Security agreements, cooperation frameworks, and strategic partnerships, whatever the terminology used to describe them, have underlying commitments that, at a second look, could or are injurious to one of the parties. They are presented within the language of mutual benefit, collective security, and shared responsibility. A more critical reading of the defense cooperation with US suggests that such arrangements may function as instruments for placing Nigeria within a broader sphere of influence and, eventually, within its structured system of exploitation. This perspective, while contestable, is grounded in both historical patterns and contemporary geopolitical behavior, and it deserves serious attention by Nigerian public.
The presence of United States military personnel on Nigerian soil since February raises fundamental questions that have not been sufficiently interrogated in public discourse. Why now, and under what precise terms? The absence of transparent national debate on these developments is itself troubling. Rather than assuming inherent benefit, it is necessary to evaluate whether such engagements serve Nigeria’s long-term interests or primarily advance external strategic objectives.
Recent actions US Embassy Abuja further complicate the narrative of partnership. The reported advisory by the embassy directing its staff to leave Nigeria, alongside the suspension of visa services to Nigerians, raises additional concerns. Such measures, typically associated with heightened risk environments, invite critical scrutiny. Is this how a partner behaves within a framework of mutual trust and cooperation, or do such actions function as instruments of pressure that generate uncertainty within the host government? It is reasonable to ask whether these steps are intended to induce compliance, justify subsequent strategic moves, or prepare the ground for deeper engagement under conditions shaped by external priorities.
From a critical standpoint, the argument advanced here is that such involvement risks deepening Nigeria’s vulnerability to external control and subordination. The apparent trajectory toward hosting AFRICOM suggests an evolving strategic repositioning. Indications of expanding operational installations in Lagos and other locations reinforce the perception that Nigeria is being integrated into a wider security architecture designed primarily outside its borders. Within the framework of realism and neo-imperialism, such developments are rarely neutral. They reflect asymmetrical power relations in which the stronger party consolidates influence while the weaker party assumes dependency.
Historical evidence further complicates the narrative of benevolent intervention as being promoted by some Nigerians. However, this view overlooks significant historical evidence and shows desperation rather than thought. Across Africa, Asia, Middle East and Latin Amin, US presence has not resolved the underlying security challenges. Instead, it has only produced prolonged engagements in which instability persists while foreign presence becomes institutionalized. This pattern raises legitimate concerns that security cooperation with boots on ground may function less as a solution to Nigeria’s internal challenges and more as a mechanism through which the US and other external actors sustain long-term strategic access.
The motivations underlying such engagements can be divided into strategic and material dimensions. Strategically, Nigeria occupies a pivotal position in West Africa, particularly in relation to the Sahel, where geopolitical competition has intensified. The growing presence of Russia in that region has altered the balance of influence, thus, prompting countervailing responses from the US. In this context, Nigeria represents a critical site for reasserting strategic leverage. Additionally, the loss of military bases in Niger Republic, Chad, and Mali has necessitated alternative arrangements, and Nigeria emerges as a viable substitute within this recalibrated framework.
Material considerations are equally significant. Nigeria’s resource base extends beyond hydrocarbons to include less visible but potentially more consequential assets. Among these is the extensive underground clean water system beneath northern Nigeria. In light of projections that water scarcity will become a defining global challenge by 2050 when global population will hit 10 billion and demand for water will soar, such reserves acquire strategic importance. Despite this, they remain largely absent from mainstream policy discussions. Focus is more on rare earths, petroleum and so on. A critical interpretation would suggest that these external actors are looking and even working to “guard” such resources, even if domestic and policy discourse in Nigeria does not.
Within this context, the growing trend of populist governments across Sahel and Africa as well as in other regions of the world, point to the fact that the opposition coalition in Nigeria may represent a corrective force that will halt the drift Tinubu’s government has launched. Should this transition occur in 2027, it is probable that existing security agreements, particularly those concluded under opaque and vaguely defined conditions by this government, would be subject to review. This would be consistent with broader demands for accountability and sovereignty as our Constitution provides.
It is important, however, to avoid reductionism in assessing external partnerships. The argument advanced here is not limited to the United States. Russia, China, and other global or emerging powers operate within the same structural logic of interest maximization. Their engagements in Africa have similarly been shaped by strategic and economic calculations. Thus, the issue is not the identity of the external partner but the nature of the engagement itself. Even middle powers, which may appear less dominant, must be evaluated critically before any agreements are signed with them. The central question remains the cost of such partnerships and the extent to which they align with Nigeria’s national priorities.
This shifts the focus decisively to domestic leadership. The outcomes of international agreements are finally determined by the clarity, competence, and integrity of those who negotiate them. If national interest is not clearly articulated and defended, even ostensibly beneficial partnerships can become instruments of disadvantage. Conversely, well-defined strategic objectives can enable Nigeria to engage external actors on more equitable terms.
An alternative pathway lies in the pursuit of self-reliance, particularly in the domain of security and defense. The development of indigenous capacity for producing drones and other military technologies represents not only a practical necessity but also a symbolic assertion of our sovereignty. This requires a comprehensive national development strategy anchored in technological advancement, industrialization, and sustained investment in human capital.
The Nigerian diaspora constitutes a critical resource in this regard. Highly skilled professionals of Nigerian origin contribute significantly to technological and scientific innovation globally. Creating mechanisms to sincerely attract or engage this talent is essential for building domestic capacity. Such efforts must be supported by institutional reforms that ensure transparency, accountability, and policy consistency.
Sincerity in governance is a foundational requirement for any meaningful progress. Public trust is indispensable, and it can only be sustained through demonstrable commitment to national interest. Without this, even the most sophisticated strategies will fail to achieve their intended outcomes.
Finally, it must be emphasized that Nigeria possesses the capacity to address its internal security challenges. Insurgency, terrorism, and banditry, while complex, are not insurmountable. Effective responses require coordinated intelligence, adequate resourcing, and more importantly, political will. Reliance on external actors may offer short-term advantages but risks entrenching long-term dependency.
