By Davidson Ogbebor

The question of whether the United States seeks to recolonize Nigeria may sound provocative, but it continues to generate debate among scholars, policymakers, civil society groups and Pan-African advocates. While there is no evidence that America intends to re-establish colonial rule in the traditional sense, concerns about military influence, economic dominance and geopolitical control have persisted for decades.

One of the most significant episodes that fueled such concerns was the controversy surrounding the establishment of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) during the administration of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.

In 2007, the administration of President George W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney created AFRICOM as a unified military command responsible for overseeing U.S. military operations and security cooperation across Africa. The United States argued that AFRICOM was designed to strengthen partnerships, improve counter-terrorism efforts, enhance peacekeeping operations and support African governments in addressing security challenges. AFRICOM became operational in October 2007 and was fully established in 2008. 

However, many African leaders and you he President Ya’adua administration viewed the initiative with suspicion. Across the continent, fears emerged that AFRICOM was less about African security and more about protecting American strategic interests, including access to oil resources, trade routes and geopolitical influence. Nigeria, then Africa’s most populous nation and one of the largest suppliers of crude oil to the United States, became central to the debate. Calabar was sited as their base and the administration rejected the call and said there was no conflict in Nigeria.

During the Yar’Adua administration, Nigeria led opposition against the proposal to locate AFRICOM headquarters on African soil. The Nigerian government publicly rejected hosting the command and also opposed its establishment anywhere in West Africa. The position was endorsed following consultations involving the President, state governors and key political stakeholders. 

At the time, many Nigerians feared that allowing a permanent American military base in the country would compromise national sovereignty and potentially drag Nigeria into foreign military conflicts. Critics argued that foreign military installations have historically served as instruments of political influence and strategic control. They warned that once established, such bases could gradually expand their role beyond security cooperation.

Particular attention focused on reports and speculations that Calabar, because of its strategic location along the Gulf of Guinea, could become a suitable location for an AFRICOM facility. Although no permanent American base was eventually established in Calabar or elsewhere in Nigeria, the debate revealed deep public anxiety about foreign military presence in the country. 

Nigeria’s opposition proved influential. Analysts noted that Abuja’s resistance encouraged other African governments to reject hosting AFRICOM. As a result, the command’s headquarters remained in Stuttgart, Germany, where it is still based today. 

Nearly two decades later, the concerns raised during the AFRICOM debate remain relevant. Across Africa, competition among global powers, including the United States, China, Russia, France and others have intensified. Military cooperation agreements, resource extraction contracts, debt arrangements and security partnerships have all become arenas for geopolitical rivalry. The Tinubu administration have given green light to every American and European influence in Nigeria for it political survival.

Those who argue that America seeks a form of “modern recolonization” point to the growing network of military partnerships, intelligence operations and economic influence across Africa. They contend that direct colonial administration is no longer necessary when strategic interests can be protected through military cooperation, economic leverage and political influence.

Others reject this interpretation. They argue that Nigeria is a sovereign state capable of determining its own foreign policy and that security cooperation with major powers can provide valuable assistance in combating terrorism, piracy and transnational crime. They maintain that partnerships do not necessarily amount to domination.

The truth likely lies somewhere between these positions. The modern world is no longer defined by the colonialism of the nineteenth century. Yet powerful nations still pursue their interests aggressively, often through economic, diplomatic and military instruments. The challenge for Nigeria is not merely to resist foreign influence but to build strong institutions capable of engaging global powers from a position of strength. Some African countries are resisting some of these moves and it seems to be standing up to their foreign policies.

The AFRICOM controversy under President Yar’Adua remains a reminder that sovereignty must be protected through vigilance, strategic thinking and national unity. Whether dealing with America, China, Russia or any other power, Nigeria’s overriding responsibility should be to ensure that international partnerships serve the interests of its people rather than external agendas.

The enduring lesson is simple: nations that are economically strong, politically stable and militarily capable are less vulnerable to foreign manipulation. The debate over AFRICOM was never merely about an American military command; it was about Nigeria’s determination to chart its own course in a rapidly changing world.

Finally, Nigeria must insist on the terms of running their own military force independently off foreign interference, because this is how amnesty international leaked information of Nigeria military operations during the Jonathan regime that made the fight against Boko Haram and ISWAP problematic. Nigeria must resist any act of pressure to give up its sovereignty because of pressure from western nations. The political elites should remember home is homeland.