Protecting A Neighbour While Failing Nigerians: A Misplaced Priority? –By Matthew Ma

On December 7, I awoke to the unsettling news of a failed military coup in the Republic of Benin. On this day, elements of the National Guard launched an attack on President Patrice Talon. Troops reportedly seized control of the national broadcaster and announced on state television that Talon had been “removed from office as president of the republic.” The coup led by Colonel Pascal Tigri declared the suspension of the constitution and state institutions. The soldiers cited various grievances for their actions, including Talon’s leadership style, favoritism within the military, neglect towards soldiers who had died on active duty and their families, the worsening security situation in northern Benin, cuts to healthcare, increased taxes, and restrictions on political activity.

Following the failed coup, Nigerians found themselves again facing the familiar reality of military intervention beyond their borders. In a statement released on Sunday, the Nigerian government announced that its military had intervened in Benin after President Patrice Talon’s administration made requests for assistance, including a plea for “immediate Nigerian air support.” According to Al Jazeera, President Bola Tinubu initially ordered Nigerian fighter jets to enter Benin airspace to secure it, dislodge coup plotters, and protect constitutional institutions. Given Nigeria’s historical position as the security cornerstone of West Africa, such military involvement is not entirely unexpected, as seen in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the past. The pressing question remains: can Nigeria ethically and effectively justify its projection of military power abroad, especially when millions of its own citizens feel vulnerable and unprotected within their borders?

When news broke of Nigeria’s willingness to support the Republic of Benin, reactions among Nigerian citizens were notably divided. Some Nigerians, grappling with pressing challenges such as rampant kidnapping, escalating banditry, and significant economic struggles, expressed concern that any military intervention beyond Nigeria’s borders could be perceived as diverting attention and resources away from urgent domestic issues. They contended that dedicating attention and military resources to foreign political crises sends an inappropriate message regarding national priorities. According to them, not every political situation in a neighboring country poses a direct security threat. Thus, Nigeria should not assume it must extinguish every regional conflict, particularly when its own circumstances are already precarious. Other critics assert that Nigeria must first confront its own pressing domestic challenges before extending assistance to other nations. They argue that, in light of the numerous serious issues that Nigeria is currently grappling with, diverting both attention and military resources to address a foreign political crisis raises significant concerns about the nation’s priorities. This perspective emphasized the need for Nigeria to focus on stabilizing its internal affairs before attending to international conflicts.

However, proponents of the Nigerian government assert that Benin is not merely a neighboring country on the geographical map; rather, it is a vital partner with profound socio-economic and cultural connections. The two nations share extensive, porous borders, fostering not only robust trade ties but also a rich tapestry of intertwined communities that span both sides of the frontier. Along the Benin-Nigeria border, numerous communities engage in intermarriage and share common cultural practices, reflecting a deep-seated relationship forged over years of social and economic interaction. Those supporting the Nigerian perspective argue that events in the Republic of Benin will resonate beyond its borders. They contend that a successful coup or significant political upheaval in Benin would not simply signify a change in leadership but could potentially have dire ramifications for Nigeria’s security landscape. Such instability could create fertile ground for arms trafficking, organized crime syndicates, and extremist groups to infiltrate Nigeria’s southwestern regions. Given these intertwined dynamics, advocates of early intervention view it not merely as a precautionary act of goodwill but rather as a necessary and strategic measure to safeguard national interests and maintain regional stability.

Other supporters of the Nigerian government use the economic implications as a basis for their argument. They emphasize that Benin serves as a vital trade corridor for southern Nigeria, facilitating the movement of goods and services between various economic hubs. Therefore, any disruption to Benin’s ports, road infrastructure, or governance frameworks could have far-reaching effects on Nigerian markets. Such disruptions could lead to higher prices for essential goods, supply chain delays, and greater economic strain. Thus, safeguarding the constitutional order in Benin is not merely a matter of political stability; it is protecting the livelihoods of many Nigerians who rely on the smooth functioning of trade and commerce in the region. More to this is the argument that Nigeria has significant responsibilities not only within West Africa but also on a broader continental and global scale. Supporters of this viewpoint argue that Nigeria, as a key and influential member of both the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU), has been instrumental in creating and maintaining regional protocols that actively prevent unconstitutional power seizures. Therefore, remaining passive in the face of challenges would not only jeopardize Nigeria’s reputation as a leader but also undermine the region’s collective ability to deter future violations of democratic principles. For this reason, Nigeria cannot afford to engage selectively based on convenience.

The question is whether Nigeria should prioritize regional democratic stability over its domestic security needs. Before addressing this, it is essential to clarify that questioning priorities does not equate to questioning one’s patriotism or professionalism. The Nigerian Air Force (NAF) has shown commendable courage and competence under extreme pressure. Its personnel are engaged in numerous battles across the country, often grappling with limited resources and high public expectations. The primary issue at hand is not necessarily the Air Force’s readiness or capability to respond to various demands; rather, it concerns the extent to which national leadership may be placing excessive expectations and responsibilities on the Air Force. There is a legitimate concern that the calls for action or intervention could exceed what is reasonable, potentially overburdening the service and impacting its effectiveness. It raises questions about the balance between operational readiness and the strategic demands being imposed by those in leadership positions. When Nigerians witness the mobilization of their military for international missions, they have genuine concern for the soldiers involved. They empathize with them because the army is not merely an abstract entity; these individuals are our children, siblings, friends, and neighbors in uniform. Thus, when troops are deployed abroad, the thoughts around them are not based on strategic considerations. Instead, they are haunted by the possibility that someone’s child may not return home, questioning why our army should risk their lives on foreign soil. This emotional connection fosters a protective instinct, reflecting deep concern rather than misguided nationalism.

