Exclusive Insight: Are Nigerian State Actors Complicit in Terrorism? Examining Allegations, Governance Failures & U.S.–Nigeria Counter-Terrorism Talks

Over the past year, Nigeria’s deepening security crisis has drawn sharp scrutiny both domestically and internationally — not only for the rising toll of terrorist and bandit attacks across the country, but also for controversial allegations that state actors may have directly or indirectly fueled insecurity, including purportedly arming criminals involved in violent attacks like the recent assault on a church in Kwara State. (Sahara Reporters)

What Happened in the Kwara Church Attack?

In November 2025, gunmen attacked the Christ Apostolic Church (CAC) in Eruku, Kwara State — killing several worshippers and abducting others in a violent raid that was widely condemned across Nigeria. (Sahara Reporters; Barnabas Aid)

After this incident, videos and social media reports emerged alleging that some of the perpetrators claimed they received AK-47 rifles and logistical support from Kwara State government officials. These assertions — circulating on platforms like Facebook and Instagram — sparked outrage and calls for investigation. (Sahara Reporters)

Former presidential candidate Peter Obi publicly called for a thorough, transparent, and independent investigation into such claims, highlighting how explosive and politically sensitive the issue has become. (Sahara Reporters)

It’s important to note that official government agencies have not publicly confirmed that state officials supplied weapons to terrorists; these reports remain unverified and largely come from unofficial social media sources. Investigations would be needed to substantiate any such allegations.

Context: Terrorism & Governance Challenges in Nigeria

Nigeria faces multiple overlapping security threats — including Boko Haram/Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and possibly twenty other terrorist groups in the northeast, Fulani militia/banditry across the northwest and north-central regions, and localized insurgencies. These groups have carried out deadly raids, kidnappings, and attacks on civilian targets including churches, schools, and communities. (Intersociety)

At the same time, critiques of government response are widespread:

• Allegations of weak political will and poor security leadership have been raised by former officials and analysts, arguing that current strategies lack sufficient coordination and accountability. (ThisDayLive)

• Some U.S. agencies have expressed concerns that Nigerian authorities have been slow to respond effectively to violent attacks by non-state actors targeting vulnerable communities, noting impacts on freedom of religion and safety. (ThisDayLive)

Tension also exists over how Nigeria frames its security crisis: federal leaders often push back against narratives suggesting state complicity or targeted violence against Christians, dismissing them as misinformation that could harm national unity. (ThisDayLive)

How This Should Factor Into U.S.–Nigeria Counter-Terrorism Talks

1. Accountability & Transparency Must Be Central

For any U.S.–Nigeria counter-terrorism partnership to be effective and credible, accurate investigation of allegations — including claims of weapons diversion or state official involvement — is vital. This means:

• Independent inquiries into weapon supply lines and security agency conduct.

• Public reporting on findings to build trust with citizens and international partners.

Without accountability, allegations — whether true or exaggerated — undermine partnership credibility and can be exploited by extremists or political actors.

2. Strengthened Oversight of Arms and Security Resources

Both governments should prioritize mechanisms to prevent diversion of arms and security assets to unauthorized actors, including:

• Tightened controls on state and local procurement/distribution of weapons and vehicles.

• Regular audits and joint monitoring of security supply chains.

• Training for Nigerian agencies in weapons tracking, supported by U.S. technical assistance.

This protects not only citizens but also ensures U.S. security assistance is not misused. (Department of Justice)

3. Elevated Human Rights & Rule-of-Law Concerns

U.S. National Security Strategy places emphasis on human rights as a core pillar of security cooperation. In recent months:

• U.S. policymakers have raised concerns about religious violence and persecution in Nigeria. (ThisDayLive)

• Nigeria has been scrutinized as a “Country of Particular Concern” under U.S. religious freedom designations. (CSIS)

Embedding human rights, protection of civilians, and religious freedom into counter-terrorism talks will help ensure solutions are sustainable and aligned with U.S. values.

4. Joint Intelligence and Structural Reform

Nigeria’s security architecture has struggled with under-resourcing and information silos. Enhanced intelligence sharing — including forensic tracing of weapons and financial networks — should be a priority, as well as:

• Support for Nigeria’s National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC).

• Capacity building for police and civilian protection.

• Integration of local communities into security planning.

Positive cooperation in these areas can move beyond rhetorical commitment (as some government officials have stated) toward measurable outcomes. (Businessday NG)

The Real Test: Will Nigeria Address Root Problems?

Allegations that government officials supplied weapons to terrorists — even if unproven — highlight deeper issues:

• Lack of trust in state institutions

• Perceived impunity and political patronage

• Fragmented security governance between federal and state levels

Whether in Abuja, Kwara, or elsewhere in Nigeria, citizens increasingly demand ownership and results from security policy, not just words. This same insistence must be mirrored in Nigeria–U.S. strategic dialogues — where accountability, transparency, and human security take precedence over simplistic militaristic solutions.