Sheikh Gumi Urges Federal Government to Shun U.S. Military Support, Advocates Alternative Foreign Partnerships

Controversial Islamic cleric, Sheikh Ahmad Gumi, has once again stirred national debate after openly criticising Nigeria’s reported military cooperation with the United States in counterterrorism operations. Reacting to reports of U.S.-linked airstrikes on terrorist targets within Nigeria, Gumi argued that the Federal Government made a strategic error by allowing Washington to play any role in the country’s internal security affairs. Instead, he suggested that Nigeria should seek assistance from countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, and China, which he described as more neutral and less ideologically motivated.

In a Facebook post published on Friday, Sheikh Gumi called on the Federal Government to immediately suspend all forms of military cooperation with the United States. While acknowledging that the elimination of terrorists is permissible under Islamic teachings, he insisted that such actions must be carried out only by actors he considers morally credible and free from hidden geopolitical agendas. According to him, foreign powers often pursue interests that go beyond the stated objective of fighting terrorism, with devastating consequences for civilian populations.

Gumi warned that U.S. involvement in Nigeria’s security operations could compromise national sovereignty and turn the country into a broader battlefield for global conflicts. He argued that no responsible nation should allow its territory to become a theatre of war or permit foreign military actions that could inflame tensions with neighbouring states. In his view, external intervention—especially by a global power like the United States—risks escalating insecurity rather than resolving it.

“If Nigeria wants military assistance, China, Turkey, and Pakistan can do the job effectively,” the cleric stated. He added that U.S. involvement could attract anti-American forces into Nigeria, thereby worsening the security situation and exposing civilians to greater danger. Gumi further cautioned that framing foreign military action as a mission to “protect Christians” could deepen religious divisions in an already fragile society, polarise communities, and undermine national cohesion.

Beyond geopolitical concerns, Sheikh Gumi also questioned the effectiveness of airstrikes as a counterterrorism strategy. He argued that aerial bombardments alone cannot defeat terrorism, insisting that sustained and intelligence-driven ground operations are essential to dismantle insurgent networks. According to him, Nigeria already possesses sufficient manpower to confront its security challenges, provided there is genuine political will, proper coordination, and a commitment to addressing the root causes of violence.

The cleric also urged communities affected by military operations to document and share evidence of civilian casualties, if any, suggesting that transparency is crucial in assessing the true impact of counterterrorism efforts. He raised concerns about the reported focus of airstrikes on areas such as Sokoto, which he claimed does not face the same level of terrorist threat as regions like Maiduguri in Borno State. This, he argued, raises questions about the accuracy of intelligence and the true objectives behind the strikes.

In one of his more provocative assertions, Gumi alleged that terrorism in Nigeria is being created and sustained by the same forces that publicly claim to be fighting it. While he did not provide concrete evidence to support this claim, he urged Nigerians to remain vigilant, critical, and discerning about official narratives surrounding the war on terror.

Unsurprisingly, Gumi’s remarks triggered intense reactions across social media and public forums. Critics dismissed his views as misguided, accusing him of undermining national security and questioning why his statements continue to receive widespread attention. Others argued that no foreign power—whether the United States, China, Turkey, or Pakistan—acts purely out of goodwill, stressing that Nigeria must prioritise strengthening its own security institutions rather than outsourcing its defence challenges.

Supporters of international cooperation, particularly with the United States, countered that global counterterrorism efforts often rely on intelligence sharing, surveillance capabilities, and diplomatic pressure that Nigeria may not be able to generate alone. Some commentators also pointed out that several of the countries Gumi recommended face significant internal security challenges of their own, raising doubts about their suitability as alternative partners.

As Nigeria continues to grapple with insurgency, banditry, and other forms of violent extremism, Sheikh Gumi’s comments highlight the deep divisions over how best to address the country’s security crisis. Whether seen as a voice of caution or a source of controversy, his intervention has once again reignited debate over sovereignty, foreign influence, and the most effective path to lasting peace and stability.