When news emerges that a foreign power has conducted military strikes on the territory of a sovereign state, the initial response is often emotional rather than legal. For many Nigerians, reports of U.S. bombardment on Nigerian soil immediately evoke notions of invasion, violation and the loss of independence. This reaction is understandable. Nigeria’s history, like that of many African states, is marked by external domination, and any appearance of foreign military force reopens longstanding wounds concerning sovereignty and control. Yet under international law, the implications of such an act are more nuanced than the term “invasion” suggests.
Modern international relations are governed primarily by the United Nations Charter, which places state sovereignty at its core. Every state, including Nigeria, is legally equal and possesses exclusive authority over its territory, airspace and political decisions. As a general rule, the use of force by one state within the territory of another is prohibited. This prohibition is explicitly articulated in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. From this perspective, foreign bombardment initially appears unlawful.
However, international law recognises important exceptions. One of the most established is intervention by consent. A sovereign government has the legal right to invite another state to provide military assistance within its territory. When such consent is freely granted by a legitimate government, foreign military action does not constitute an invasion in legal terms. Instead, it represents an exercise of the host state’s sovereignty rather than a violation of it. This principle has been affirmed in customary international law and in rulings of the International Court of Justice, including the landmark case of Nicaragua v. United States.
Another relevant exception is collective self-defence. Article 51 of the UN Charter recognises the inherent right of states to defend themselves if they are subjected to armed attack and to request assistance from other states in doing so. Where Nigeria faces sustained attacks from organised armed groups or terrorist networks, it may lawfully seek military support from partners such as the United States. In such circumstances, U.S. military action would be framed not as aggression against Nigeria but as assistance in the exercise of Nigeria’s own right to self-defence.
Even when foreign military action is legally justified by consent or self-defence, it is not without limitations. International humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, governs the conduct of armed forces. Parties to a conflict must distinguish between military targets and civilians, avoid disproportionate harm and ensure that any use of force is militarily necessary. Consent does not exempt actors from these obligations. If civilian casualties are excessive or targets indiscriminate, the action may remain unlawful, regardless of prior agreement between states.
Despite these legal frameworks, many Nigerians continue to perceive U.S. military involvement as a form of foreign intrusion. This perception is shaped not only by law but also by power dynamics, historical experience and transparency. When decisions involving foreign forces are made with limited public explanation or parliamentary scrutiny, they can appear imposed rather than chosen. In this sense, the debate extends beyond legality to questions of legitimacy and public trust.
Against this backdrop, Nigeria’s relationship with the United States should be understood as part of a broader strategic balancing act. Nigeria already collaborates closely with China to strengthen its economic capacity through infrastructure development, trade and investment. International law does not prevent Nigeria from simultaneously partnering with the United States to enhance its military and security capabilities. States are free to select their allies and partners, provided they do not enter into conflicting treaty obligations or surrender independent decision-making.
A sustainable and lawful military partnership with the United States would prioritise capacity-building over direct combat involvement. Training, intelligence sharing, logistics support and technology transfer strengthen Nigeria’s armed forces while preserving operational control in Nigerian hands. Arms transfers and training programmes are regulated by international instruments such as the Arms Trade Treaty, which requires exporting states to assess the risk of misuse and human rights violations. Properly applied, these rules protect civilians while enabling Nigeria to modernise its defences.
Formal defence cooperation agreements, concluded in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, can further safeguard Nigeria’s sovereignty. Clearly defined terms regarding scope, duration, command authority and oversight reduce the risk of mission creep or dependency. Parliamentary scrutiny and regional coordination through bodies such as ECOWAS and the African Union provide additional layers of legitimacy.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Nigeria should reject all foreign military cooperation in the name of independence, nor whether it should submit to external power. The central issue is agency.International law provides Nigeria with tools to defend itself, choose its partners and set the terms of engagement. When Nigeria acts through consent, lawful agreements and transparent governance, cooperation with powerful states does not diminish sovereignty, it expresses it.
In this sense, “uhuru” is not merely the absence of foreign presence. It is the ability of a state to make informed, lawful and independent choices in pursuit of its own security and development. The challenge for Nigeria is to ensure that every partnership, whether with China economically or the United States militarily, serves Nigerian interests first, respects international law and remains accountable to the Nigerian people.
