Nigeria’s Sovereignty Under Threat: Condemning US Airstrike In Tambuwal, Sokoto

A. A. Nura (Digital)

I will start by strongly condemning the recent reported airstrike in a village at Tambuwal Local Government Area of Sokoto State, Nigeria, allegedly ordered by President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America, as publicly claimed on his social media platform. This action, as presented, is not only alarming but constitutes a grave affront to Nigeria’s sovereignty, international law and the collective conscience of the international community.

Under Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations, “all member states are prohibited from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. Nigeria, as a sovereign and independent nation, is entitled to full respect for its territorial integrity.

Furthermore, Article 2(1) of the UN Charter affirms the sovereign equality of all states. Any unilateral military action by a foreign power on Nigerian soil, without transparent, prior public authorisation and clear legal justification, amounts to a breach of international law.

The doctrine of non-intervention, a cornerstone of customary international law and reaffirmed by the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations among States (UN General Assembly Resolution 2625), strictly forbids such actions.

The claim that the airstrike targeted ISIS elements and perpetrators of genocide against Christians in the Northwest axis, particularly Tambuwal, Sokoto State, is deeply questionable and misleading.

Tambuwal and its surrounding villages are widely known as peaceful communities and have no documented history of ISIS operations. ISIS activity in Nigeria has been largely confined to the Northeast region, particularly around the Lake Chad Basin. There has also been no credible or verified report of genocide against Christians in that specific area.

Such reckless generalisations risk inflaming religious tensions and falsely portraying mixed and peaceful communities as legitimate military targets.

Even more disturbing is the sequence of events. The Nigerian public only became aware of the alleged collaboration after the strike, through a press release by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which appeared more like a post-facto justification than a transparent briefing.

This raises serious questions, were Nigerians informed before the strike? If Nigerian authorities were not informed beforehand, how can they credibly claim collaboration? If they were informed, why was the public excluded from such a critical national security decision?

Promising to “keep the public informed” after actions have already been taken is not only ironic but undermines democratic accountability.

If there was genuine collaboration to tackle insecurity, it should have focused on, intelligence sharing, capacity building, Military training, surveillance technology, quipment support, not foreign airstrikes on Nigerian soil.

Allowing a foreign power to deploy bombs in Nigeria sets a dangerous precedent, opening the door to external military penetration under questionable narratives. History shows that such interventions often escalate conflicts rather than resolve them, and risk disrupting Nigeria’s unity and long-term stability.

American bombs cannot differentiate between: peaceful villages and conflict zones, Muslims and Christians in mixed communities, innocent civilians and alleged criminals. The inevitable result is civilian casualties, trauma and resentment.

I therefore call on President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the National Security Adviser (NSA Nuhu Ribadu), the Minister of Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and all relevant security authorities to come back to their senses and uphold their constitutional responsibilities under Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.”

Allowing another country’s president to act as though he commands Nigeria’s territory raises a fundamental question: has the Nigerian state failed in its duty to protect its people?
If so, is it now the role of foreign presidents to do the job of Nigerian authorities?

Nigerians deserve clear answers to these questions: who truely authorised the strike? What legal framework justified it? Were civilians harmed? Why was the public kept in the dark? Will Nigeria tolerate future unilateral actions?

The international community, the African Union, ECOWAS and all peace-loving nations must condemn this act and insist on respect for international law, sovereignty and human dignity.

Nigeria is not a battlefield for foreign political propaganda or military experimentation.
Our sovereignty is non-negotiable!

A. A. Nura (Digital)
nuradigital247@gmail.com