Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
Abuja, Nigeria — The African Democratic Congress (ADC), a prominent opposition political party in Nigeria, has sharply criticised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government over U.S. military airstrikes conducted in Sokoto State on December 25, 2025, demanding a detailed account of casualties and asserting serious concerns about national sovereignty, governance, and public communication. The party’s response reflects broader national debate over foreign military involvement and the handling of Nigeria’s protracted security crisis.
The airstrikes, carried out by the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) and described by U.S. and Nigerian officials as precision strikes against Islamist extremist targets, have ignited controversy across Nigeria’s political spectrum. While the federal government maintains that the operation was part of collaborative counter‑terrorism efforts, the ADC insists that the strike underscores what it calls a failure of governance under President Tinubu and demands transparency and accountability regarding the actions and outcomes of the operation.
According to official statements, the U.S. military used GPS‑guided precision munitions to target alleged terrorist camps in the Bauni Forest and Tangaza areas of Sokoto State, in Nigeria’s northwest, where groups linked to the Islamic State (ISIS) have reportedly been active. Nigerian authorities said the operation was conducted in coordination with the federal government and supported by intelligence shared with U.S. forces. Sokoto State officials announced that no civilian casualties had been recorded, and that investigations into the operation’s effects were ongoing.
Despite these assurances, the ADC has taken a critical stance. In a statement issued by National Publicity Secretary Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, the party called the involvement of foreign military forces on Nigerian soil “a profound failure of governance” and questioned why Nigerian security forces were unable to lead or conduct the strike independently if they possessed credible intelligence. The party also highlighted what it described as the government’s poor communication strategy, noting that Nigerians first heard about the airstrikes through social media posts by U.S. President Donald Trump rather than direct official communication from Nigerian leadership.
“The African Democratic Congress recognises the serious security challenges confronting Nigeria and affirms that the protection of Nigerian lives and the defeat of terrorism must remain a central national priority. We therefore support all lawful and effective measures aimed at saving lives and restoring security,” the statement said. “Nevertheless, we must not allow our desperation today to compromise the sovereignty of our country in whatever form or guise.”
The ADC’s critique extends beyond tactical concerns to broader questions of national sovereignty and strategic autonomy. The party warned that allowing foreign military operations, even under the banner of cooperation, could set a dangerous precedent and weaken Nigeria’s long‑term capacity to address its own security challenges. It demanded full disclosure on the operational framework of the strike, including who exercised control, how many individuals were killed, and whether those targeted were accurately identified.
Political analysts note that the ADC’s strong rhetoric taps into wider unease among some Nigerians about foreign military involvement in domestic security affairs, especially in light of persistent insurgency and banditry across the country. The issue has sparked debate about the efficacy and legitimacy of international intervention, with critics arguing that such actions may erode national authority and fuel domestic political tensions. Supporters of the strikes, however, contend that Nigeria’s security forces have been stretched thin by decades of insurgency and that international cooperation is necessary to combat well‑armed extremist groups effectively.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), another major opposition party, also weighed in on the controversy, urging the federal government to improve its communication with the public. The PDP criticised what it described as a delayed and vague official response from Nigeria’s authorities following the U.S. announcement, and called for clear, timely dissemination of information on matters of national importance.
Civil society groups have similarly echoed calls for clarity and accountability. The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC), a legal and human rights organisation, urged the government to explain the legal and institutional basis for allowing foreign military forces to conduct kinetic operations on Nigerian territory. RULAAC emphasised that security cooperation should not come at the expense of the rule of law, sovereignty, or civilian protection, and stressed the need for clear oversight and accountability mechanisms.
Local reactions in the Sokoto region have been mixed. While officials emphasised the absence of civilian casualties and welcomed cooperation to curb terrorism, residents in some communities reported fear, confusion, and disruption from the nighttime strikes. In Jabo and surrounding areas, families said they were startled by explosions and the glow of the night sky, underscoring the emotional and psychological impact of such operations on civilian populations.
Internationally, the U.S. government has defended the operation as part of its broader counter‑terrorism strategy in Africa. U.S. officials framed the strikes as targeting extremists responsible for violence against civilians and as reflecting shared objectives with Nigerian authorities to address transnational threats. However, some analysts have questioned the choice of target locations and noted the complexity of Nigeria’s security landscape, which includes a mosaic of armed groups with varying motives and regional dynamics.
The controversy arrives at a sensitive moment for Nigeria, which continues to grapple with multiple security challenges, including Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast, banditry and kidnapping in the northwest and central regions, and communal violence in various parts of the country. Questions about strategy, resource allocation, and interagency cooperation persist, with many Nigerians calling for comprehensive reforms and enhanced capacity within the nation’s own security architecture.
As the debate unfolds, the ADC’s call for transparency and accountability places pressure on the Tinubu administration to articulate its security strategy and explain how foreign cooperation fits into broader national objectives. The party’s demand for a detailed casualty report and clearer communication underscores a growing public appetite for information and a desire for greater oversight of decisions with far‑reaching implications for Nigeria’s sovereignty and security.
The federal government has yet to release a comprehensive account of the operation’s outcomes. Analysts and civil society observers will closely watch how authorities respond to demands for transparency, legal clarification, and strategic direction in the days ahead, as Nigeria seeks to balance international cooperation with domestic governance imperatives.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments