Examining Nigeria's Sovereignty: Are We Defending a Concept or a Reality?

In contemplating the current state of Nigeria, it is essential to understand whether our sovereignty equates to real security, organizational structure, and lawful governance over our land or simply a term we uphold without substance.

I recently engaged with Jibrin Ibrahim’s compelling essay in PREMIUM TIMES dated February 13, titled “Nigeria on the brink,” where sovereignty appears to be delicately handed over to American oversight. Professor Ibrahim's insights resonate deeply, as he is a profound voice in our community of thinkers, often reshaping discourse with historical context and moral clarity.

This latest piece remains true to his analytical style, blending thorough historical references with current realities. However, it discretely conveys alarm regarding President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's current security initiatives with the United States, particularly under a leadership perceived as ineffective and self-serving. The imagery evoked is that of a concerned guardian powerless to prevent a beloved descendant from choosing what could be a disastrous path.

Those familiar with the dynamics of American influence can comprehend the anxieties it breeds. The U.S. has historically pursued its national interests with vigor, and many observers are critical of renewed alliances from this perspective. The sight of American military presence on Nigerian soil, over sixty years post-independence, raises significant concerns about sovereignty, reflecting both a natural instinct and a justified apprehension.

Nevertheless, to navigate these discussions meaningfully, we must address a pivotal question: Is Nigeria’s sovereignty a tangible reality or merely a lofty ideal?

When we articulate sovereignty, we often treat it as an obvious truth. However, citizens in places like Woro and Chiraa, who have faced violence and extortion, might define it differently. They, along with many across the nation grappling with armed non-state actors, experience sovereignty not as a governing principle, but as either a guarantee of safety or its absence.

This raises disconcerting questions: when faced with the harsh choices between violent non-state militias and foreign powers acting out of strategic interests, which would citizens prefer? In circumstances where survival is at stake, many might find the latter to be the less threatening choice, as the fear of exploitation pales against that of random violence.

Concerns also arise regarding the narrative surrounding 'ungoverned spaces' in the North-East and North-West regions. These areas are not devoid of governance; they are governed instead by entrenched criminal entities that challenge the state’s authority. Thus, we delineate a notable difference that matters profoundly when devising strategies to reclaim governance.

Nigeria seems to exist concurrently in two realities: an official republic driven by democratic processes and an unofficial one ruled by insurgents and criminal gangs. Reports from sources such as Daily Trust noted Boko Haram's control over vast territories in the north, amounting to land larger than several states combined. This stark reality poses the question: when significant parts of Nigeria lack effective control by legitimate authority, to whom has sovereignty already ceded?

Ultimately, the discourse surrounding sovereignty must be grounded in existential terms, not just semantic ones. As the public grapples with contrasting visions of freedom derived from different cultural backdrops—where American ideals lean towards personal liberties and Chinese perspectives emphasize stability—Nigerians must also reevaluate what sovereignty means in practical terms. For some, it is about avoiding foreign entanglements, while for others, it is about the ability to farm and rest securely at night.

Considering Nigeria’s geopolitical landscape, vigilance is paramount. It is not naïve to recognize potential securities, yet we must remain discerning amidst multifaceted global interests, learning from past dealings without being unduly suspicious. If a partnership with the United States fortifies Nigeria's ability to restore security and territorial integrity, then we would be remiss to dismiss it solely based on discomfort with historical legacies. After all, as an acquaintance reminds me, “resources are meant for the living.”

The core question of whether sovereignty translates into effective governance is vital. Without linking sovereignty to concrete security, we may struggle to justify its relevance.