Human rights lawyer and former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Professor Chidi Odinkalu, has publicly criticised the Federal Government for what he described as an “evident shift” in Nigeria’s approach to terrorism discourse, following recent U.S. military action against Islamic State (ISIS) elements in the country’s North-West region. His comments came amid intensifying debate over national security policy and government transparency.
In a post on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Odinkalu raised concerns over the federal government’s continued use of the term “bandits” to refer to violent groups in the North-West, a phrase he said historically implies disorganised criminality rather than organised, ideologically driven terrorist organisations.
“Something has changed,” Odinkalu wrote, pointing to recent confirmation by the United States that it conducted airstrikes on ISIS targets in North-West Nigeria, and reports that the Nigerian government provided intelligence and cooperation for the operation.
The human rights advocate argued that Washington’s explicit framing of the group responsible for violence in the region as an Islamic State affiliate, rather than simple “bandits” signals a fundamental shift in how the security threat is being understood and labelled internationally.
Odinkalu’s critique focused on what he sees as a glaring communication gap between international acknowledgment of violent extremist activity and Nigeria’s official public stance. He questioned when the Federal Government first recognised that ISIS affiliates were operating in the North-West, and what steps were taken once that information was known.
“What concrete actions were taken at the time to address the threat?” Odinkalu asked in his post, stressing the importance of public accountability and clarity regarding government policy on Islamist militancy.
His remarks come after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces had struck Islamic State militants in Sokoto State on Christmas Day, described as a “powerful and deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scum” in north-west Nigeria. The U.S. Africa Command said the operation targeted ISIS elements, and Nigerian authorities reportedly provided intelligence and cooperated in the airstrikes.
For years, successive Nigerian governments have characterised much of the violence in the North-West as perpetrated by loosely organised “bandits” — a label that has drawn criticism from analysts who argue it downplays the complexity and ideological component of some militant groups. Odinkalu’s comments tap into this broader debate, suggesting the U.S. action and accompanying language may force a reframing of the government’s narrative on insecurity.
The human rights lawyer also warned that the government’s continued silence or lack of detailed public explanation on the nature of extremist threats could have lasting implications for Nigeria’s security strategy, domestic politics, and international perception.
The U.S. announcement of airstrikes follows reports that the Federal Government and its security agencies cooperated with American forces in identifying and striking the militant bases. Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since confirmed that the government remains engaged in structured security cooperation with international partners, including intelligence sharing and coordinated counter-terrorism operations, while emphasising protection of civilian lives and respect for national sovereignty.
Security experts note that this episode has sparked intense public debate, not only about the role of foreign military involvement in Nigeria, but also about how the government perceives and communicates about security threats to its citizens. Odinkalu’s criticisms amplify calls by civil society for greater transparency and clarification on the nature and extent of ISIS’s presence in Nigeria.
