratic accountability.
“This silence reflects a profound breakdown of institutional accountability mechanisms. Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is unequivocal: “The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” This provision represents a central pillar of Nigeria’s social contract. Any security action, especially one involving foreign military forces, must be grounded in transparency, civilian protection, and democratic oversight. None of these standards was met.
“While we acknowledge the importance of international counterterrorism cooperation, there is an urgent need to critically assess Nigeria’s National Counter Terrorism Strategy (NACTEST), as well as its Policy Framework and National Action Plan for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, in light of the recent U.S. operation on Nigerian soil, to determine whether it aligns with these frameworks or exposes significant gaps within them.
“We are particularly troubled by the severe deficit of information regarding the nature, scope, legal basis, and rules of engagement governing the collaboration between the Nigerian and U.S. governments. Since the incident, Nigerians have not been informed of the basis for authorising the strikes, under what legal framework they were conducted, what safeguards were in place to protect civilians, whether the National Assembly exercised any oversight, or what accountability mechanisms exist for harm caused. This opacity fuels mistrust and undermines public confidence in government at a time when trust is already dangerously low.
“In addition, at the time of issuing this statement, there has been no confirmation that any actual belligerent targets were hit. Instead, reports that debris from expended munitions fell on farmlands in Jabo, Tambuwal Local Government Area of Sokoto State, and in Offa, Kwara State, near the premises of a hotel, underscore the very real risks to civilian life and property. While the Nigerian Air Force inaugurated a “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) Board” in July 2025, no publicly articulated civilian harm mitigation protocols have been presented for this offensive. In contemporary military operations, particularly those involving air strikes, responsible governance demands clear standards for target verification, proportionality assessments, post-strike damage evaluations, and accessible avenues for civilian complaints, investigation, compensation, and redress. The absence of such frameworks in this operation constitutes a serious governance failure.
“We caution that the government’s inept management of this crisis is capable of aggravating narratives that escalate religious and communal tensions in an already fragile national context. Nigeria’s security challenges cannot and must not be framed in ways that deepen polarisation or stigmatise communities. What is required is a united, inclusive, and rights-respecting approach that prioritises peace, social cohesion, and long-term stability.
We emphasise the urgent need to address the harms suffered by civilians as a result of the strike action. This includes transparent investigations, public disclosure of findings, prompt assistance to affected communities, and adequate compensation where harm has occurred. Without these steps, the already wide public trust deficit between citizens and the state will continue to deepen.
“Finally, the office of the President carries the fundamental expectation that President Bola Tinubu possesses the capacity, judgment, and resolve to serve as Commander-in-Chief of Nigeria’s armed forces. The authorisation of a foreign military to conduct strikes within Nigerian territory without any public explanation of the necessity or legal basis for such action, coupled with the continued silence of the President, the Service Chiefs, and the National Assembly in the face of these grave developments, is wholly unacceptable.
If the President and his security leadership have concluded that they lack the capacity or will to manage Nigeria’s internal security challenges within the bounds of the Constitution and would rather cede such authority to a foreign power, then constitutional responsibility and democratic integrity demand that they resign.
Nigerians deserve accountable leadership and security rooted in sovereignty, the rule of law, and respect for human life.”
