BREAKING: U.S. Airstrikes in Sokoto Expose Your Level of Incompetence — ADC Slams Tinubu, Demands Transparency on Terrorist Casualties

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has slammed President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration following the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) airstrikes carried out in parts of Sokoto State on December 25, 2025, describing the development as a stark exposure of what it called the government’s “historic incompetence” in handling Nigeria’s security crisis.

 

In a statement issued on Friday, the opposition party questioned both the necessity and the transparency surrounding the foreign military operation, insisting that Nigerians deserve clear answers about the outcome of the strikes, including how many terrorists were actually killed and the precise role played by Nigerian security agencies in the operation.

 

READ ALSO: BREAKING: U.S military begins airstrikes against Islamic terrorists in Nigeria

 

While the ADC acknowledged that every lawful effort aimed at protecting the lives of Nigerians should be welcomed, it argued that the circumstances surrounding the airstrikes raise troubling questions about sovereignty, leadership, and the long-term direction of Nigeria’s counterterrorism strategy.

 

According to the party, the fact that a foreign military carried out direct airstrikes on Nigerian soil underscores what it described as the failure of governance and security coordination under President Tinubu. The ADC maintained that such an unprecedented development should not be celebrated or casually explained away as “collaboration,” warning that allowing external forces to take the lead in military operations within Nigeria sets a dangerous precedent.

 

“The December 25 AFRICOM airstrikes in Sokoto State are not a badge of honour,” the party said. “They represent a clear admission that the Nigerian state, under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has been unable to effectively secure its territory and protect its citizens.”

 

The party stressed that while intelligence sharing and technical cooperation with international partners are common in modern counterterrorism efforts, the direct execution of military strikes by a foreign power within Nigeria’s borders demands serious scrutiny. It cautioned that such actions, if not properly defined and controlled, could undermine Nigeria’s strategic interests and weaken its standing as a sovereign nation.

 

One of the key concerns raised by the ADC was Nigeria’s actual role in the operation. The party questioned whether Nigerian security agencies had operational control or were merely providing intelligence while foreign forces carried out the decisive action.

 

“Nigeria must not be reduced to the role of a mere informant in a war that is being fought on its own soil,” the statement said. “If this was truly a collaborative effort, the government owes Nigerians a detailed explanation of who planned the operation, who executed it, and who had final command authority.”

 

The ADC also demanded full disclosure on casualties resulting from the airstrikes. According to the party, vague statements about “successful strikes” are insufficient, particularly given the sensitivity of the operation and the potential implications for civilian safety and national cohesion.

 

“Nigerians deserve to know how many terrorists were actually neutralised, who they were, and what impact this operation has had on the security situation in Sokoto State and the wider North-West region,” the party said. “Anything short of this transparency amounts to propaganda, not governance.”

 

The North-West has, in recent years, become a major flashpoint for banditry, kidnapping, and terrorist violence, with thousands killed and displaced. Despite repeated assurances by successive governments, insecurity has continued to spread, fueling public frustration and eroding confidence in state institutions. For the ADC, the U.S. airstrikes are a symptom of this deeper failure.

 

The party further warned against what it described as a dangerous tendency to frame Nigeria’s security crisis in religious terms, particularly by foreign actors. It expressed concern that the U.S. narrative surrounding terrorism in Nigeria often emphasises religious identity, a framing the ADC said risks deepening divisions in an already fragile society.

 

“Reducing Nigeria’s complex security challenges to a simplistic religious conflict is not only inaccurate, it is reckless,” the party stated. “Such narratives endanger national unity and play directly into the hands of extremists who thrive on division.”

 

In its statement, the ADC cautioned the Tinubu administration against confusing international collaboration with what it called “myopic surrender.” According to the party, relying excessively on foreign military intervention without strengthening domestic capacity is not a sustainable solution and could leave Nigeria perpetually dependent on external forces.

 

“A serious government would use partnerships to build local capacity, improve intelligence coordination, and reform security institutions,” the ADC said. “What we are seeing instead is a pattern of reactive leadership that celebrates foreign intervention as a substitute for competent governance.”

 

The party also criticised what it described as the government’s poor communication strategy following the strikes. It argued that conflicting statements, lack of concrete data, and an absence of clear accountability have only heightened public anxiety and speculation.

 

“At a time when trust in government is already low, the administration’s handling of information surrounding this operation has been deeply disappointing,” the statement noted. “Security matters require discretion, but they also require honesty and clarity.”

 

The ADC called on the National Assembly to exercise its oversight responsibilities by demanding a full briefing from the executive on the AFRICOM operation. It urged lawmakers to seek answers on the legal framework governing the strikes, the extent of Nigeria’s consent and participation, and the measures in place to prevent civilian casualties.

 

The party further appealed to civil society organisations, security experts, and the media to insist on accountability, warning that silence or complacency could normalise foreign military interventions without proper safeguards.

 

Despite its criticisms, the ADC reiterated its support for genuine efforts to combat terrorism and restore peace to affected communities. It emphasised that its position was not anti-cooperation, but pro-sovereignty and pro-accountability.

 

“Nigerians want security, but not at the cost of dignity, transparency, or national cohesion,” the party said. “We cannot outsource our responsibility to protect our people and then pretend that everything is fine.”

 

As debate continues over the implications of the U.S. airstrikes, the ADC’s intervention adds to growing public scrutiny of the Tinubu administration’s security policies. For many Nigerians, the key questions remain unanswered: how effective was the operation, who was truly in charge, and what does this development mean for the future of Nigeria’s fight against terrorism?

 

Until those questions are addressed, the party warned, the airstrikes will remain not just a military event, but a symbol of what it described as a troubling chapter in Nigeria’s governance and security history.