The partnership with the United States has strengthened Nigeria’s intelligence networks and capacity to confront terrorists’ threats, argues
MOHAMMED HASSAN SHEHU
There are moments in the life of a nation when leadership is measured not by the newspaper headlines, the noise it makes, but by the partnerships it builds, the institutions it strengthens and the results it produces.
The current Nigeria-United States security partnership in the fight against terrorism provides one such moment. As the remaining American military personnel deployed to Nigeria prepare to leave by the end of September, the temptation may be to focus attention on the withdrawal itself. But that would be to miss the larger story.
The more important question is: What did Nigeria gain from the partnership, and who helped make it possible?
The answer points unmistakably to one man at the centre of Nigeria’s national security architecture: the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu.
The presence of American military personnel in Nigeria was not an isolated military development. It was the culmination of months of diplomacy, intelligence coordination, political engagement and military planning. And Ribadu was at the heart of that process.
His achievement deserves to be properly acknowledged. For a country that has battled Boko Haram, ISWAP and other violent extremist organisations for more than a decade, the arrival of the American military personnel represented more than the presence of a foreign partner. It represented the opening of a new chapter in Nigeria’s counter-terrorism strategy — one increasingly built around intelligence, technology, precision and international cooperation. And Ribadu was one of the principal Nigerians who helped construct that chapter.
The foundation was laid through persistent engagement with Washington.
On November 20, 2025, Ribadu led a Nigerian security delegation to the Pentagon, where he met the U.S. Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth. The discussions focused on terrorism, violence and ways the United States could work “by, with, and through” Nigeria to degrade jihadist terrorist organisations.
Take note of the phrase, “by, with, and through” Nigeria. It is very significant.
It captured the central philosophy of the partnership. America was not coming to take over Nigeria’s war. It was coming to strengthen Nigeria’s capacity to fight it.
That distinction is important, and Ribadu deserves credit for helping to preserve it.
His engagement with American policymakers continued on December 7, when he received a U.S. congressional delegation in Abuja. The discussions centred on counter-terrorism cooperation, regional stability and strengthening the strategic security relationship between both countries.
Then, on January 22, 2026, Ribadu led the Nigerian side at the first session of the Nigeria-U.S. Joint Working Group in Abuja. Here again, his role was much bigger than attending meetings.
He was helping to bring together diplomacy, intelligence, defence and national security policy under one coordinated framework.
The process gathered further momentum on February 8, when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu received the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, General Dagvin Anderson, at the State House in Abuja.
Ribadu was present alongside Nigeria’s senior security leadership. The meeting was followed days later by the arrival of American military personnel and equipment in Nigeria.
By February 16, the Defence Headquarters confirmed that about 100 U.S. military personnel and associated equipment had arrived at Bauchi Airfield, as part of a larger deployment of approximately 200 personnel.
What is important, however, is what these personnel came to do. They were not deployed as an occupying force. They were not placed in charge of Nigeria’s counter-terrorism operations. Their mission involved technical assistance, training, intelligence sharing and advisory support.
Nigeria retained command authority.
That structure reflected the essence of the partnership Ribadu and other Nigerian officials had helped negotiate: American capability supporting Nigerian sovereignty.
And then came the results. Perhaps the most significant contribution was in intelligence.
The modern war against terrorism is increasingly a battle of information. Knowing where the terrorists are, who commands them, how they communicate, how they move, where they obtain weapons and how they finance their operations can be more decisive than simply deploying more troops.
This is where the American partnership brought significant added value.
The U.S. personnel contributed expertise in intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, mission planning, technical communications and unmanned aerial systems.
That is a lasting achievement.
he American personnel may leave, but the Nigerian personnel they trained remain. The knowledge transferred remains. The relationships established remain.
The operational experience remains. And that is what a genuine capacity building looks like.
But the partnership’s most dramatic demonstration came in May. On May 16, 2026, U.S. Africa Command announced that, in coordination with the Nigerian Government, it had conducted an operation against ISIS in northeastern Nigeria.
The operation resulted in the death of Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, identified by AFRICOM as a senior ISIS leader and director of global operations, alongside other senior terrorists.
This was no ordinary battlefield success. According to AFRICOM, al-Minuki provided strategic guidance to the wider ISIS network, including its media, financial and weapons related operations.
His elimination, therefore, represented more than the removal of another terrorist commander. It disrupted a senior node in an international terrorist network.
Further coordinated strikes followed on May 17 and 18 against ISIS targets in northeastern Nigeria. And, significantly, no Nigerian or American forces were harmed.
The operation demonstrated what can happen when intelligence, technology, military professionalism and international cooperation are brought together.
It was a practical demonstration of the value of the partnership. It was also a vindication of the strategy behind it. Ribadu’s contribution, however, was not confined to military matters. He understood that terrorism cannot be defeated by bombs and bullets alone.
There must be intelligence cooperation. There must be financial intelligence. There must be international diplomacy. There must be prosecution of terrorism suspects.
There must be protection for vulnerable communities. There must be measures to prevent radicalisation.
There must be support for displaced populations.
