A group of Nigerian leaders, including Femi Falana and Jibrin Ibrahim, has condemned the recent deployment of U.S. troops as a violation of national sovereignty and a dangerous precedent for foreign meddling.
The backlash follows the arrival of U.S. military aircraft last week, part of a mission involving roughly 200 American soldiers tasked with advisory and training roles.
While U.S. officials describe the steady influx of personnel as a temporary counter-terrorism support measure, critics argue the presence of foreign forces undermines the country’s independence.
But Nigeria’s Defence Headquarters (DHQ) insisted that the US personnel are technical specialists serving strictly in an advisory and training capacity not combat troops and that all activities will be conducted under the authority, direction, and control of the Nigerian government in close coordination with the Armed Forces of Nigeria.
In a joint statement titled “No to Foreign Forces in Our Land: Defend Our Sovereignty”, the group said the presence of US soldiers in Nigeria raises serious constitutional and sovereignty concerns.
The statement was jointly signed by Femi Falana (SAN), Prof Jibrin Ibrahim, Dr Abubakar Siddique Mohammed, Dr Dauda Garuba, Prof Massaud Omar, Prof Mohammed Kuna, Engr YZ Ya’u, and Dr Usman Bugaje.
They recalled Nigeria’s historical resistance to foreign military domination and warned against what they described as a creeping neo-colonial arrangement.
“Nigeria’s history is replete with principled resistance to foreign military domination. At critical moments, our leaders civilian and military alike have asserted our sovereignty and rejected external interference. That legacy must not be abandoned,” the statement said.
They recalled the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact of 1960, which was abolished in 1962 following widespread public opposition. “Political independence without military sovereignty is incomplete,” the statement noted, stressing that Nigerians had always resisted external interference in military affairs.
The group also cited Nigeria’s role in rejecting American pressure during the 1976 Organisation of African Unity (OAU) summit on Angola.
At the time, General Murtala Mohammed famously declared that “Africa has come of age and would no longer operate under the orbit of any extra-continental power. His words were not mere rhetoric but a declaration of continental dignity and sovereign equality.”
The signatories highlighted what they described as a troubling pattern of attempts to impose military agreements on Nigeria. “In 2001, a proposed Military Cooperation Agreement between the United States and Nigeria was withdrawn after strong opposition from Nigeria’s Ministry of Defence,” they recalled.
Similarly, in 2003, Nigeria signed a Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA) with the United States, shielding American citizens from surrender to the International Criminal Court. “By 2005, the Nigerian Senate nullified the agreement, citing constitutional violations and inconsistency with the Rome Statute,” the group said.
“These episodes demonstrate a consistent national principle: foreign military arrangements must comply with Nigeria’s Constitution and must never compromise our sovereignty,” they added.
They cited Section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that no treaty between Nigeria and another country shall have the force of law unless enacted by the National Assembly.
The statement rejected any suggestion that Nigeria’s Armed Forces are incapable of defending the country. “Nigeria’s Armed Forces have a distinguished record in international peacekeeping under the United Nations and the African Union,” it said, citing Nigeria’s leading role in ECOMOG operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone.
“Rather than outsourcing our security, Nigeria should fully equip and modernise the Nigeria Police Force and the Armed Forces, strengthen intelligence coordination, improve welfare and morale of troops, invest in domestic defence production, and address socio-economic drivers of insecurity.”
They warned that sovereignty is not a ceremonial concept but the foundation of statehood. “Once foreign troops are stationed on national soil without transparent constitutional processes, sovereignty is diluted—incrementally, perhaps quietly—but meaningfully.
“Nigeria must not drift into arrangements that future generations will struggle to reverse. History teaches us that sovereignty surrendered in the name of expediency is rarely easily reclaimed,” the statement said.
They also urged the federal government to remain consistent with Nigeria’s tradition of rejecting neo-colonial defence pacts and unconstitutional agreements.
‘US security help has not improved any country’
Prof Jibrin Ibrahim, in an interview with Daily Trust, expressed worry that Nigerians appear less vigilant about potential defence arrangements compared to the 1960s, when the Anglo-Nigerian defence pact with the United Kingdom faced widespread public resistance.
“I’m concerned that, as we point out right from the 1960s, when the defence pacts were proposed by the government, there was resistance by the Nigerian people. They complained, they criticised them, they objected, and that led to the government backing down,” he said.
He lamented what he described as growing public indifference, noting that many Nigerians now argue that any foreign assistance, particularly from the United States, should be welcomed if it promises to address insecurity.
“Today, many people are saying that if the Americans are offering to help, why not accept it? But there is a lot of ignorance about the implications,” he added.
Prof Jibrin questioned the track record of U.S. military involvement abroad, arguing that American security interventions in other countries have not necessarily resulted in lasting peace or stability.
“In which country has America offered to help in security, led to improved security? There is none in the world. All their external involvements have been to deepen insecurity, rather than to improve the security situation,” he said.