The second issue concerns the aging, outdated military equipment our armed forces currently use. In recent years, the Nigerian Air Force has faced numerous operational challenges that have affected its ability to fulfill its duties. There have been distressing incidents, such as the tragic bomb blast in Ikeja, which raised alarms about operational safety and equipment reliability. Additionally, several military aircraft have crashed, with reports of incidents in Benue, Kaduna, and Abuja. Most notably, just recently, a fighter jet belonging to the Nigerian Air Force crashed in Niger State, further underscoring the pressing need for a comprehensive assessment and upgrade of our military hardware. Fortunately, the pilots ejected before the aircraft went down, but the crash site appeared extremely devastating. Critics highlight that limited operational capacity, inadequate maintenance, and the acquisition of new equipment are contributing factors to such incidents. The situation is further complicated by a fleet that primarily consists of aging aircraft, raising concerns about reliability and effectiveness in both combat and support missions. The recent events highlight the fragile condition of our defense forces and underscore the urgent necessity for modernization initiatives. They prompt us to address the existing shortcomings in our military capabilities to ensure the safety and well-being of our air force personnel during both domestic and international operations. Without these crucial upgrades, any decision to deploy our troops on overseas missions poses a significant risk to their lives. Until these essential reforms are enacted, we must proceed with extreme caution regarding any overseas deployments.

The Nigerian government’s rapid deployment of troops for foreign missions raises serious, multifaceted concerns about the nature of democratic governance in the country. In well-established democracies, decisions of such gravity typically involve a rigorous process of consultation and approval from the National Assembly. This approach ensures that elected representatives—who are accountable to their constituents—have a significant voice in decisions that can profoundly affect national security, foreign relations, and the nation’s overall welfare. In stark contrast, the process in Nigeria often appears expedited, minimizing or entirely bypassing the legislative oversight integral to democratic practices. Such military decisions are frequently made with astonishing speed, often without adequate prior consultation with both the public and relevant legislative bodies. This lack of deliberation and transparency is particularly alarming, as it leaves citizens uninformed about potential military engagements and their implications until significant decisions have already been taken. The consequences of this absence of oversight are far-reaching. Not only does it erode the foundational principles that underpin democracy—whereby the electorate’s voice should be heard and valued—but it also risks entangling Nigeria in precarious international situations without the support or input of the populace these decisions affect. This approach raises fundamental questions about accountability and governance, highlighting a critical gap in democratic processes that politicians and policymakers must address to avoid undermining public trust and stability in foreign relations.

One of the most intricate and ethically responsible strategies a nation can implement to reduce casualties in wars or military interventions involves a multifaceted approach that includes robust diplomacy, targeted sanctions, effective mediation, and referrals to international criminal tribunals. These diplomatic and legal avenues serve not only to provide a framework for resolving conflicts but also aim to hold accountable those who commit atrocities. If these measures prove ineffective in curbing violence or achieving peace, the next critical step should be to ensure that any military mission is firmly rooted in a comprehensive legal framework. This framework must include well-defined rules of engagement (ROE) that explicitly prioritize the preservation of human life and the safeguarding of civilian populations. In light of the military intervention against the coup plotters, there are significant concerns about whether adequate consideration was given to the potential consequences of such an intervention. The rapidity with which Nigeria chose to engage militarily raises essential questions about the extent to which it evaluated the implications of its actions on both regional stability and civilian safety. Any nation undertaking a foreign mission must proceed with caution and carefully consider the potential consequences of military interventions.

In conclusion, we pose the following questions: Should Nigeria have declined the Republic of Benin’s request for assistance? What would have been the most appropriate response to this urgent call for help? Let me clarify that my article does not suggest Nigeria should abandon its neighbors or neglect its responsibilities within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Engaging in regional leadership can provide substantial advantages, such as bolstering diplomatic influence, enhancing collective security among member states, deterring potential aggressors, and fostering long-term stability in the region. Therefore, to forge authentic leadership, we must begin within Nigeria itself. A nation that is unable to secure the safety and well-being of its own citizens effectively risks losing the moral authority necessary to be a credible protector of others. If Nigeria cannot ensure a secure environment and improve the quality of life for its inhabitants, it risks losing the respect and influence needed to effectively champion the rights and welfare of others internationally. If Nigerian citizens continue to feel unsafe while traveling on their roads or living in their communities due to rising insecurity, any intervention in foreign affairs may be seen as an act of misplaced urgency. A genuine commitment to safeguarding one’s own populace must precede any calls to assist others. Thus, the underlying concern is whether Nigeria has established a secure environment at home that would justify its involvement abroad without drawing criticism or backlash from its own citizens. Until a sense of safety and stability is restored within Nigeria itself, any foreign intervention could be perceived as a gesture of misplaced urgency.

Therefore, this article is not a rejection of regional responsibility, nor is it an endorsement of isolationism. It is a call for balance. Nigeria cannot afford to abandon its neighbors, but it cannot afford to alienate its people either. Regional leadership must be matched by visible, measurable progress in domestic security. Therefore, protecting a neighbor is commendable. However, failing Nigerians is not an acceptable trade-off. Until internal security improves in ways that citizens can feel, hear, and see, external interventions—no matter how strategic—will remain controversial. National security begins at home; regional stability should reinforce that foundation, not compete with it. Thus, our national security policy must reflect this simple prioritization—or else it will continue to face justified public resistance.

Rev. Ma, S. J., is a Jesuit priest and a public policy analyst. He currently writes from Abuja, Nigeria.