Tinubu’s silence on US airstrikes in Sokoto irresponsible – Odinkalu

A former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission and Professor of Law, Chidi Odinkalu, has criticised President Bola Tinubu’s silence over the recent United States missile strikes on Nigerian territory, describing it as irresponsible.

The United States had on December 25, 2025, launched what it described as “powerful and deadly” missile strikes against terrorist targets in Tangaza Local Government Area of Sokoto State. The strikes followed allegations by US President, Donald Trump, that Christians were being killed in Nigeria.

Although Nigerian officials later stated that the operation was conducted in collaboration with the Nigerian military, the development sparked widespread concern among Nigerians, particularly over issues of sovereignty, transparency and command responsibility. Critics have also questioned the circumstances under which a foreign military carried out airstrikes within Nigeria’s borders.

In an interview on Channels Television, Odinkalu said Nigerians deserved reassurance, clarity and direction from the highest level of government concerning the airstrikes reportedly carried out in Sokoto State.

Odinkalu argued that the president’s failure to publicly address the matter had left many unanswered questions. According to him, silence from the presidency on such a sensitive national security issue undermines public confidence and fuels speculation.

The US missile strikes on Venezuela have drawn global attention, and there are ongoing legal proceedings involving that country’s leadership. Some observers argue that Nigeria should also be concerned about international security and political trends. How should Nigeria react at this moment?

I am not American; I am Nigerian. Under Section 14 of our Constitution, the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. That duty is not symbolic; it is practical. It requires presence, communication, and accountability. President Tinubu is peerless as a politician, nobody disputes his political craft, but as commander-in-chief, he is missing in action. That is the biggest problem with his presidency.

Nigeria cannot outsource responsibility for its security or political stability. I will not worry about America or Venezuela when my own president is unwilling or unable to exercise the responsibilities of the office he occupies. Leadership begins at home.

Historically, do we have precedents for this kind of foreign intervention in other parts of the world?

History repeats itself. Thirty-six years ago, on January 3, 1990, the United States, under President George H.W. Bush, ran a similar operation in Panama. President Manuel Noriega was taken on accusations very similar to what we see now: narco-trafficking, election rigging, racketeering, and corruption. He was tried in Miami, sentenced to 40 years, transferred later to France for medical treatment, and eventually returned to Panama, where he died in 2017.

The pattern of allegations against Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro follows the same playbook. The language, the framing, the justification, it is almost identical. That is why studying history matters. These things do not emerge from nowhere.

In light of these developments globally, should Nigerian leaders worry that similar actions could occur elsewhere, or even closer to home?

Nigeria’s leadership should focus first on protecting its citizens and strengthening legitimacy at home. That is the starting point. What we see now is a president who appears unwilling and unable to fully discharge the duties of office. That is deeply troubling.

Silence in moments of national anxiety sends the wrong message. Insecurity thrives in vacuum, a vacuum of authority, of communication, of empathy, and unfortunately, that is what we are witnessing.

What is your assessment of the president’s New Year message, especially given that it coincided with these security events?

President Tinubu is not just Nigeria’s president; he is an African elder. Symbolism matters in leadership. Yet he spent the New Year abroad while missiles rained on Nigerian territory. In the midst of these attacks, he said nothing. The Ministry of Defence said nothing. Defence Headquarters has not shown up in the way Nigerians deserve.

Only the foreign minister, the minister of information, and Daniel Bwala have spoken. If people are not troubled by that silence, if that does not amount to an eloquent New Year message, then I do not know what else will trouble them. This is a moment that requires reassurance, clarity, and direction from the highest level of government. Leadership is not about delegation of empathy. It is about presence.

Some people argue that the US involvement may help victims or help restore order in some contexts. Does that in any way excuse the president’s silence?

Help arriving from abroad may be welcome under certain circumstances. But when that help involves missile strikes on your territory or actions that affect your sovereignty, the first responsibility of the president is to face his people and explain what transpired. That is non-negotiable. Silence in such a moment is not just tactical; it is irresponsible.

Why do you think President Tinubu has not spoken directly to Nigerians in this situation?

Fundamentally, it is because Tinubu does not need Nigerians’ votes to be president. He needs judges and INEC to give him a result. That is the incentive structure that produced this behaviour. If he truly needed the votes of the people, he would not act with such casual disregard for their well-being.

Democratic accountability weakens when leaders feel insulated from electoral consequences. When leaders no longer fear the people, governance becomes performative.

To what extent should presidential advisers or aides be held responsible for these lapses in communication and leadership response?

I do not hold any advisers accountable. The presidency has multiple roles, party leader, head of government, head of state, diplomat-in-chief and commander-in-chief. Some of those roles can be delegated. But the role of commander-in-chief cannot be outsourced. It is personal, constitutional and sacrosanct.

Advisers cannot substitute for the president. What the principal does or fails to do is what matters. Even if advisers gave advice, the president still has a duty to communicate with Nigerians. He has failed to do that.

Let us turn to the issue of tax reforms. Hon. Abdulsamad Dasuki recently raised concerns about discrepancies between gazetted copies of the tax reforms and the version signed by the president. What is your reaction to that development?

The courage and honesty of Hon. Abdulsamad is commendable. The fact that the National Assembly is now talking about re-gazetting confirms that he was right to raise the alarm. If the text of a law was changed after votes and proceedings had already been transmitted to the president, then we have a fundamental institutional problem.

Nigeria cannot afford multiple versions of the same law. You cannot have two Gazettes. Anything published in the official Gazette enjoys a presumption of regularity. That presumption is powerful. No country runs the way we are trying to run, not even banana republics. Nigeria must not set itself up as one.

The chair of the presidential tax and fiscal reforms committee, Taiwo Oyedele, has said he continues to oversee implementation. From your perspective, is that lawful?

What Taiwo is doing is unlawful. He has become a free-range czar, a policy free agent roaming across government portfolios, exercising power without responsibility. In fiscal policy, you cannot have a free agent running amok.

Even if the president authorised the role, that does not automatically make it constitutional. Advisers cannot replace ministers. Committees cannot replace institutions. Power without accountability is dangerous. Once you create exceptions, they multiply. Before long, you no longer have a system; you have improvisation.