■ A Rejoinder to Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed’s Claim on Nigeria, the Military, and U.S. Cooperation
Introduction: When “Sovereignty” Becomes a Shield for Impunity
Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed’s assertion that President Bola Tinubu has “humiliated the Nigerian military” and “handed Nigeria’s sovereignty to the United States” is not merely a critique of policy—it is a familiar rhetorical maneuver in Nigeria’s security debates. It elevates symbolic sovereignty above human security, and it reframes lawful counter-terror cooperation as national betrayal while ignoring decades of elite failure that allowed violent networks to metastasize.
This rejoinder addresses the claim head-on—factually, historically, and without euphemism. It argues that the loudest sovereignty purists in northern politics have too often functioned as gatekeepers of denial, protecting violent actors by weaponizing culture, ethnicity, and elderhood to obstruct accountability. The result has been prolonged bloodshed, not dignity.
1. Sovereignty Is Not a Slogan—It Is the Capacity to Protect Life
Sovereignty is not offended by cooperation; it is offended by incapacity.
A state that cannot protect its citizens has already surrendered the most important element of sovereignty: the monopoly on legitimate force exercised for public safety.
Facts that matter:
• International law recognizes security cooperation and collective self-defense.
• States routinely share intelligence, logistics, training, and—where authorized—operational support.
• Cooperation does not equal command transfer; authorization and targeting remain sovereign decisions.
Bottom line: A sovereign government choosing partners to dismantle terrorist capacity is exercising sovereignty—not forfeiting it.
2. The Military Was Not “Humiliated”—It Was Reinforced
The claim of “humiliation” collapses under scrutiny.
What humiliation would actually look like:
• Foreign troops acting unilaterally without consent.
• Command structures bypassed.
• Civilian casualties ignored.
• Public denial of Nigerian authority.
What reinforcement looks like (and what happened):
• Joint planning and intelligence fusion.
• Precision targeting to reduce civilian harm.
• Post-strike assessments.
• Public acknowledgment by Nigerian authorities.
The hard truth: What embarrasses a military is years of political sabotage, not technical cooperation. Underfunding, intelligence leaks, protection of armed patrons, and selective outrage did far more damage to morale and effectiveness than any partnership ever could.
3. The Hypocrisy of “Elder” Politics: Loud About America, Silent About Militias
For decades, northern politics has been dominated by a caste of self-appointed “elders” who invoke tradition to avoid scrutiny. When violence exploded—banditry, mass kidnappings, village raids—many of these figures chose silence, deflection, or cultural excuse-making.
Patterns that cannot be denied:
• Selective condemnation: Condemning foreign partners loudly while whispering about local armed groups.
• Cultural laundering: Renaming organized violence as “community conflict” or “herder-farmer misunderstanding.”
• Legal obstruction: Resisting prosecutions with claims of ethnic persecution.
• Narrative intimidation: Branding critics as anti-north, anti-Fulani, or anti-Islam.
This is not elder statesmanship; it is political insulation for violence.
Doris Ogala displays $10,000, alleges payment came from Pastor Chris Okafor
4. Fulani Identity Is Not the Problem—Elite Protection of Militias Is
Let this be unambiguous: Fulani identity is not synonymous with violence. Millions of Fulani Nigerians are law-abiding citizens and victims of the same insecurity.
The problem is elite protection—when leaders refuse to confront armed actors from their own communities.
Where the failure occurred:
• Armed groups were allowed to entrench.
• Criminal economies (kidnapping, rustling) went unchallenged.
• Communities were told to negotiate with abductors.
• Security forces were pressured to “stand down.”
Result: Violence normalized, victims abandoned, and the state weakened.
5. Historical Evasion: How We Got Here
This crisis did not emerge overnight.
A timeline of evasion:
• Early warnings ignored: Small armed gangs dismissed as petty criminals.
• Escalation tolerated: Ransoms paid; arms flows ignored.
• Politicization: Violence reframed to protect voting blocs.
• Internationalization: Networks linked across borders.
• Outrage at solutions: Once cooperation arrived, outrage followed.
The same voices that dismissed the threat now condemn the cure.
6. “Total Cleansing” vs. Total Dismantling—Words Matter
Critics fixate on inflammatory phrases to dodge substance. The policy goal is not collective punishment; it is total dismantling of violent capacity.
What dismantling means:
• Destroying camps and weapons.
• Arresting or neutralizing leadership.
• Disrupting finance and recruitment.
• Reclaiming territory for civil authority.
What it does not mean:
• Targeting civilians.
• Targeting religion.
• Targeting ethnicity.
Opposing dismantling under semantic pretexts is not moral clarity—it is obstruction.
7. Human Rights Are Strengthened When Terror Is Defeated
A grim fact often ignored: where militias rule, rights die first.
Under armed control there is:
• No freedom of worship.
• No safety for women and children.
• No markets, schools, or clinics.
• No justice.
Precision operations that remove armed control restore rights. The real abuse is leaving civilians to the mercy of gunmen while elites debate vocabulary.
8. The Sovereignty Double Standard
Why is cooperation acceptable in:
• Health emergencies?
• Economic stabilization?
• Infrastructure?
…but suddenly treasonous in security?
Because security cooperation threatens entrenched interests—the brokers who profit from chaos, ransom flows, and political leverage. Sovereignty rhetoric becomes camouflage.
9. Exposing the Dirty Game: How Obstruction Works
Common tactics used by obstructionists:
• False binaries: Cooperation vs. independence.
• Moral blackmail: Any force equals abuse.
• Selective empathy: Tears for militants, silence for victims.
• Information fog: Inflating rumors, rejecting verification.
• Elder intimidation: “Respect” as a shield against questions.
These tactics prolong war.
10. What Real Patriotism Looks Like
Real patriotism demands:
• Backing lawful operations against terrorists.
• Demanding accountability from all communities.
• Protecting civilians over reputations.
• Naming enablers, not appeasing them.
• Measuring sovereignty by safety, not speeches.
Conclusion: The Reckoning Long Avoided
Dr. Baba-Ahmed’s statement recycles a tired narrative that mistakes control for dignity and denial for wisdom. Nigeria’s crisis deepened because too many elders chose ethnic comfort over national courage. Cooperation did not humiliate the military; hypocrisy did. Sovereignty was not handed away; it was reclaimed—for the villagers who had none.
History will not ask who shouted “sovereignty” the loudest.
It will ask who stopped the killing.
And on that score, obstructionists have no defense.
Author: Ibrahim Bunu
📧 ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
Stay ahead with the latest updates! Join The ConclaveNG on WhatsApp and Telegram for real-time news alerts, breaking stories, and exclusive content delivered straight to your phone. Don’t miss a headline — subscribe now!
