Former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission and Professor of Law, Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, has sharply criticised President Bola Tinubu for what he described as an “irresponsible” silence following reported United States missile strikes on Nigerian territory in Sokoto State.
The United States was reported to have carried out what it described as “powerful and deadly” missile strikes on December 25, 2025, targeting suspected terrorist locations in Tangaza Local Government Area of Sokoto State. The action followed public allegations by U.S. President Donald Trump that Christians were being killed in Nigeria.
Although Nigerian authorities later said the operation was conducted in collaboration with the Nigerian military, the strikes triggered widespread concern across the country, raising questions about national sovereignty, transparency, and command responsibility. Critics have also queried the circumstances under which a foreign military force was allowed to conduct airstrikes within Nigeria’s borders.
Speaking during an interview on Channels Television, Odinkalu said Nigerians deserved direct communication and reassurance from the President on a matter of such gravity.
According to him, “silence from the presidency on such a sensitive national security issue undermines public confidence and fuels speculation.”
He added that the President’s failure to publicly address the issue had left many critical questions unanswered.
“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?” Odinkalu asked rhetorically during the interview.
Responding to that question himself, he said: “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.”
Odinkalu stressed that Nigeria could not abdicate responsibility for its own security. “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,” he said.
Drawing historical parallels, Odinkalu recalled past U.S. military interventions elsewhere. “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 said.
“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,” Odinkalu continued. “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.”
Asked whether Nigerian leaders should worry about similar actions occurring closer to home, Odinkalu said: “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.”
He warned that silence at moments of national anxiety was dangerous. “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,” he said.
On President Tinubu’s New Year message, which coincided with the reported security incidents, Odinkalu was equally critical. “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,” he said.
“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,” Odinkalu added.
“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,” he said.
Addressing arguments that U.S. involvement might help restore order, Odinkalu insisted that such considerations did not excuse presidential 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.”
When asked why he believed President Tinubu had not addressed Nigerians directly, Odinkalu replied: “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,” he said, adding that “democratic accountability weakens when leaders feel insulated from electoral consequences. When leaders no longer fear the people, governance becomes performative.”
On whether presidential advisers should be blamed for the communication failure, Odinkalu dismissed the notion. “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,” he said.
“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,” Odinkalu added.
The former NHRC chairman also commented on controversies surrounding recent tax reforms, following concerns raised by Hon. Abdulsamad Dasuki about discrepancies between gazetted versions of the reforms and the version signed by the president.
“The courage and honesty of Hon. Abdulsamad is commendable,” Odinkalu said. “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,” he warned.
“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,” Odinkalu said.
Reacting to comments by the chair of the Presidential Tax and Fiscal Reforms Committee, Taiwo Oyedele, that he continued to oversee implementation of the reforms, Odinkalu declared the situation unlawful.
“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,” he said.
“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,” Odinkalu warned.
“Once you create exceptions, they multiply. Before long, you no longer have a system; you have improvisation,” he added.