And there must be cooperation among the various arms of the Nigerian security establishment.
That broad conception of national security has been a defining feature of Ribadu’s tenure so far as National Security Adviser.
His May 4-6 visit to the United States further demonstrated the depth of his engagement.
During the visit, he met Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State and Acting National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, Under Secretary Allison Hooker and Assistant Secretary of War, Daniel Zimmerim. The discussions extended beyond immediate military operations to counter-terrorism, defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, regional security, economic resilience and democratic governance.
That breadth matters. A national security adviser cannot afford to view security through the narrow prism of military confrontation alone. Nigeria’s security challenges are interconnected with economics, governance, borders, organised crime, terrorism financing and regional instability. Ribadu’s approach has increasingly reflected that reality.
Even as the American military deployment began winding down, he kept the diplomatic machinery moving. On August 12, he again led a Nigerian delegation to Washington for the second session of the Nigeria-U.S. Joint Working Group, once more co-chaired with Allison Hooker.
The agenda included military-to-military cooperation, counter-terrorism prosecutions, terrorism financing, protection of vulnerable communities and the resettlement of internally displaced persons.
This is perhaps the strongest evidence that the relationship was never simply about bringing American troops into Nigeria.
It was about building a sustainable security partnership. Indeed, when General Anderson disclosed in July that the Lake Chad operation had achieved its immediate objectives and that most of the U.S. personnel assigned to it had already departed, he also made clear that intelligence cooperation would continue at Nigeria’s request.
That is the real significance of the current withdrawal.
The American soldiers are leaving, but the partnership is not necessarily leaving with them.
And this is where Ribadu’s stewardship becomes particularly important. The measure of his success will ultimately not be the number of American personnel who came to Nigeria.
Nor should it be measured simply by the number of terrorists eliminated during the deployment.
The real measure is whether Nigeria has become stronger, smarter and more technologically capable as a result of the partnership.
There are encouraging signs.
Nigeria has gained exposure to advanced intelligence capabilities. Its personnel have received specialised training.
The synergy between Nigerian and American security personnel has improved. Intelligence-sharing mechanisms have been strengthened.
Nigeria’s counter-terrorism operations have benefited from greater access to sophisticated technical capabilities.
And the country has demonstrated that it can work with one of the world’s most capable military powers without surrendering operational control of its own territory.
That is no small achievement.
The story, therefore, should not be told simply as “American troops came to Nigeria and are now leaving.” That would reduce a complex strategic achievement to a headline.
The fuller story is that Nigeria built a partnership.
And at the centre of that partnership stood its National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu.
Ribadu’s greatest contribution may ultimately be that he understood the difference between dependence and partnership.
Dependence would have meant waiting for America to fight Nigeria’s war.
Partnership meant bringing American expertise, intelligence and technology to strengthen Nigeria’s own capacity to fight its own war.
That is precisely the direction this collaboration has taken. Now comes the difficult part.
Nigeria must ensure that the knowledge gained does not disappear with the departure of the last American personnel.
The training must be institutionalised.
The intelligence channels must remain active.
The relationships between Nigerian and American officers must be preserved.
The technological capabilities acquired must be expanded.
The operational lessons from the Lake Chad theatre must become part of Nigeria’s permanent counter-terrorism doctrine.
And the security agencies must continue to work together with the same level of coordination that made the partnership possible.
If that happens, the departure of the American military personnel should not be viewed as an ending. It should be regarded as a transition.
The first phase demonstrated what Nigeria and America could accomplish together.
The next phase must demonstrate what Nigeria can sustain because of what it has learnt.
That is where Ribadu’s leadership will continue to matter.
The NSA has occupied an unusually strategic position in this entire process—connecting the Presidency with the security establishment, Abuja with Washington, intelligence agencies with military commanders, and diplomatic commitments with operational realities.
His role has been that of a bridge.
And bridges are often noticed only when they are absent.
As the American personnel prepare to complete their exit, Nigeria should therefore look beyond the departing aircraft and military uniforms.
The more enduring legacy is the intelligence architecture, the skills transferred, the professional relationships established, the operational knowledge acquired and the confidence that Nigeria can work effectively with a global power while retaining control of its own security destiny.
For Nuhu Ribadu, that is a significant chapter in his stewardship as National Security Adviser.
He did not bring America into Nigeria to fight Nigeria’s war for Nigerians.
He helped build a framework in which America could help Nigeria fight its own war better.
That distinction is the heart of the achievement.
The terrorists may have expected another foreign military presence to become a political controversy.
Instead, the partnership became an instrument of intelligence, precision, training and capacity building.
The American troops may be going home.
But if Nigeria preserves what this partnership has delivered, their most important contribution will remain in Nigeria — the capabilities of Nigerian personnel, in the strength of its intelligence networks and in a national security establishment, better prepared to confront the evolving terrorist threat.
And when history eventually assesses this phase of Nigeria’s war against terrorism, the name of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, definitely, should feature prominently not because he commanded American soldiers, but because he helped make them effective partners in a Nigerian-led security campaign.
Shehu, a freelance journalist with special interests in Security and Conflict Resolution, writes from Abuja