Criminologists and security analysts say foreign lobbying risks Nigeria’s sovereignty and exposes deep failures in tackling violence at home.
Nigeria’s reported decision to spend $9 million on a lobbying contract in the United States has drawn sharp criticism from criminologists, security experts and public affairs analysts, who warn that public relations abroad cannot substitute for real security reforms at home.
The controversy follows reports that the Federal Government hired a US-based lobbying firm to promote Nigeria’s efforts at protecting Christian communities, amid growing international scrutiny of insecurity in the country.
Speaking to journalists, Dr Sulaiman Ishak Muhamad, a criminologist and security expert at the Federal University, Dutse, said the move could weaken Nigeria’s sovereignty and expose sensitive aspects of its internal security architecture.
According to Dr Muhamad, the contract was reportedly signed on 17 December 2025 through Oscar Legal Firm in Kaduna on behalf of the Office of the National Security Adviser. The agreement is said to engage DCI Group for six months at a cost of $9 million, with automatic renewal clauses.
He disclosed that $4.5 million had allegedly been paid upfront, while the firm is expected to receive $750,000 monthly for the duration of the contract.
“The intention is to counter claims that Christian communities in Nigeria are being neglected, attacked or abandoned by the state,” he said. “The government wants to project Nigeria as safe and committed to protecting all its citizens.”
Dr Muhamad acknowledged that the lobbying effort could improve Nigeria’s diplomatic image and global perception, particularly in its relationship with the United States and international institutions.
“Politically and socially, Nigeria may benefit from improved perception. Economically, it could be seen as a stable partner in global trade and finance,” he noted.
However, he warned that the risks far outweigh the benefits.
“This agreement could expose what Nigeria does internally in the name of protection. The United States is a global power, and its interests often go beyond humanitarian claims,” he said.
He cautioned that foreign involvement, even under the banner of advocacy or protection, often opens the door to political and economic pressure.
“There are strategic interests involved — oil, lithium, gold and other natural resources. Once powerful nations begin to raise red flags against you, they rarely stop,” he said.
Dr Muhamad described the arrangement as a form of modern-day neo-colonialism, arguing that granting foreign actors access to Nigeria’s security narratives and frameworks could undermine national independence.
“When another sovereign country begins to tell you what to do in the name of protection, it signals a loss of leverage and sovereignty,” he said.
He also warned that framing insecurity along religious lines could inflame tensions in a deeply diverse society.
“Nigeria is made up of more than 350 ethnic groups and over 500 languages. Narratives pushed internationally — whether accurate or exaggerated — can reshape how citizens see one another and threaten national cohesion,” he added.
‘You cannot fix insecurity with PR’
Echoing similar concerns, security analyst Abdullahi Bokaji Adamu described the alleged lobbying contract as a symptom of deeper failures in Nigeria’s security strategy.
“No amount of international lobbying can fix insecurity on the ground,” he said. “Violence in Nigeria affects Christians, Muslims and traditional communities alike.”
Adamu rejected claims that Nigeria’s crisis is rooted in religious persecution, arguing instead that it stems from terrorism, banditry, weak policing, poor intelligence coordination and governance failures.
“This is not a religious war. It is a failure of institutions,” he said.
He warned that attempting to sell a counter-narrative abroad while insecurity remains visible at home could damage Nigeria’s credibility.
“You cannot fix insecurity with public relations. Credibility comes from results — safer communities, accountable policing and effective intelligence operations.”
‘An admission of failure’
Public affairs analyst Mahdi Shehu went further, describing the reported contract as an admission that the government has failed to address insecurity.
“If real progress were being made, there would be no need for panic diplomacy,” he said.
Shehu questioned the wisdom of spending an estimated ₦16 billion on lobbying at a time when millions of Nigerians face poverty, unemployment and violence.
“This expenditure is reckless. That money could have supported small businesses, created jobs and reduced insecurity directly,” he argued.
He also alleged nepotism in the awarding of the contract, claiming it was linked to individuals connected to the president’s ethnic group — an allegation yet to be officially addressed by the government.
For critics, the message is clear: Nigeria’s image abroad will improve not through lobbying contracts, but through tangible improvements in security and governance at home.
