THE UNITED States’ military airstrikes targeting Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists’ cells in Sokoto State, Northwest Nigeria, on the night of December 25, 2025, allegedly carried out at the behest of Nigerian authorities and in coordination with Nigerian armed forces, marked a significant and perhaps positive escalation in international military support for Nigeria’s fight against entrenched extremist or terrorist violence.
The joint operation, which ordinarily ought to have been met with positive optimism and commendation, in view of the volume of lives that have been lost, and continue to be wasted on a daily basis, as well as the generalised harm to Nigeria’s image and our political economy, instead immediately ignited a polarised debate – one that regrettably obfuscates the core issue: the desired and long-overdue necessity to protect innocent lives from terrorism and banditry scourge.
While some public analysts and commentators raised concerns over national sovereignty, it is alarming that these concerns are being geopolitically and religiously weaponised to criticise a lawful, coordinated action against the mindless and inhuman fundamentalist sects who for over 15 years held Nigeria hostage including defiling her sovereignty countless times.
A careful reading of the nuances of the arguments behind these concerns can rightly be interpreted to be empathy for the venomous and bloodthirsty extremist groups preying on innocent Nigerians. It is outrageous that much of the outrage against the strikes come from people of northern extraction who have unfortunately been the worst affected by the terror-induced carnage.
The facts, as confirmed by both Nigerian and U.S. authorities, are clear! The strikes targeted ISIS-affiliated training camps in remote forest areas, with no reported civilian casualties. Nigerian Foreign Minister, Yusuf Tuggar, emphasised that the operation was joint, intelligence-driven, and focused solely on degrading terrorist capabilities. Yet, rather than welcome a blow against the terrorists who have tormented communities for almost two decades, those expressing concerns chose instead to question Nigeria’s sovereignty, sceptically casting the operation as an unwelcome foreign intrusion.
It is NATIONAL RECORD’s conviction that these categories of reaction are not only misguided but deeply cynical in the context of the history of the violence. For years, villages across northern Nigeria have endured massacres, kidnappings, and displacements.
Thousands; Muslims and Christians alike, have been murdered by these terrorist and bandit groups that exploit ungoverned spaces with sadistic and unholy glee. Where was the outrage over “sovereignty” when these communities were pleading for protection? Why has the discourse suddenly shifted when external assistance emerges to confront these monstrous vampires?
It is a tragically painful irony that Nigerians who have been witnesses to these years of collective agony and helplessness would choose to prioritise abstract sovereignty over the sovereign right of Nigerians who have yearned to live in safety. Sovereignty is not an excuse for inaction; it is a responsibility to protect.
When a State struggles, as Nigeria has done for over 15 years, to contain these beasts and merchants of violence that defy international borders, collaboration with capable partners is not a surrender of sovereignty, but an exercise of it. Nigeria, indeed, ought to have requested and facilitated these collaborative strikes long before now as operations of this nature are not an invasion but cooperation.
Moreover, the attempt by some to downplay the threat by labelling deadly terrorists as “mere bandits” or “local criminals” is a dangerous dilution of reality. Groups like ISIS-Sahel and their affiliates do not respect borders or local grievances – they exploit them to wage a global campaign of terror. When militants coordinate, radicalise, and massacre civilians, they become international threats demanding international response.
The pro-sovereignty critics of the strikes also ignore Nigeria’s recent history of seeking external help in critical moments. The Jonathan administration, for instance, engaged private military contractors to regain territory from Boko Haram – a move that proved decisive. Today, some of our neighbours’ successful military campaigns against terrorism, especially Chad, stand in stark contrast to Nigeria’s prolonged struggles. Sovereignty was not diminished by these partnerships; rather security was enhanced.
We must be honest: the outcry over sovereignty often surfaces only when it serves to obscure failure or protect hidden agendas or subjective sympathies. It is easier to blame foreign actors than to confront the internal failures of governance, intelligence, and security that allow terrorism to flourish. Sovereignty is meaningless if it cannot guarantee the most fundamental right: the right to life.
Nigeria is at a crossroads. We can either unite behind efforts to eradicate terrorism, regardless of whose aircraft or drones fire the missiles, or we can continue to watch our people die while debating legalistic abstractions or inanities.
NATIONAL RECORD strongly believes that the lives lost in Borno, Zamfara, Sokoto, Yobe, Benue, Kaduna, Plateau, and beyond deserve more than hollow rhetoric of protection of sovereignty. They deserve action to secure the sovereign right to life.
Let us be clear: defending sovereignty should mean defending people. Anything less is a betrayal of both.
