In a sharply worded statement that has reignited old political rivalries, the Nigerian Presidency has fiercely rejected recent criticisms leveled by former President Olusegun Obasanjo against the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu regarding the country’s deteriorating security landscape. The rebuttal, issued through the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communication, Sunday Dare, accused Obasanjo of hypocrisy, lack of moral authority, and recklessness for suggesting that Nigeria should consider accepting foreign military intervention if the current government cannot curb the rampant insecurity.
The exchange began when Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, speaking at a public event in Jos, the capital of Plateau State, on Friday, November 28, 2025, voiced deep concern over the escalating wave of violence plaguing various parts of the country. The elder statesman, who led Nigeria as a military head of state from 1976 to 1979 and later as a civilian president from 1999 to 2007, warned that the spate of killings, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks had reached alarming proportions. In a controversial remark that quickly drew widespread attention, Obasanjo stated that there would be “nothing wrong” in seeking external assistance if the government of the day proved incapable of protecting Nigerian lives and property.
Obasanjo’s comments gained additional international resonance because they came only weeks after United States President Donald Trump publicly condemned the Nigerian government over what he described as the systematic persecution and killing of Christians in parts of the country, particularly in the northern and central regions. During a high-profile address, President Trump vowed that the United States would not stand idly by and even threatened direct military action, declaring an intention to “invade Nigeria to eliminate the terrorists killing Nigerians” if the situation did not improve dramatically. While the exact wording and feasibility of such a statement have been debated, it undeniably placed Nigeria’s security crisis under intense global scrutiny and provided a backdrop against which Obasanjo’s suggestion of foreign help was interpreted by many as an implicit endorsement of external involvement.
The Presidency wasted no time in responding. In a detailed statement released over the weekend, Sunday Dare described Obasanjo’s advocacy for foreign intervention as nothing short of “an abdication of responsibility” and “capitulation” rather than genuine statesmanship. Dare argued that inviting foreign powers to handle Nigeria’s internal security amounted to a surrender of national sovereignty — a step that no true leader should contemplate lightly.
Perhaps the most stinging part of the rebuttal was the direct historical indictment of Obasanjo’s own tenure. The statement asserted that the former president had no moral standing to criticize the current administration because the very roots of today’s terrorist insurgency were allowed to take hold during his own civilian presidency between 1999 and 2007. It pointedly reminded Nigerians that the extremist sect that eventually metamorphosed into Boko Haram began recruiting members, indoctrinating youths, establishing training camps, and openly challenging state authority during Obasanjo’s watch — yet decisive early action was not taken.
“What began as a preventable extremist sect transformed into a violent insurgency, a cross-border terrorist franchise, and a regional menace aligned with global jihadist movements,” the statement read. “For the leader under whom the first seeds of terrorism were allowed to germinate to now issue public lectures is not just ironic; it is reckless.”
The Presidency went further, painting a comprehensive and grim picture of the multifaceted terrorist ecosystem currently threatening Nigeria’s stability. It insisted on calling all perpetrators by their proper name — terrorists — regardless of whether they operate under the banner of internationally designated groups like ISIS-West Africa Province or Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or whether they masquerade as local bandits, kidnappers, or cattle rustlers. The statement highlighted how these groups collaborate across borders, sharing funds, weapons, intelligence, and logistics, with the ultimate objective of dismantling the Nigerian state.
“Nigeria today confronts a multilayered terrorist ecosystem,” the statement declared. “The people killing Nigerians, raiding villages, kidnapping innocents, blowing up infrastructure, and challenging state authority are terrorists — whether they fly a foreign flag or none at all.”
While firmly rejecting any notion of subcontracting national security to foreign governments, the Presidency clarified that Nigeria remains open to international cooperation and partnerships. It specifically acknowledged the importance of collaboration with the United States and other allied countries, noting that the transnational nature of modern terrorism necessitates joint intelligence-sharing, training, and logistical support. “Nigeria will cooperate internationally, yes, but it will not raise a white flag because someone who once had the chance lost his nerve,” Dare wrote.
The statement also took a swipe at other perennial critics and “habitual presidential aspirants” who, it claimed, were exploiting the security crisis for political gain while conveniently forgetting their own roles — or lack thereof — in allowing the problem to fester over the years.
As expected, the strongly worded rebuttal has generated intense reactions across Nigeria’s political landscape. Supporters of President Tinubu have hailed it as a robust defense of national sovereignty and a necessary reminder of historical accountability. Critics of the current administration, on the other hand, have accused the Presidency of deflecting legitimate concerns by resorting to personal attacks on a respected elder statesman instead of presenting concrete solutions.
The exchange has once again brought into sharp focus the deep-seated frustrations Nigerians feel about insecurity, which continues to claim hundreds of lives monthly through terrorist attacks, banditry, farmer-herder clashes, and kidnappings for ransom. Citizens in affected regions — particularly in the North-West, North-East, and North-Central zones — live in constant fear, with schools, markets, and highways frequently targeted.
Whether this public spat between the current Presidency and a former leader will lead to any tangible improvement in the security architecture remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the debate over how best to confront Nigeria’s terrorist threat — through purely domestic efforts, enhanced international partnerships, or a combination of both — is far from settled. For now, the war of words between Aso Rock and Ota Farm has only added another layer of intensity to an already volatile national conversation.
