By Amos Aar
Nigeria’s already fragile security architecture is facing serious crisis of confidence, following a series of troubling disclosures, unresolved allegations, and operational contradictions that now raise questions about sovereignty, accountability, and who truly controls the country’s counterterrorism strategy.
At the centre of the controversy is Nuhu Ribadu, the National Security Adviser to President Bola Tinubu, amid reports that he was recently found in possession of significant sums of foreign currency, allegedly running into thousands of United States dollars.
Information circulating within diplomatic and security circles suggests the funds were linked to a lobbyist reportedly acting on behalf of the United States government. While official clarification remains absent, the silence has amplified public suspicion and eroded trust in the nation’s highest security office.
The controversy has been further inflamed by claims that the same lobbyist later returned to the United States with the funds and disclosed details of the engagement. If accurate, the episode suggests a dangerous exposure of Nigeria’s national security processes to foreign influence, without transparency or public accountability.
These concerns have featured prominently on national television. On ARISE News and Channels Television, multiple security commentators have warned that Nigeria may be drifting into a model of opaque security dependency, where strategic decisions are increasingly shaped by external actors rather than domestic institutions.
Speaking on Channels Television’s Politics, Auwalu Rafsanjani, Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), cautioned that while international cooperation is not inherently problematic, secrecy surrounding military partnerships poses a grave democratic risk.
“When security operations involving foreign powers are conducted without legislative scrutiny or public disclosure, the issue is no longer effectiveness alone. It becomes a question of sovereignty, accountability, and democratic control,” Rafsanjani said.
The anxieties intensified following confirmed reports of US-linked airstrikes on terrorist enclaves in parts of northern Nigeria. While the Federal Government maintains that the operations were conducted at Nigeria’s request, analysts argue that the absence of transparent frameworks governing such cooperation weakens civilian oversight and fuels suspicion.
On ARISE News, Kabir Adamu, Managing Director of Beacon Consulting, questioned the strategic impact of the air operations.
“In simple terms, no. The fact that attacks have continued after the strikes shows that the objectives are yet to be met”, Adamu said when asked whether the airstrikes had achieved their intended goals.
He further noted the lack of publicly verifiable indicators, such as destroyed camps, recovered weapons, or confirmed high-value targets, warning that air power without sustained ground intelligence and civilian protection risks becoming symbolic rather than decisive.
Concerns about sovereignty have also been echoed by legal analysts. Though not referencing the current operations directly, senior advocate Femi Falana has repeatedly argued on Channels Television that any foreign military engagement conducted without parliamentary approval undermines constitutional governance and sets a dangerous precedent.
United States President Donald Trump has featured prominently in these debates, particularly due to his history of coercive diplomacy and public threats of unilateral intervention. Nigerian commentators warn that security assistance framed as humanitarian protection can easily slide into pressure tactics that erode national autonomy.
Meanwhile, silence from influential traditional and religious figures has deepened public unease. In Sokoto State, persistent rumours suggest that the Sultan of Sokoto retreated from public visibility following intensified military bombardments of suspected insurgent hideouts. Though unconfirmed, the speculation shows the fear in communities caught between airstrikes and bandit reprisals.
Equally notable is the sudden withdrawal of Ahmad Gumi, who had previously advocated dialogue with armed groups. His silence has prompted speculation that sensitive negotiations or security decisions may now be occurring beyond public scrutiny.
At the National Assembly, Senate Godswill Akpabio reportedly declared that any issue concerning US military involvement in Nigeria would not be entertained for debate, effectively closing the door on parliamentary oversight at a critical moment.
Yet while Abuja debates strategy and sovereignty, the reality on the ground tells a more brutal story.
In Sokoto State, notorious bandit leader Bello Turji continues to operate with alarming impunity. Once declared dead following alleged airstrikes, Turji has since resurfaced, issuing threats and orchestrating fresh attacks that expose the fragility of official claims.
In Tidibale community, Isa Local Government Area, residents fled en masse after Turji reportedly issued an ultimatum ordering total evacuation. Though the Sokoto State Government later urged residents to return, many displaced persons have refused, citing the absence of permanent security protection.
Turji’s continued freedom has become emblematic of a deeper national failure. If he is not more powerful than the Nigerian state, citizens ask, why has the state repeatedly failed to neutralise him?
That question grew more urgent on Sunday, January 19, 2026, when gunmen attacked three churches in Kurmin Wali community, Kaduna State, abducting one hundred and sixty-six (166) worshippers during service.
The incident occurred despite ongoing military operations and heightened security rhetoric, indicating the widening gap between official assurances and lived reality.
For many Nigerians, the issue is no longer about diplomacy or geopolitics. It is about survival, the right to worship, farm, and sleep without fear. If foreign intervention cannot halt the violence, and domestic authority appears either unwilling or unable to act decisively, then Nigeria stands at a perilous crossroads.
Until the questions of who controls Nigeria’s security decisions, whose interests are being served, and why bandits still roam freely are answered with clarity and action, public trust will continue to erode, and Nigeria’s sovereignty will remain under an ever-darkening cloud.
