By Joy Odor Reportcircle News
A sharp and unusually unified protest from Nigeria’s civil society has erupted in the wake of a Christmas Day U.S. air strike on Nigerian soil, turning a security incident into a full-blown constitutional and sovereignty debate and placing President Bola Ahmed Tinubu squarely at the centre of a growing storm.
In a strongly worded statement released on December 29, 2025, dozens of civil society organisations, policy advocates and rights leaders asked a question that has since echoed across policy circles and social media: Where is Nigeria’s President?
The controversy follows reports that a U.S. military air operation was carried out inside Nigeria on December 25.
While details of the strike remain opaque, what has provoked the sharpest reaction is not only the presence of foreign firepower, but what critics describe as the near-total silence of Nigeria’s top political and military leadership in the immediate aftermath.
According to the coalition, neither the President as Commander-in-Chief—nor the Service Chiefs nor the leadership of the National Assembly publicly addressed the nation.
Instead, the task of explanation fell to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar, a development the groups say underscores a disturbing breakdown in constitutional order and democratic accountability.
At the heart of the civil society outcry is the allegation that Nigeria may have ceded sovereign authority by allowing a foreign power to conduct kinetic military operations within its borders without transparent legal justification or public oversight.
“This is not merely a security lapse,” the statement argues. “It is a crisis of leadership and constitutional governance.”
The groups invoke Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, which defines the security and welfare of the people as the primary purpose of government, warning that any foreign military engagement on Nigerian territory must be grounded in transparency, civilian protection and legislative oversight standards they insist were not met.
Legal Fog and Missing Answers
Beyond the symbolism of presidential silence, the coalition highlights what it calls a severe information deficit surrounding the operation. Key questions, they say, remain unanswered:
Under what legal framework was the strike authorised?
What rules of engagement governed the operation?
Did the National Assembly exercise any oversight?
What safeguards were in place to protect civilians?
What accountability mechanisms exist for harm caused?
In the absence of official clarification, civil society leaders warn that public trust already fragile is eroding further.
Adding urgency to the criticism are reports that debris from expended munitions landed on farmlands in Jabo, Tambuwal Local Government Area of Sokoto State, and near a hotel in Offa, Kwara State.
While there has been no official confirmation that belligerent targets were successfully hit, these reports have amplified concerns about civilian risk and collateral damage.
The coalition notes that although the Nigerian Air Force inaugurated a Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) Board in July 2025, no publicly articulated civilian harm protocols were presented in relation to this operation raising questions about target verification, proportionality assessments and post-strike accountability.
The statement also cautions against framing Nigeria’s security challenges in ways that could deepen religious or communal tensions.
In an already fragile national climate, the groups warn that poor crisis management and opaque communication risk inflaming divisions rather than strengthening national cohesion.
In one of its most striking passages, the coalition argues that if Nigeria’s political and security leadership believes it lacks the capacity or will to manage internal security challenges within constitutional bounds, then democratic integrity demands resignation.
“The office of the President carries the expectation of judgment, capacity and resolve,” the statement declares, adding that authorising foreign strikes without public explanation and then remaining silent falls far short of that standard.
The statement is backed by an expansive list of organisations, including Amnesty International Nigeria, BudgIT, Yiaga Africa, CISLAC, SBM Intelligence, Media Rights Agenda, and dozens of grassroots, gender, youth and governance groups and alliance that underscores the breadth of concern cutting across ideological and sectoral lines.
As the government maintains its silence, the civil society challenge has reframed the incident from a counterterrorism episode into a test of sovereignty, transparency and civilian control of the military.
For now, the air strike’s military impact remains unclear. But politically, its aftermath has already landed with a question that refuses to fade: Who is accountable when the skies open, and the Commander-in-Chief says nothing?
