Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
ABUJA, NIGERIA — Former Kaduna Central senator and outspoken political commentator Shehu Sani has ignited national debate following remarks about U.S. military airstrikes targeting terrorist groups in Nigeria, drawing both support and sharp criticism from citizens, civil society groups and security observers.
The controversy stems from a series of comments attributed to Sani in the wake of reported U.S.‑backed air operations against Islamic State‑linked militants in northwestern Nigeria, which were carried out in late December as part of a security arrangement between the United States and the Nigerian government. While some Nigerians have welcomed the strikes as a pragmatic effort to blunt violent extremist threats, others — including Sani — have offered divergent views on foreign military involvement on Nigerian soil.
Sani’s most recent remarks, published in national media and social platforms, have been interpreted as critical of those who oppose the airstrikes, although he did not explicitly denounce the military actions themselves. In one widely circulated comment, Sani suggested that Nigerians who oppose U.S. air operations should be “sent to Sambisa Forest and other terror hotspots so they can preach to the killers,” a vivid metaphor that sparked confusion and anger among many observers.
The timing of these comments has added to the debate. Public discourse in Nigeria has been sharply divided since the strikes were confirmed, with some political figures and advocacy groups raising concerns about national sovereignty, civilian protection and the legal basis for foreign military action within Nigerian territory. Another of Sani’s remarks — emphasizing that security gains during holiday periods were largely the result of Nigerian forces, not foreign strikes — further complicated public perception by implying that domestic operations, rather than external intervention, have been the principal guarantor of relative peace.
Critics of Sani’s stance argue that his rhetoric underplays the severity of the terror threat and oversimplifies the role of international cooperation in counter‑terrorism. They contend that coordinated actions with international partners — including intelligence sharing and precision strikes — can complement Nigerian security efforts without displacing national leadership in the fight against extremist groups. Proponents of the airstrikes have cited them as a necessary measure to disrupt operational planning by militant cells and prevent attacks on civilian populations.
At the same time, advocates for caution have echoed concerns raised by civil society organisations, which have questioned the transparency and legal framework surrounding U.S. involvement, calling for clearer communication from Nigerian authorities about the conditions under which such operations are authorised. This narrative raises important questions about sovereignty, parliamentary oversight, and public awareness in matters involving foreign military assets on Nigerian soil.
Adding to the complexity, wider public reaction has been mixed. Some Nigerians see foreign military cooperation as a pragmatic means to confront an entrenched security crisis, while others worry about long‑term dependency, erosion of autonomy, and the perception of Nigeria as a battleground for external interests. Social media platforms have been rife with debate, with users expressing divergent views on whether foreign intervention helps or hinders Nigeria’s own security architecture.
Sani himself has a well‑documented history of speaking openly on security policy and governance issues in Nigeria, and his remarks on airstrikes fit within broader discussions about how best to confront complex threats such as terrorism and insurgency. Analysts say that his provocative framing — particularly his use of metaphor and criticism of airstrike opponents — reflects deeper tensions in public confidence in Nigerian institutions, questions about how best to balance national sovereignty with effective counter‑terrorism strategies, and the challenges of reconciling diverse political perspectives in a pluralistic society.
As discourse continues, the debate over foreign military involvement in Nigeria’s counter‑terrorism operations is likely to remain a flashpoint, shaped by legal interpretations, security imperatives, public sentiment, and the evolving threat landscape that both domestic and international actors seek to address.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments