CIVICUS discusses recent US airstrikes in north-west Nigeria with Ibrahim Baba Shatambaya, senior lecturer in social sciences at Usmanu Danfodiyo University.

On 25 December, the USA conducted airstrikes in Sokoto State targeting camps linked to the Islamic State militant group. Coordinated with Nigerian authorities, the strikes also hit civilian areas, with missile debris damaging buildings and farmland. Residents said they had no knowledge of armed group activity nearby. The operation raised questions about accountability, transparency and the limits of foreign military action in addressing insecurity in Nigeria.

How did the USA justify the airstrikes, and what concerns has civil society raised?

The USA targeted fighters linked to Islamic State in the Sahel and affiliated armed groups operating in border areas of north-west Nigeria. It framed the strikes as counterterrorism assistance, coordinated with the Nigerian government and aimed at degrading armed groups and supporting Nigeria’s efforts to address escalating insecurity.

The operation appears to have fallen short. There was limited independent verification of how many fighters were killed or whether insurgent enclaves were dismantled. Reports suggest some strikes hit areas not known to be controlled by armed groups, raising concerns about intelligence accuracy, proportionality and civilian protection. Civil society groups and international observers documented incidents in which military airstrikes in the north west mistakenly hit civilian areas, contributing to displacement and humanitarian harm.

Armed groups in the region operate across porous borders with Niger, draw revenue from illegal gold mining and have established parallel systems of taxation and control over rural communities. These are conditions airstrikes can’t dismantle. Air power can’t address Nigeria’s complex and deeply rooted security challenges.

What are the broader concerns about US military involvement?

Civil society has warned that increased US military involvement risks a heavily securitised approach that ignores structural drivers, notably governance gaps, political exclusion and poverty. Five of Nigeria’s 10 poorest states are in the north-west, where the collapse of agricultural livelihoods and high unemployment have made recruitment into armed groups an attractive option for many young men.

There are also fears Nigeria could become overly dependent on external security partnerships and could align its domestic priorities with foreign strategic interests. Sustained foreign engagement raises questions about sovereignty and democratic oversight, particularly if cooperation hardens into a permanent military presence. Allegations that civilian areas in north-west and north-central Nigeria were struck heightened fears of rights violations, including casualties and damage to livelihoods. Where accountability is already weak, external involvement risks deepening existing gaps in transparency and access to justice.

What oversight mechanisms exist and what alternatives should be prioritised?

Transparency is severely limited. Little is publicly known about agreements authorising the strikes, safeguards against civilian harm and procedures for investigating abuses. Civil society has pointed to the absence of any independent mechanism to monitor foreign-supported military operations.

A more sustainable approach would be to strengthen Nigeria’s domestic capacity while centring civilian protection and human rights. This means targeted technical support, equipment provision and intelligence-sharing, rather than direct foreign combat involvement. Political will to tackle corruption, improve governance and depoliticise security responses, alongside tracking and prosecuting those who finance armed groups, is needed to address security demands.

Civil society organisations have described corruption as the oxygen fuelling Nigeria’s security crisis. It’s not merely a governance failure, but a national threat. The 2025 Global Terrorism Index ranks Nigeria sixth in the world for terrorism impacts. Billions spent on defence have brought little security improvement, with funds diverted through compromised procurement and inflated contracts. In the north-west, illegal artisanal gold mining, particularly in Katsina and Zamfara states, has become a key revenue stream for armed groups, funding weapons purchases and sustaining criminal networks.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.