The reported capture and summary execution of Brigadier General M. Uba by members of the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) has reignited national debate on Nigeria’s security crisis, military vulnerabilities, and the true meaning of sovereignty in the face of insurgency. Although official confirmation from the Nigerian Armed Forces was still pending as of the time of reporting, multiple security-watch platforms and conflict-monitoring groups have circulated accounts suggesting that the senior officer was ambushed in the northeastern theatre, where ISWAP has intensified operations in recent months.
The incident—if fully verified—would mark one of the most brazen attacks by the insurgent faction since its split from Boko Haram in 2016 and its subsequent allegiance to the Islamic State. It would also raise fresh questions about the capacity of Nigeria’s security architecture to protect even its most senior officers, let alone vulnerable communities living in conflict-prone regions.
A Disturbing Symbol of a Deepening Crisis
Nigeria has lost several top military officers over the course of the 14-year insurgency, including former Army Chief Lt. Gen. Ibrahim Attahiru, whose death in a plane crash sparked debate about possible sabotage, as well as the ambush and killing of Colonel Dahiru Bako in 2020. However, the alleged capture and execution of a brigadier general—alive—is an escalation with grave implications.
Security analysts warn that such an attack, if confirmed, demonstrates:
- ISWAP’s continued ability to move through difficult terrain with alarming ease
- Persistent intelligence gaps within the security forces
- The capacity of insurgents to conduct coordinated ambushes even against high-ranking officers
- The growing boldness of terrorist factions operating across national borders
For many Nigerians, the news feels like a breaking point. A general is not just a military leader; he is a national asset, a symbol of state authority. If insurgents can seize and kill such an individual, citizens ask: What remains of our security confidence?
The Sovereignty Question: What Does It Really Mean?
The word “sovereignty” is frequently invoked in political discourse—especially when discussions arise about foreign assistance. Successive governments have expressed caution toward international military intervention, particularly from Western nations, citing national pride, independence, and territorial integrity.
However, recent events challenge this narrative.
True sovereignty, experts argue, is not merely the ability to reject foreign involvement. It is the ability to:
- Control national territory
- Secure borders
- Protect citizens
- Defend institutions
- Maintain monopoly of force
When non-state actors—terrorist groups, bandits, and separatist militias—control forests, highways, farmlands, and border routes, the state’s authority becomes fragmented.
According to the International Crisis Group, ISWAP maintains operational cells across the Lake Chad Basin, using porous borders between Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon. The group conducts raids, tax collection, recruitment, and attacks with a level of organization akin to a parallel government.
When terrorists freely cross borders and challenge the Nigerian military in direct combat, the assumption of full sovereignty becomes more theoretical than practical.
A Security Landscape Under Pressure
Despite significant military investments, Nigeria continues to face simultaneous internal conflicts:
- ISWAP operations in Borno and Yobe
- Banditry and mass abductions in the Northwest
- Farmer-herder clashes in the Middle Belt
- Militancy in parts of the Niger Delta
- Communal and political violence in several states
This multi-front conflict stretches resources and dilutes operational focus.
Former military officers and defense researchers have repeatedly warned that Nigeria’s refusal to fully embrace certain forms of international collaboration—especially advanced surveillance, joint border operations, and intelligence-sharing—has slowed the defeat of insurgency groups.
The United States previously offered deeper security cooperation, particularly after the 2014 Chibok abductions and the increased presence of ISIS-linked factions. But political sensitivities and sovereignty concerns limited the extent of such collaboration.
Today, many Nigerians are reassessing that position.
Between National Pride and National Security
Nigeria is Africa’s most populous nation, one of its largest economies, and historically one of its strongest militaries. There is understandable pride in those achievements. However, national pride cannot stand in the way of survival.
Security experts emphasize that requesting international assistance does not undermine sovereignty; it strengthens it. France assisted Mali. The African Union assisted Somalia. The United States assists dozens of nations in counterterrorism operations. Collaboration is the global norm, not an exception.
The question Nigerians are now asking is straightforward:
What is sovereignty worth if it cannot save Nigerian lives or protect the integrity of our armed forces?
If terrorists can ambush commanders, overrun communities, seize highways, impose taxes, occupy forests, and operate with cross-border freedom, then the state must reassess its strategy urgently.
Honoring Service While Demanding Accountability
If the death of Brigadier General M. Uba is confirmed, it adds to the long list of officers who have paid the ultimate price in defense of the nation. Countless soldiers—many unnamed and unsung—have fought relentlessly in harsh terrains, often without adequate equipment, air support, or accurate intelligence.
These sacrifices demand respect.
But they also demand accountability from those in positions of leadership. Nigerians expect the government to:
- Strengthen intelligence capabilities
- Boost troop morale and welfare
- Enhance border surveillance
- Deepen regional and international cooperation
- Increase transparency about battlefield losses
- Modernize military equipment
- Address internal sabotage where it exists
The fight against terrorism cannot be sustained on bravery alone. It requires a whole-of-government approach and honest evaluation of what is not working.
A Turning Point for Nigeria
Whether the reported killing of Brigadier General Uba becomes a verified tragedy or a misreported claim, the message behind the national outcry remains the same: Nigeria cannot continue on its current trajectory.
This is not the time for ego.
Not the time for political posturing.
Not the time for selective silence.
And certainly not the time for repeating old mistakes.
Nigeria must choose between pride and progress, between isolation and cooperation, between symbolic sovereignty and real security.
A nation that cannot defend its generals cannot guarantee the safety of its civilians.
The moment to rethink our strategy is now.