Sovereignty in Question: MPAC Demands Answers Over US Airstrikes in Sokoto

The air over Sokoto State has become thick with more than just the dust of the Sahel; it is now clouded by a brewing diplomatic and constitutional debate. Following reports of United States military airstrikes targeting alleged ISIS enclaves within Nigerian borders, the Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC) has stepped forward to challenge the Federal Government’s silence. The group is demanding an immediate and transparent clarification regarding the legal and operational frameworks that allowed a foreign power to kineticize targets on Nigerian soil.

At the heart of the outcry is a fundamental concern for national dignity and the sanctity of Nigeria’s territorial integrity. In a robust statement released this Saturday, Disu Kamor, the Executive Chairman of MPAC, voiced a sentiment shared by many who were startled by the news. The organization’s primary grievance is not with the fight against terror itself—a cause they unequivocally support—but with the optics of a foreign government breaking the news of a strike within Nigeria’s own backyard.

For many observers, the realization that Washington, D.C., was the primary source of information for an event occurring in Sokoto felt like a lapse in national communication. MPAC argues that any military operation conducted on home soil must be reported first and foremost by Nigerian authorities. To have a foreign capital dictate the narrative to its own domestic audience before Nigerians are briefed creates a vacuum of authority, suggesting a hierarchy that many find unsettling for a sovereign nation.

The organization was careful to balance its critique with a firm stance against violent extremism. MPAC reiterated its condemnation of terrorism in all its forms, acknowledging that the threat posed by groups like ISIS requires a serious and coordinated response. However, they contend that the necessity of security does not justify the erosion of national pride or the subcontracting of primary state responsibilities.

Questions of operational dependence have now moved to the forefront of the national conversation. While intelligence sharing and strategic alliances are standard in global counter-terrorism efforts, MPAC cautions that these partnerships should not morph into a reliance that undermines local control. The group expressed skepticism over claims that Nigeria’s intelligence was sufficient to identify the targets, yet its military was deemed incapable of executing the strike without American hardware.

This perceived gap in capability is a point of contention for the group. They pointed out that Nigeria has a long and storied history of projecting military power across the West African sub-region, often leading peacekeeping missions and stabilizing neighboring states. If the Nigerian Armed Forces can secure foreign lands, MPAC asks, why must the nation look to the West to handle threats within its own northern reaches? This reliance, they suggest, weakens the perception of the Nigerian military’s readiness and autonomy.

The ghost of foreign interventions past also looms large over this discussion. MPAC drew parallels to previous U.S.-led military actions in other parts of the world, highlighting a track record that often includes unintended civilian casualties and long-term regional instability. The risk of “collateral damage” in a sensitive region like Sokoto is high, and the group fears that foreign-led strikes may lack the nuanced understanding of local social and religious dynamics required to prevent further radicalization.

Furthermore, the organization raised concerns about the potential for these strikes to be misconstrued or manipulated into a narrative of religious warfare. They noted that past rhetoric from certain Western leaders has often been divisive, sometimes painting counter-terrorism efforts in strokes that alienate Muslim communities. MPAC was quick to remind the government and the public that the vast majority of victims of terrorism in Northern Nigeria are Muslims themselves, making the precision and sensitivity of any military action a matter of communal survival.

The group’s demand for a “Nigerian-led, Nigerian-controlled, and Nigerian-accountable” security architecture is a call for a return to self-reliance. They argue that security is the most basic social contract between a government and its people—a duty that simply cannot be outsourced to a third party. To do so, they claim, risks creating a security environment where the priorities of a foreign power might eventually supersede the interests of the Nigerian populace.

As the Federal Government faces this call for transparency, the pressure is mounting to provide a detailed account of the diplomatic agreements currently in place. Nigerians are looking for reassurances that their skies remain under their own control and that the fight against insurgency is not being traded for a loss of sovereignty. MPAC’s stance serves as a reminder that in the theater of modern warfare, the battle for information and authority is just as critical as the battle on the ground.

Ultimately, the goal remains a stable and peaceful Nigeria. However, as this latest development in Sokoto shows, the path to that peace is fraught with questions about who holds the trigger and who answers for the consequences. The government now finds itself at a crossroads where it must balance the tactical advantages of foreign support with the constitutional necessity of maintaining the nation’s dignity and the trust of its citizens.