Foreign Missile Strikes, Nigeria’s Territorial Integrity, and the Dangerous Precedent for International Order

By Yusuf Musa

The reported missile and air strikes by the United States in northern Nigeria, announced publicly by former U.S. President Donald Trump, mark one of the most consequential and troubling moments in Nigeria’s contemporary engagement with external powers in matters of security. Regardless of how such actions are framed — whether as counter-terrorism cooperation, humanitarian intervention, or moral obligation — they force Nigeria, Africa, and the wider international community to confront fundamental questions about sovereignty, consent, international law, and the evolving norms governing the use of force in weaker states.

This development cannot be reduced to a narrow military episode or dismissed as routine security cooperation. It is a political act with far-reaching implications. It touches the very core of Nigeria’s statehood, the integrity of its territorial authority, and the fragile balance between international assistance and external domination. The Centre for Contemporary Studies considers it imperative to address this moment with sobriety, clarity, and principle.

At the heart of the matter lies the question of sovereignty — not as an abstract concept, but as a living, operational reality. Sovereignty is the foundation upon which the Nigerian state exists. It is the authority to govern territory, protect citizens, and determine how and when force is used within national borders. When a foreign power conducts missile strikes on Nigerian soil, even against non-state actors, that foundation is directly engaged and tested.

The Nigerian government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other official channels, has sought to situate the strikes within the framework of “structured security cooperation.” This framing is not insignificant. Under international law, foreign military action on a state’s territory may be lawful if it occurs with the clear, informed, and voluntary consent of the host state. Consent, when properly granted, transforms what would otherwise be a violation of sovereignty into a cooperative security action.

However, consent is not a rhetorical device; it is a legal condition. It must be explicit, proportionate, transparent, and bounded. It must reflect national interest, not external pressure. It must be subject to constitutional oversight and democratic accountability. When consent is ambiguous, retroactively justified, or politically coerced, the legality of the action becomes contestable, and the sovereignty it claims to preserve is, in fact, eroded.

Equally troubling is the manner in which the strikes were announced and framed by the U.S. leadership. The public declaration, couched in absolutist moral language and centred on religious identity, projected the image of unilateral action rather than quiet cooperation. By presenting the intervention as a necessary response to the killing of Christians, the narrative flattened Nigeria’s complex security crisis into a simplistic religious binary. This is not merely inaccurate; it is dangerous.

Nigeria’s insecurity is not a religious war. It is a multi-layered crisis driven by insurgency, banditry, criminal economies, governance failures, climate stress, and state fragility. Both Muslims and Christians have been victims in staggering numbers. To selectively frame the violence as persecution of one faith not only distorts reality, it risks inflaming communal tensions and internationalising domestic fault lines.
International law does not recognise religious affiliation as a basis for selective military intervention. The United Nations Charter is explicit: the use of force is prohibited except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation, or with the valid consent of the territorial state. Even where consent exists, force must still comply with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and distinction. These are not optional norms; they are binding obligations.

Missile strikes, by their nature, raise serious humanitarian and legal concerns. Northern Nigeria is not an uninhabited battlefield. It is a region of villages, farms, markets, and displaced populations. Armed groups often operate in proximity to civilians, either by design or circumstance. Any aerial strike therefore carries the risk of civilian casualties, displacement, and long-term trauma. Precision does not eliminate risk; it only reduces it.

Beyond the immediate humanitarian implications lies a deeper strategic concern: precedent. If foreign powers reserve the right to conduct direct military strikes within Nigeria based on their own threat assessments and moral framings, what prevents similar actions tomorrow by other actors, under different justifications? Sovereignty, once made conditional, becomes negotiable. Today it is counter-terrorism; tomorrow it may be political instability, economic interest, or ideological disagreement.
Africa’s historical experience with external intervention makes this concern particularly acute. The continent has repeatedly witnessed how interventions justified in the language of protection and assistance evolve into prolonged entanglements, dependency, or proxy conflicts. Nigeria, as Africa’s most populous nation and a regional anchor, cannot afford to normalise a posture in which its territory becomes an arena for external military demonstration.

This is not an argument against international cooperation. Terrorism is a transnational threat. Intelligence sharing, technical assistance, capacity building, and even joint operations can be legitimate and necessary. Nigeria has long benefited from partnerships in training, surveillance, and logistics. But cooperation must strengthen national capacity, not substitute for it. It must reinforce sovereignty, not hollow it out.
There is also a domestic governance dimension that cannot be ignored. When foreign forces act directly within Nigerian territory, questions arise about the capacity, credibility, and autonomy of Nigeria’s own security institutions. Over-reliance on external firepower risks signalling weakness rather than strength. It may embolden non-state actors who thrive on narratives of state failure and foreign occupation.

Furthermore, public trust matters. Nigerian citizens have a right to know the terms under which foreign military action occurs on their soil. Silence, opacity, or delayed explanations breed suspicion and resentment. In a country already grappling with legitimacy deficits, transparency is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

At the international level, this episode reflects a worrying erosion of multilateralism. The bypassing or sidelining of collective security mechanisms in favour of ad-hoc, power-driven actions weakens the international legal order. If powerful states increasingly act first and explain later, smaller states will bear the consequences. The rules-based system cannot survive selective obedience.

The Centre for Contemporary Studies therefore holds the following position.

Nigeria’s sovereignty is inviolable and must remain the central organising principle of its security engagements. Any foreign military action on Nigerian soil must be based on clear, lawful, and transparent consent, grounded in Nigeria’s constitutional framework and national interest.

Counter-terrorism cooperation must respect international humanitarian law and prioritise the protection of civilians. Military action cannot substitute for comprehensive strategies addressing governance, development, justice, and social cohesion.

Narratives that frame Nigeria’s security crisis in sectarian or civilisational terms are misleading and harmful. They must be firmly rejected by Nigerian authorities and responsible international partners alike.

Nigeria must assert leadership within regional and continental frameworks, strengthening African-led responses to security challenges and resisting unilateral external interventions that undermine collective norms.

Finally, accountability and dialogue are essential. The Nigerian government owes its citizens clarity. International partners owe Nigeria respect. Security achieved at the expense of sovereignty is neither sustainable nor legitimate.

In moments like this, nations are defined not only by the threats they face, but by how they respond to them. Nigeria must confront terrorism with resolve, but it must confront the erosion of its sovereignty with equal firmness. History teaches that once sovereignty is compromised in the name of expediency, reclaiming it is far more difficult than defending it in the first place.

The Centre for Contemporary Studies stands for a Nigeria that cooperates without capitulating, that secures itself without surrendering its autonomy, and that engages the world not as a battleground, but as a sovereign equal.

Yusuf Musa is CEO
Centre for Contemporary Studies (CCS)